See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312134394

Validation of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire for

Colombian Adolescents

Article  in  Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · January 2017

DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0414

CITATIONS READS

37 5,941

5 authors, including:

Mauricio Herrera López Jose A. Casas

University of Nariño University of Cordoba (Spain)
48 PUBLICATIONS   374 CITATIONS    77 PUBLICATIONS   2,137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eva María Romera Félix Rosario Ortega-Ruiz

University of Cordoba (Spain) University of Cordoba (Spain)
105 PUBLICATIONS   1,345 CITATIONS    382 PUBLICATIONS   9,998 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COST Scenarios Study I View project

Achievement goal orientations and physical self-concept profiles in adolescent physical activity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mauricio Herrera López on 14 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 20, Number 2, 2017
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0414

Validation of the European Cyberbullying Intervention

Project Questionnaire for Colombian Adolescents

Mauricio Herrera-López, PhD,1,* José A. Casas, PhD,2 Eva M. Romera, PhD,2

Rosario Ortega-Ruiz, PhD,2,3 and Rosario Del Rey, PhD4

Cyberbullying is the act of using unjustified aggression to harm or harass via digital devices. Currently regarded
as a widespread problem, the phenomenon has attracted growing research interest in different measures of
cyberbullying and the similarities and differences across countries and cultures. This article presents the
Colombian validation of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ) involving
3,830 high school students (M = 13.9 years old, standard deviation = 1.61; 48.9 percent male), of which 1,931
were Colombian and 1,899 Spanish. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), content validation, and multigroup
analysis were performed with each of the sample subgroups. The optimal fits and psychometric properties
obtained confirm the robustness and suitability of the assessment instrument to jointly measure cyber-
aggression and cyber-victimization. The results corroborated the theoretical construct and the two-dimensional
and universal nature of cyberbullying. The multigroup analysis showed that cyberbullying dynamics are similar
in both countries. The comparative analyses of prevalence revealed that Colombian students are less involved in
cyberbullying. The results indicate the suitability of the instrument and the advantages of using such a tool to
evaluate and guide psychoeducational interventions aimed at preventing cyberbullying in countries where few
studies have been performed.

Keywords: Colombia, cyberbullying, ECIPQ, Spain, validation

Introduction form of harassment, as it is conceived within the definitional

framework of traditional bullying. Certain characteristics,

T he prevalent use of information and communications

technologies (ICTs) has significantly transformed in-
terpersonal relationships among adolescents.1 Although ICTs
however, differentiate cyberbullying from traditional bully-
ing, such as the potential and, in some cases, frequent ano-
nymity of the perpetrator,13,14 and the duration of an aggressive
have certain benefits, they have also given rise to a complex act in cyberspace, where an image or other humiliating au-
scenario of interactions that require new abilities and social diovisual material is freely accessible (is public) at any
skills to navigate cyberspace successfully.2 Research has also time.15 Insulting or threatening behavior through text mes-
shown that the use of ICTs has led to an increase in social sages or the Internet; spreading rumors about someone on
problems, including cyberbullying;3 a phenomenon currently social networks; extracting, disclosing, or publishing personal
regarded as a major public health issue in schools4,5 given its information; displaying or sending compromising photos of
negative impact on the social and emotional development of someone; excluding or being excluded from a group or chat;
children and adolescents.1,6,7 It is estimated that around 20 and online identity theft are all actions regarded as cyber-
percent of young people aged from 10 to 18 have been cy- bullying.16 Moreover, it is important to highlight that both
berbullies or cybervictims;8,9 with puberty and adolescence bullying and cyberbullying constitute unjustified behavior
increasing the risk of becoming involved in cyberbullying.10 that involves a certain degree of immorality.17
Cyberbullying is an aggressive, intentional act or act of Although there have been notable advances in research on
intimidation carried out using electronic media, which cre- cyberbullying over the last decade, important questions remain
ates an imbalance of power between the bully and the vic- with regard to the adequate assessment of the phenomenon.
tim.11,12 Some authors regard this phenomenon as an indirect This may be due to cyberbullying’s multiple manifestations,

1
Department of Psychology, University of Nariño (UDENAR), San Juan de Pasto, Colombia.
2
Department of Psychology, University of Córdoba (UCO), Córdoba, Spain.
3
Department of Psychology, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
4
Department of Psychology, Social Work and Counselling, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom.

