الفهرس 
Introduction and aim of the workOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 242 |  |  |
| | | from | 242 | | |
Abstract
The aim of the current study was:
3- To assess the epidemiology of aggression and bullying among students of preparatory schools in Minia City.
4- To assess the relation between aggression and bullying in one hand and behavioral problems in those students on the other hand.
The current study involved two main parts:
1- Theoretical part.
2- Practical part.
1- Theoretical part
This included the review of literature which consisted of four chapters.
Chapter (1)
This chapter involved a broad review the topic of adolescent aggressive behaviors that was covered under the following points: adolescence and relation with aggression, definition and types of aggression, theories of aggression, prevalence and consequences of school aggression.
Chapter (2)
This chapter involved a broad review of the topic of bullying was covered under the following points: bullying definition, bullying, types and roles, extent of the problem, consequences of bullying.
Chapter (3)
This chapter involved a very comprehensive review of literature about the topic of theories explaining the bullying dynamic. The following theories were
Summary, conclusions and recommendations
169
discussed social capital theory, dominance theory, the theory of humiliation, organization cultural theory and Diathesis-stress model.
Chapter (4)
This chapter involved a comprehensive review of literature about the Correlates and contributing factors to bullying discussing the following points:
Individual influences, family influences, peer influences, school influences, community and cultural influences.
2- Practical part
This involved the following chapters:
Subjects and methods
It was a cross-sectional study held in five schools in Minia City, two governmental schools, one experimental school, and two private schools. The governmental schools were located in southern districts of Minia City (lower socioeconomic level). The experimental and the private schools were located in northern districts of Minia City (higher socioeconomic level).
After written consents from educational Minia administration and from surveyed schools were taken, in cooperation with schools staff members, students were recruited from five schools (two governmental, one experimental, and two private schools). All students in the 2nd grade preparatory school were included in the study after exclusion of those with apparent physical disability, those with history of major organ failure and students refusing to participate in the study.
A total of 521 students of both genders were recruited to the study. Nature of the study and meaning of questions, methods to answer the questionnaire were explained to the students.
Summary, conclusions and recommendations
170
The aggression and hostility scale for adolescents was used to assess different domains of aggressive behaviors among the participating students.
The bullying battery which is consisted of five subscales measuring different forms of bullying used to assess the different subtypes of bullying practiced by the recruited students.
The strength and difficulty questionnaire (SDQ) which is consisted of 20 questions measuring social, hyperactive, behavioral, emotional and friendship problems was used to assess different mental problems among recruited students.
Data analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19.0 for windows. Descriptive statistics of the study participants were conducted followed by multiple linear and binary regression analysis to detect the most predictor variables affecting bullying and aggression.
Results of the study
1- Description of socio-demographic data of the studied groups
Among a total of 521 recruited students, males represented 48.4% of the sample, while females represented 51.6% of the sample. Students from schools in Northern areas in Minia City (experimental and private schools) represented 45.3% of the sample while those from southern areas (governmental schools) were 54.7% of the sample. More than half of the sample (54.7%) were students from governmental schools, while students from experimental schools represented 25.9% of the sample; the rest of the sample (19.4%) were students from private schools.
2- Prevalence of aggression and bullying
Excluding minimal forms of different forms of aggression, our study found that 51.6% of students reported involvement in verbal aggressive behaviors. While 36.1% reported involvement in physical aggression.
Regarding hostility and anger, 53.2% and 53.9% of the students respectively, had mild, moderate or severe scores.
Our study found that among whole sample, 29.6% of students were involved in verbal bullying perpetration. As regard to physical bullying, 19.6% were involved. Regarding relational bullying, 30.3% of students were found to be perpetrators in relational bullying, As regards sexual bullying, 20.2% of students perpetrated sexual acts. Finally 24.8% of students used technology to bully their colleagues (cyber bullying).
Regarding SDQ; the present study found that 75.6% of students had normal total scores, 12.9% had borderline scores and 11.5% had abnormal scores, with the highest prevalence of borderline and abnormal scores in the social problems domain (12.9% and 11.5% respectively) followed by behavioral problems and friendship problems.
3- Comparison between different study groups
Regarding sex, the current study found that males had a statistically significant higher mean scores than females in physical and verbal aggression and bullying scales i.e. males were involved in more severe forms of physical and verbal aggressive behaviors. Males also had higher scores (although not statistically significant) in hostility, anger, sexual and cyber bullying. Apart from relational and cyber bullying, male gender was a significant predictor of all other forms of bullying and aggression.
Regarding school area, our study found that students from southern districts (low socio economic status and governmental schools) had a statistically significant higher mean score in all forms of aggression and bullying than those from northern districts (higher socioeconomic status and private and experimental type). Southern area was a significantly predicting
Summary, conclusions and recommendations
172
factor for all forms of aggression and bullying except relational and cyber bullying
Regarding school type, our study found that students from governmental schools had a significantly higher mean than those from experimental and private schools and that those from private in all forms of aggression and bullying except sexual and cyber bullying. Governmental school was a significant predictive factor of all forms of aggression and bullying except relational and cyber bullying.
Hostility was a significant predictor of verbal aggression, relational and cyber bullying. While anger was a significant predictor of verbal aggression and physical bullying, behavioral problems were a significant predictor for verbal and physical aggression and physical and sexual bullying. Emotional problems were a significant predictor of relational and cyber bullying. Social problems were a significant predictor of verbal and physical bullying.