Electronic Supplementary Material
Journal name: International Journal of Bullying Prevention
Article Title: Teachers’ self-efficacy in preventing and intervening in school bullying: A systematic review Author Names: Saskia M. Fischer, Nancy John, Ludwig Bilz
Corresponding Author: Saskia M. Fischer, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany. Contact: saskia.fischer@b-tu.de
Online Resource 1. Results of quality assessment for each publication included in the review.
Authors of publication
Result of basic evaluation Downgrade in quality? Final decision on
quality assessment High / Low If low: reasons Yes / No If yes: reasons
Begotti et al., 2018 High Yes Small sample size Moderate
Bilz & Kunze, 2017 High Yes Small sample size Moderate
Boulton, 2014 Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size Very low
Boulton et al., 2014 High Yes Small sample size Moderate
Cecil & Molnar- Main, 2015
High Yes Insufficient description of sample Moderate
Coffee, 2004 High Yes Insufficient description of measures, method, and
results (downgrade: two steps)
Low
Collier et al., 2015 High No High
De Luca et al., 2019 Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size Very low
Dedousis-Wallace et al., 2014
High Yes Biased sample Moderate
Doherty, 2009 High No Insufficient description of sample Moderate
Farley, 2016 Low No explicit research
question Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of analyses
Very low Farley, 2018 Low No explicit research Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of Very low
Authors of publication
Result of basic evaluation Downgrade in quality? Final decision on
quality assessment High / Low If low: reasons Yes / No If yes: reasons
question sample
Fischer, 2018 High Yes Insufficient description of measures Moderate
Fischer & Bilz, 2019
High No High
Fischer et al., 2017, Study 1
Low No explicit research
question No Low
Fischer et al., 2017, Study 2
Low No explicit research question
No Low
Garner, 2017 Low No explicit research question, no
explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample
Very low
Gregus et al., 2017, Study 1
High Yes Very small sample size, insufficient description
of sample (downgrade: 2 steps)
Low Gregus et al., 2017,
Study 2
Low Insufficient definition of bullying/
victimization
Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample
Very low
Guimond et al., 2015
Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample
Very low
Hazeltine, 2018 Not rated Qualitative study Not rated
Khoury-Kassabri, 2011
Low No explanation of bullying/ victimization
Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample and measure
Very low
Lay, 2010 Not rated Qualitative study Not rated
Maynes &
Mottonen, 2017
Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size Very low
Nappa et al., 2017 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy No Low
Newman, 2010 High Yes Very small sample size, insufficient description Low
Authors of publication
Result of basic evaluation Downgrade in quality? Final decision on
quality assessment High / Low If low: reasons Yes / No If yes: reasons
of sample (downgrade: two steps) Nicolaides et al.,
2002
Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size Very low
Novick & Isaacs, 2010
High Yes Small sample size, biased sample, insufficient
description of sample (downgrade: two steps)
Low
Olsson et al., 2017 High No High
Purdy & Mc Guckin, 2014
Not rated Qualitative study Not rated
Purdy & Mc Guckin, 2015
Low No explanation of self- efficacy, no explicit research question
Yes Insufficient description of measures and sample Very low
Ryan et al., 2011 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy Yes Insufficient description of sample, measures, and analyses
Very low Song et al., 2018 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy
Yes Small sample size, different concepts in theory (“self-efficacy”) and measures (“preparedness”)
Very low Swift, 2016 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample
Very low Swift et al., 2017 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy
Yes Small sample size, insufficient description of sample
Very low
Thomas, 2017 Not rated Qualitative study Not rated
VanZoeren &
Weisz, 2018
Low No explanation of self- efficacy
Yes Small sample size Very low
Yoon, 2004 Low No explanation of self-
efficacy Yes Small sample size Very low
Note. The quality of each publication included in the review was first determined using a basic evaluation, which could be upgraded or downgraded according to further criteria. Results of the basic evaluation could be high or low. Upgrades in quality were only possible if no downgrade in quality
was undertaken. In fact, no upgrades of quality were undertaken during the quality assessment. Because of this, upgrades are not included in the table. At the end of the quality assessment process, the quality of the study was rated using a four-level scale (very low, low, moderate, and high).
For further details on the quality assessment, see the “Method” section in the main article.