117
118 HERRERA-LÓPEZ ET AL.

which render it difficult to develop and validate scales with Owing to the limited availability of adequately validated
optimal psychometric properties.18 A systematic review of instruments for Latin American countries and the need for
636 studies showed that most of the existing measurement internationally recognized instruments incorporating both
instruments do not take into account the properties and theo- cyber-victimization and cyber-aggression, the main objec-
retical and structural factors involved, and of the 44 recognized tive of this study was to validate the ECIPQ18 scale in Co-
instruments, only 24 reported convergent validity.19 Other lombia. The second objective was to compare the prevalence
studies have shown that the scales used to measure cyberbul- of involvement in cyberbullying in both countries (Colombia
lying do not have the same factorial structure, unlike tradi- and Spain) focusing on the following roles: bullies, victims,
tional instruments for assessing bullying.20 In developing an bully-victims, and noninvolved students. Our hypothesis was
instrument to measure cyberbullying, Law et al.21 found that that the instrument would show a two-factor structure with
the items used to assess traditional bullying were clearly or- optimal psychometric properties and measurement homo-
ganized into two factors (victimization and aggression), while geneity in the Spanish version, while Colombian students
items related to cyberbullying were organized into just one. would be less involved in cyberbullying based on the as-
The same result was obtained by Menesini et al.,22 who re- sumption that technology is used to a lesser degree in the
ported a tendency for single factor grouping. In general, there country.37
are few instruments that comprehensively identify and mea-
sure all the factors related to cyberbullying involvement.18,23 Methodology
Indeed, it is still very common to find studies that measure only
Participants
cyber-aggression21,24 or cyber-victimization,25 thus increas-
ing the propensity of biased measures.26 The overall sample comprised 3,830 adolescent students
The European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Ques- (48.9 percent male) aged 10 to 19 (M = 13.95, standard de-
tionnaire (ECIPQ)18 was designed based on the studies of viation [SD] = 1.61). The Colombian subgroup consisted of
Dooley et al.27,28 This rigorous measurement instrument is 1,931 students (46.9 percent male) of public and private
comparable to other international instruments, and it has schools in the city of San Juan de Pasto, southern Colombia,
been validated in six European countries with optimal psy- aged 10 - 19 (M = 14.9; SD = 1.89); while the Spanish sub-
chometric results.14–30 The ECIPQ includes new definitions group consisted of 1,899 students (51 percent male) of public
of cyberbullying, reflects its various manifestations and and private schools in Andalucia, southern Spain, aged 11 -
recognizes the dynamic structure of the phenomenon by 18 (M = 14.3; SD = 1.81).
measuring its two principal dimensions: aggression and
victimization. It also makes no distinction between digital Instrument
devices (mobile phones and PCs) and includes the criteria of
We used the ECIPQ,18 which comprises 22 items (11 for
repetition and the imbalance of power as it assesses the do-
cyber-victimization and 11 for cyber-aggression). The
minion of technology in the aggression and the lack of se-
ECIPQ uses a Likert-type scale with five response options
curity measures in victimization.18
ranging from 0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = once or twice a
A recent worldwide review of cyberbullying studies has
month, 3 = about once a week, and 4 = more than one once a
shown that the articles published on the Web of Science are
week. An example of an item for cyber-victimization is
mainly studies from North America (57 percent) and Europe
‘‘Someone said nasty things to me or called me names using
(28 percent), followed by Western Asia (8 percent) and
texts or online messages,’’ while ‘‘I spread rumours about
Australia (4 percent), which, and denoting an uneven geo-
someone on the Internet’’ is an example of a cyber-
graphical distribution, highlights the scarce scientific par-
aggression item. The internal consistency of the original test
ticipation of developing countries, such as those in Latin
is optimal: acyber-victimization = 0.97; acyber-aggression = 0.93;
America.29 The small number of studies conducted in these
atotal = 0.96.
countries tend to report data on prevalence, primarily using
instruments lacking rigorous psychometric properties. Other
Procedure
studies report on the type of harassment and the description
and characterization of cyberbullying,30,31 while very few We used a cross-sectional, ex post facto, retrospective, one
examine the development or validation of instruments.32–34 group, one measurement research design.38 To ensure ethical
This situation, coupled with the scarcity of cross-cultural standards, we first obtained authorization from the school
research, represents important limitations for advancing in officials and subsequently sent informed consent forms to the
the study of cyberbullying in regions such as Latin America, students’ parents and/or legal guardians. After receiving
where violence is considered to be even more exacerbated.35 signed consent from the parents, we then visited the students
The validation and use of a common instrument with known who had been authorized to take part in the study and asked
psychometric properties to compare the phenomenon of cy- them to sign a consent form. Before administering the
berbullying would allow us to get further insight into the questionnaire to the students, we informed them that par-
universality of the phenomenon and examine differences and ticipation was anonymous and voluntary and explained the
similarities between countries; additionally comparisons objective of the study. The average time taken to complete
between two different geographical regions, which share a the questionnaire was 15 minutes. Convenience sampling
similar culture, history, and same language, are of particular was performed owing to accessibility.
interest as they open up new lines of research into cyber- The scale content was validated by a panel of six Co-
bullying beyond cross-cultural, comparative studies among lombian experts, who were given the Spanish version
European countries18 or between the United States and translated from English to Castilian by Ortega-Ruiz et al.39
countries of Asia.36 with the parallel back-translation procedure.40 The panel
VALIDATION OF THE ECIPQ FOR COLOMBIA 119

assessed the compliance of criteria such as adequacy of vo- Finally, a pilot test was conducted with 60 students to assess
cabulary, conceptual clarity, and the consistency and rele- their understanding of the items. Any words or terms in the
vance of each item. To this end, a 4-point scale was used original Spanish text that were not clear to the students were
where 1 = noncompliance, 2 = low level of compliance, modified. For example, the item ‘‘Alguien me ha dicho pa-
3 = moderate compliance, and 4 = high level of compliance. labras malsonantes o me ha insultado usando el e-mail o

FIG. 1. CFA of the adapted

ECIPQ for Colombia
(*p < 0.05). CFA, confirma-
tory factor analysis; ECIPQ,
European Cyberbullying
Intervention Project
Questionnaire.
 Table 1. Polychoric Correlation Matrix: European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 1
2 0.77 1
3 0.57 0.57 1
4 0.36 0.40 0.45 1
5 0.37 0.39 0.44 0.80 1
6 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.55 1
7 0.40 0.43 0.51 0.46 0.49 0.60 1
8 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.42 0.67 1
9 0.39 0.38 0.42 0.48 0.41 0.37 0.66 0.64 1
10 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.40 0.44 0.48 1

120
11 0.59 0.62 0.48 0.36 0.37 0.41 0.58 0.42 0.48 0.40 1
12 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.46 0.40 0.45 0.39 0.52 1
13 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.29 0.36 0.27 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.34 0.51 0.80 1
14 0.39 0.42 0.62 0.35 0.35 0.48 0.54 0.51 0.57 0.42 0.45 0.62 0.65 1
15 0.38 0.35 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.32 0.20 0.29 0.45 0.52 0.64 1
16 0.19 0.34 0.45 0.39 0.41 0.53 0.52 0.55 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.51 0.50 0.67 0.80 1
17 0.27 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.47 0.42 0.48 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.59 0.58 0.71 1
18 0.37 0.43 0.49 0.47 0.43 0.55 0.69 0.73 0.70 0.55 0.56 0.55 0.58 0.71 0.56 0.71 0.69 1
19 0.34 0.42 0.49 0.42 0.40 0.51 0.58 0.72 0.60 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.53 0.61 0.53 0.65 0.62 0.79 1
20 0.29 0.36 0.41 0.31 0.36 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.62 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.48 0.59 0.51 0.66 0.53 0.78 0.74 1
21 0.25 0.34 0.34 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.42 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.49 0.47 0.56 0.48 0.54 0.42 0.56 0.51 0.57 1
22 0.33 0.43 0.41 0.28 0.33 0.42 0.44 0.60 0.57 0.43 0.60 0.52 0.60 0.52 0.45 0.56 0.46 0.70 0.66 0.65 0.56 1
All correlations with p < 0.01.
VALIDATION OF THE ECIPQ FOR COLOMBIA 121

SMS’’ (Someone used bad words or insulted me using e-mail progressively restricted models starting with a Model 1 to
or SMS) was substituted for ‘‘Alguien me ha dicho groserı́as test the configurational invariance, conferring the same fac-
o insultado por internet (e-mail, redes sociales, llamadas o torial structure to the two subgroups. To analyze the mea-
SMS)’’ (Someone made rude comments or insulted me on surement invariance, we proposed three models: Model 2,
Internet [e-mail, social networks, calls or SMS]). The where the covariances in both sample groups were restricted;
changes were then incorporated into the Colombian version Model 3, where the factor loadings were made equal; and
(Appendix Table A1). Model 4 in which the residuals were restricted.49 After de-
To establish the different roles of involvement, we fol- veloping the models, the delta values (D) of the NNFI, CFI,
lowed the criteria established by the authors of the ECIPQ RMSEA, and SRMR measures of fit were obtained using a
scale.18 For example, to determine the role of cybervictim we variance of p0.01 as the cutoff point to accept the invariance
took into account subjects with scores q2 (once a month) in hypothesis.50 The chi-square difference test (Dv2S-B) was
all the cyber-victimization items, and a score p1 (once or also performed, where nonsignificant differences indicate
twice) in all of the cyber-aggression items. Involvement in model invariance.51 This multigroup analysis was performed
the role of cyberbully was measured taking into account using the EQS 6.2 program.46
subjects with scores q2 (once a month) in any of the cyber- To compare the differences between countries regarding
aggression items, and scores p1 (once or twice) in all the the roles of involvement included in the questionnaire, we
cyber-victimization items. The degree of involvement in the performed a chi-square test (v2), taking into account the
role of bully-victim was obtained with scores q2 (once a values of the adjusted standardized residuals greater than
month) in at least one of the cyber-aggression items and in at –1.96 (95 percent confidence interval [CI]) and –2.58 (99
least one of the cyber-victimization items. Finally, nonin- percent CI).
volvement was measured using scores p1 (once or twice) in The level of significance was 0.05.
all cyber-aggression and cyber-victimization items.
Results
Data analysis
The validation of the ECIPQ18 content for Colombia,
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for based on the assessment of the expert panel, showed an ad-
the structural validation of the scale. Maximum likelihood equate degree of agreement (rk = 0.81).
(ML) estimation with robust correction41 and polychoric The CFA performed with the Colombian subsample in-
correlation were used, given the categorical nature of the dicated that the assumptions of multivariate normality
variables.42 To assess the suitability of the instrument, we were not met, as a Mardia coefficient value = 875.13 was
used the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square test43 (v2S-B), chi- obtained. The original two-factor structure was confirmed by
square divided by its degrees of freedom (v2S-B/df) (p5 the adequate fit indices (v2S-B = 644.97; v2S-B/(208) = 3.10;
acceptable p3 optimal), the comparative fit index (CFI), and p < 0.001; NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.047 (90
the non-normed fit index (NNFI) (whose values must be percent CI [0.043, 0.052]); SRMR = 0.080; AIC = 228.96)
q0.95).44,45 We also took into account the root mean square (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The total internal consistency and the
error approximation (RMSEA p0.05), the standardized root consistency of each factor were optimal (O cyber-
mean square residual (SRMR p0.08 acceptable, p0.05 aggression = 0.94; O cyber-victimization = 0.91; O to-
optimal),45 and the Akaike information criterion (AIC), tal = 0.95).
which is used to compare models (the lowest value indicates The CFA performed with the Spanish subsample con-
the best model). The analysis was performed using the EQS firmed the original two-factor structure (v2S-B = 563.07;
6.2 program.46 v2S-B/(208) = 2.71; p < 0.001; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97;
A McDonald’s Omega (O) test was performed to analyze RMSEA = 0.031 (90 percent CI [0.028, 0.034]); SRMR =
the internal consistency of the instrument given that the 0.079; AIC = 147.07). The total internal consistency and the
variables were categorical and reflected the absence of internal consistency of each factor were also optimal (O
multivariante normality.47 The analysis was performed using cyber-aggression = 0.96, O cyber-victimization = 0.94, O
the FACTOR 9.2 program.48 total = 0.97).
To assess the degree of robustness of the factorial structure The results of the multigroup analysis were within the
and hence the degree of generalization of the model in the established cutoff values (Table 2). In addition, the chi-
two countries, a multigroup analysis was performed. This square differences between models 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and
analysis requires a series of sequential comparisons using models 1 and 4 were not significant. These results

Table 2. Multigroup Analysis: Configuration and Measurement Invariance

Mod v2S-B df p NNFI CFI RMSEA SRMR Dv2S-B Dp Ddf DNNFI DCFI DRMSEA DSRMR
Mod 1 2,503.97 416 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.08
Mod 2 2,492.47 436 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.08 11.50 0.94 (ns) 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mod 3 2,483.36 417 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.08 20.61 0.97 (ns) 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mod 4 2,537.58 437 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.05 0.09 33.61 0.98 (ns) 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
CFI, comparative fit index; Mod 1, no restrictions; Mod 2, loaded factorial restrictions; Mod 3, covariance factorial restrictions; Mod 4,
residual restriction; NNFI, non-normed fit index; ns, not significant; RMSEA, root mean square error approximation; SRMR, standardized
root mean square residual.
122 HERRERA-LÓPEZ ET AL.

Table 3. Percentage of Involvement in Cyberbullying

Involvement
Country Cyber-victimization Cyber-aggression Cyberbully-victim Not involved
Colombia 10.7% SR = 0.4 2.5% SR = -4.6 5.5% SR = -1.3 81.0%** SR = 2.7
Spain 9.3% SR = -0.4 5.3%*** SR = 4.6 6.4% SR = 1.3 78.6% SR = -2.7
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
SR, standardized residual.

demonstrate the existence of invariance in the factorial due to specific values regarding attitudes, behaviors, and
structure of the scale, indicating an optimal degree of ro- habits of Colombian adolescents, related to the collectivist
bustness. and restrictive Colombian school culture,54,56 characterized
The chi-square analysis of roles of involvement indicated by respect for the rules of the institutions, conformity, and
a statistically significant and directly proportional relation- obedience.57 On the contrary, Spanish school culture pro-
ship between the country and cyber-aggression, with the motes individualism and self-assertion,58 which leads them
Spanish students being the most involved in this role v2(1, to greater use of social networks. It has been shown that a
1,873) = 21.006; p = 0.000, and between the country and high use increases the risk of involvement in cyberbully-
noninvolvement v2(1, 1,901) = 7.062; p = 0.008, with the ing.59
Colombian students being the least involved (Table 3). In conclusion, owing to its optimal psychometric proper-
ties and ability to measure cyber-victimization and cyber-
Discussion aggression in a comprehensive manner, the ECIPQ is a
valuable instrument for gaining greater knowledge of cy-
The aim of this study was to validate the ECIPQ scale for berbullying. It could also be of use in other comparative
Colombia; an internationally recognized measurement in- studies on the possible differences in the prevalence of cy-
strument of proven psychometric quality.18 The analysis berbullying and associated variables or that assess the results
confirmed the original two-factor structure of the ECIPQ: of interventions targeted at preventing and reducing cyber-
cyber-aggression and cyber-victimization. Optimal values bullying.
and fit indices, in addition to good internal consistency were This study has some limitations, such as the cross-
also obtained. These results support the theoretical construct sectional nature of the analysis and the potential social desir-
that cyberbullying consists primarily of cyber-aggression ability bias common to self-reporting.60 Moreover, although
and cyber-victimization and that both dimensions are clearly the overall sample was large, the Colombian subsample was
defined as in traditional bullying.11 not representative, which could limit the generalization of the
The results for the configuration and measurement in- model. As a future line of research, the sample could include
variance obtained in the multigroup analysis between Co- other Latin American countries, which would allow for
lombia and Spain show that (a) the factorial structural of the broader cross-cultural studies.
scale presents good robustness, thus ensuring optimal and
rigorous properties, as well as the added benefit of being able
to jointly measure the two major dimensions of cyberbully- Acknowledgments
ing, cyber-aggression and cyber-victimization,36,39,52 and (b) We would like to thank members from the schools of San
despite the differences found in the role of aggressor and no Juan de Pasto, Colombia, and Andalusia, Spain, for partici-
involvement, the dynamics of cyberbullying could be simi- pating in the study. This study was performed within the
lar. This similarity could be attributed, among other things, framework of the following projects: Project PRY040/14
to the shrinking technology gap.53 Although this inference funded by the Fundación Pública Andaluza Centro de Estu-
should be taken with caution, it could be a new line of re- dios Andaluces, Project EDU2013-44627-P funded by the
search focused on comparing the cultural aspects and the use Spanish National R&D Plan, and Project BIL/14/S2/163
of new information technologies. funded by the Fundación Mapfre.
A more detailed analysis of the factorial model validated
for Colombia regarding the high factor loadings and satu-
ration in the items relating to rumors (gossip) and misuse of Author Disclosure Statement
personal data (pictures and videos) as bully or victim suggest No competing financial interests exist.
both the high tendency to engage intimidating practices us-
ing digital devices and the need for more education targeted
at the prevention and management of the personal data that References
adolescents divulge in cyberspace.54,55 1. Kubiszewski V, Fontaine R, Potard C, et al. Does cyber-
The second hypothesis of this study was confirmed by bullying overlap with school bullying when taking modal-
comparing the prevalence of cyberbullying among Co- ity of involvement into account? Computers in Human
lombian and Spanish students. The results show that the Behavior 2015; 43:49–57.
former are less involved, particularly in the role of cyber- 2. Hymel S, Swearer SM. Four decades of research on school
bully. These results could be attributed to the lower use of bullying. An introduction. American Psychologist 2015;
information technologies by Colombian youth. Also may be 70:293–299.
VALIDATION OF THE ECIPQ FOR COLOMBIA 123

3. Modecki KL Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, et al. Bullying and traditional bullying using data from six European
prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cy- countries. Journal of School Violence 2015; 14:47–65.
ber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 21. Law DM, Shapka JD, Hymel S, et al. The changing face of
2014; 55:602–611. bullying: an empirical comparison between traditional and
4. Aboujaoude E, Savage MW, Starcevic V, et al. Cyberbul- internet bullying and victimization. Computers in Human
lying: review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Behavior 2012; 28:226–232.
Adolescent Health 2015; 57:10–18. 22. Menesini E, Nocentini A, Calussi P. The measurement of
5. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan YF, et al. Cyberbullying, de- cyberbullying: dimensional structure and relative item se-
pression, and problem alcohol use in female college stu- verity and discrimination. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
dents: a multisite study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2011; 5:267–274.
Social Networking 2015; 18:79–86. 23. Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Psychometric prop-
6. Brewer G, Kerslake J. Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy erties of the Florence CyberBullying-CyberVictimization
and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 48: Scales. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
255–260. 2015; 18:112–119.
7. Casas JA, Del Rey R, Ortega-Ruiz R. Bullying and cy- 24. Calvete E, Orue I, Estévez A, et al. Cyberbullying in ad-
berbullying: convergent and divergent predictor variables. olescents: modalities and aggressors’ profile. Computers in
Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:580–587. Human Behavior 2010; 26:1128–1135.
8. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Cyberbullying: neither an epidemic 25. Tynes BM, Rose CA, Williams DR. The development and
nor a rarity. European Journal of Developmental Psychol- validation of the Online Victimization Scale for adolescents.
ogy 2012; 9:539–543. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 2010; 4:1–15.
9. Shin N, Ahn H. Factors affecting adolescents’ involvement 26. Dempsey AG, Sulkowski ML, Nichols R, et al. Differences
in cyberbullying: what divides the 20% from the 80%? between peer victimization in cyber and physical settings
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2015; and associated psychosocial adjustment in early adoles-
18:393–399. cence. Psychology in the Schools 2009; 46:962–972.
10. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, et al. Bullying 27. Dooley JJ, Py_zalski J, Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-
in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of to-face bullying. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of
cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bul- Psychology 2009; 217:182–188.
letin 2014; 4:1073–1137. 28. Py_zalski J. From cyberbullying to electronic aggression:
11. Olweus D. Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon? typology of the phenomenon. Emotional and Behavioural
European Journal of Developmental Psychology 2012; 9: Difficulties 2012; 17:305–317.
520–538. 29. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Scientific research on
12. Smith PK. The nature of cyberbullying and what we can do bullying and cyberbullying: where have we been and where
about it. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs are we going. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2015; 24:
2015; 15:176–184. 188–198.
13. Baldry AC, Farrington D, Sorrentino A. ‘‘Am I at risk of 30. Del Rı́o PJ, Bringue SX, Sábada CC, et al. Cyberbullying: a
cyberbullying’’? A narrative review and conceptual comparative analysis in students from Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cy- Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela [in Spanish]. In: V
bervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Congrés Internacional Comunicació I Realitat. Barcelona;
Aggression and Violent Behavior 2015; 23:36–51. 2010:307–316.
14. Wright MF. Predictors of anonymous cyber aggression: 31. Mura G, Diamantini D. Cyberbullying among Colombian
the role of adolescents’ beliefs about anonymity, aggres- students: an exploratory investigation. European Journal of
sion, and the permanency of digital content. Cyberpsy- Investigation in Health 2013; 3:249–256.
chology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2014; 17: 32. Buelga S, Cava MJ, Musitu G. Validation of the adolescent
431–438. victimization through mobile phone and internet scale [in
15. Menesini E, Nocentini A, Palladino BE, et al. Cyberbul- Spanish]. Revista Panamericana De Salud Pública/Pan
lying definition among adolescents: a comparison across six American Journal of Public Health 2012; 32:36–42.
European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and So- 33. Baquero CA, Avendaño PBL. Design and psychometric
cial Networking 2012; 15:455–463. analysis of an instrument to detect the presence of cyber-
16. Perren S, Corcoran L, Cowie H, et al. Tackling cyberbul- bullying in a school context [in Spanish]. Psychology,
lying: review of empirical evidence regarding successful Society, & Education 2015; 7:213–226.
responses by students, parents, and schools. International 34. Jiménez AE, Castillo VD, Cisternas LC. Validation of the
Journal of Conflict and Violence 2012; 6:283–292. aggression among peers scale and virtual aggression Sub-
17. Ortega-Ruiz R, Zych I. Cyber-behavior and educational scale with Chilean students [in Spanish]. Revista Latinoa-
psychology: challenges and risks [in Spanish]. Psicologı́a mericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud 2012;
Educativa 2016; 22:1–4. 10:825–840.
18. Del Rey R, Casas JA, Ortega-Ruiz R, et al. Structural 35. Baek J, Bullock LM. Cyberbullying: a cross-cultural per-
validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European spective. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 2014; 19:
Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Com- 226–238.
puters in Human Behavior 2015; 50:141–147. 36. Barlett CP, Gentile DA, Anderson CA, et al. Cross-cultural
19. Berne S, Frisén A, Schultze-Krumbholz A, et al. Cyber- differences in cyberbullying behavior: a short-term longi-
bullying assessment instruments: a systematic review. Ag- tudinal study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2014;
gression and Violent Behavior 2013; 18:320–334. 45:300–313.
20. Schultze-Krumbholz A, Göbel K, Scheithauer H, et al. A 37. Said-Hung E. Vulnerable young people and mobile parti-
comparison of classification approaches for cyberbullying cipation in Colombia: a study of the levels of citizen par-
124 HERRERA-LÓPEZ ET AL.

ticipation and appropriation among beneficiaries of social 52. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional
programs [in Spanish]. Innovar 2014; 24:31–44. bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and
38. Montero I, León OG. A guide for naming research studies measurement in adolescents, a review. Educational Psy-
in psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health chology Review 2015; 27:135–152.
Psychology 2007; 7:847–862. 53. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2015)
39. Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R, Casas JA. Assessing bullying Measuring the information society report 2015. Geneve:
and cyberbullying: Spanish validation of EBIPQ and ITU.
ECIPQ [in Spanish]. Psicologı́a Educativa 2016; 22:71–79. 54. Almansa-Martı́nez A, Fonseca O, Castillo-Esparcia A.
40. Brislin RW. (1986) The wording and translation of research Social networks and young people. Comparative study of
instruments. In Lonner W, Berry J, eds. Field methods in Facebook between Colombia and Spain. Comunicar 2013;
cross-cultural research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 137– 20:127–135.
164. 55. Festl R, Scharkow M, Quandt T. The individual or the
41. Bryant FB, Satorra A. Principles and practice of scaled group: a multilevel analysis of cyberbullying in school
difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Model- classes. Human Communication Research 2015; 41:535–
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2012; 19:372–398. 556.
42. Jöreskog KG. On the estimation of polychoric correlations 56. Arango FG, Bringué SX, Sádaba CC. Interactive generation
and their asymptotic covariance matrix. Psychometrika in Colombia: teenagers before the internet, the cell phone,
1994; 59:381–389. and the videogames [in Spanish]. Anagrama 2010; 17:45–
43. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of 56.
fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological 57. Lila M, Musitu G, Buelga S. Colombian and Spanish
Bulletin 1980; 88:588–606. adolescents: differences, similarities and relationships
44. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test between family socialization, self-esteem and values [in
statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika Spanish]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologı́a 2000;
2001; 66:507–514. 32:301–319.
45. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in co- 58. Arnett JJ. Broad and narrow socialization: the family in the
variance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus context of a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and the
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multi- Family 1995; 57:617–628.
disciplinary Journal 1999; 6:1–55. 59. Romera EM, Herrera-López M, Casas JA, et al. Multi-
46. Bentler PM. (2005) EQS structural equations program dimensional social competence, motivation, and cyberbul-
manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. lying: a cultural approach with Colombian and Spanish
47. Elosua OP, Zumbo BD. Reliability coefficients for ordered adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. In press.
categorical response scales [in Spanish]. Psicothema 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0022022116687854.
20:896–901. 60. Stone AA, Turkkan J, Bacharach CA, et al. (1999) The
48. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: a computer pro- science of self report: implications for research and prac-
gram to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral tice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbawn Associates.
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 2006;
38:88–91.
49. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B. Testing for the Address correspondence to:
equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the Dr. Mauricio Herrera-López
issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological University of Nariño
Bulletin 1989; 105:456–466. Ciudad Universitaria Torobajo
50. Dimitrov DM. Testing for factorial invariance in the con- Calle 18 N 50-40
text of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in CP 520002 San Juan de Pasto (Nariño)
Counseling and Development 2010; 43:121–149. Colombia
51. Bollen KA. (1989) Structural equations with latent vari-
ables. New York: Wiley. E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix
Appendix Table A1. European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire for Colombia
Cyber-victimization
ECIPQ 1 Alguien me ha dicho groserı́as o insultado por internet (e-mail, redes sociales, llamadas o sms)
[Someone said nasty things to me or called me names using texts or online messages]
ECIPQ 2 Alguien ha dicho a otros groserı́as sobre mı́ usando internet o sms (mensajes de celular) [Someone
said nasty things about me to others either online or through text messages]
ECIPQ 3 Alguien me ha amenazado a través de internet o sms (mensajes de celular) [Someone threatened me
through texts or online messages]

(continued)
 VALIDATION OF THE ECIPQ FOR COLOMBIA 125

Appendix Table AT1. (Continued)

ECIPQ 4 Alguien ha pirateado mi cuenta de correo y ha sacado mi información personal (por ejemplo, a
través de e-mail o red social) [Someone hacked into my account and stole personal information
(e.g., through e-mail or social networking accounts)]
ECIPQ 5 Alguien ha pirateado mi cuenta y se ha hecho pasar por mı́ (a través de las redes sociales o e-mail)
[Someone hacked into my account and pretended to be me (e.g., through instant messaging or
social networking accounts)]
ECIPQ 6 Alguien ha creado una cuenta falsa en internet para hacerse pasar por mı́ (facebook, twitter,
whatsapp, e-mail, otra) [Someone created a fake account, pretending to be me (e.g., on Facebook
or MSN)]
ECIPQ 7 Alguien ha colgado información personal sobre mı́ en internet [Someone posted personal
information about me online]
ECIPQ 8 Alguien ha colgado videos o fotos comprometedoras mı́as en internet [Someone posted
embarrassing videos or pictures of me online]
ECIPQ 9 Alguien ha retocado fotos mı́as que yo habı́a colgado en internet [Someone altered pictures or
videos of me that I had posted online]
ECIPQ 10 He sido sacado (excluido) o ignorado de una red social o de chat [I was excluded or ignored by
others in a social networking site or Internet chatroom]
ECIPQ 11 Alguien ha difundido chismes (rumores) sobre mı́ por internet [Someone spread rumors about me
on the Internet]
Cyber-aggression
ECIPQ 12 He dicho groserı́as o insultado a alguien usando mensajes por internet o sms (mensajes por celular)
[I said nasty things to someone or called them names using texts or online messages]
ECIPQ 13 He dicho groserı́as sobre alguien a otras personas en mensajes por internet o sms [I said nasty things
about someone to other people either online or through text messages]
ECIPQ 14 He amenazado a alguien por internet o a través de mensajes de celular (sms) [I threatened someone
through texts or online messages]
ECIPQ 15 He pirateado (hackeado) la cuenta de correo o perfil de alguien y he robado su información personal
(e-mail, red social) [I hacked into someone’s account and stole personal information
(e.g., through e-mail or social networking accounts)]
ECIPQ 16 He pirateado la cuenta o perfil de alguien y me he hecho pasar por él/ella a través del chat, mensajes
o correos en las redes sociales [I hacked into someone’s account and pretended to be them
(e.g., through instant messaging or social networking accounts)]
ECIPQ 17 He creado una cuenta falsa para hacerme pasar por otra persona (por ejemplo en facebook, twitter,
chat, instagram u otra) [I created a fake account, pretending to be someone else (e.g., on
Facebook or MSN)]
ECIPQ 18 He colgado información personal sobre alguien en internet (por ejemplo en redes sociales) [I posted
personal information about someone online]
ECIPQ 19 He colgado videos o fotos comprometedoras de alguien en internet [I posted embarrassing videos or
pictures of someone online]
ECIPQ 20 He retocado fotos o videos de alguien, que estaban colgados en internet [I altered pictures or videos
of another person that had been posted online]
ECIPQ 21 He excluido (sacado) o ignorado a alguien de una red social o de chat [I excluded or ignored
someone in a social networking site or Internet chatroom]
ECIPQ 22 He difundido rumores (chismes) sobre otras personas por internet [I spread rumors about someone
on the Internet]
ECIPQ, European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire.

View publication stats