Next Article in Journal
Under-Detection of Depressive Symptoms in Older Ambulatory Patients with Post-COVID Syndrome
Previous Article in Journal
Association Between Depressive Symptoms and Positive Screening for Possible Eating Disorders Among Italian Public Health Residents: Findings from the PHRASI Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Psychiatry International
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/psychiatryint7010020
psychiatryint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Validation of the Spanish Version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS): Reliability and Psychometric Validity

by
Alberto Pérez Arenas
1,
Eduardo Díaz Herráiz
1,* and
Raquel Bartolomé-Gutiérrez
2
1
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain
2
Faculty of Nursing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychiatry Int. 2026, 7(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7010020
Submission received: 16 October 2025 / Revised: 24 November 2025 / Accepted: 30 December 2025 / Published: 15 January 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: School bullying, be it in its traditional form or as cyberbullying, is a worldwide phenomenon, with significant impacts on schoolchildren’s wellbeing, and its accurate evaluation is thus key in prevention and intervention. The aim of the present study was to validate the Spanish version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS), a brief and effective instrument to measure school bullying victimisation and perpetration in different settings. Method: The sample comprised 2125 students of secondary education (11–17 years) in Spain. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate the structure of the scale. Results: We examined the scale’s reliability (α > 0.7 in all the subscales) and correlations to test its construct validity and its concurrent validity with the Kidscreen-52 victimisation and self-esteem scales, and with cyberbullying scales (European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire). The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed two independent factors: victimisation and perpetration. Conclusions: The results supported the psychometric soundness of the ZBBS, evidencing its applicability in measuring school bullying and cyberbullying in different age groups and genders. We discuss the implications for its use in research and educational practice, underscoring its potential as a brief and valid instrument for monitoring school bullying and cyberbullying across early to late adolescence in Spanish-speaking educational contexts.

1. Introduction

1.1. Context and Definition

Aggressiveness is conceptualised as a temperamental disposition, a personality trait or characteristic that is latent or present across the life cycle, regardless of the context; [1,2], meanwhile, defines aggression as any behaviour involving the intention to cause injury, harm or suffering. When aggression not only intentionally seeks to cause harm but also the submission of another person, it is defined as violence [3]. The specific type of violence addressed in the present study is that occurring in school settings, that is, bullying.
There is some consensus on the definition of bullying as a form of systematic bullying in school settings, characterised by periodic exposure, in space and time, to actions perpetrated by a person or group from within the same setting, under an asymmetric power relationship.
The concept of bullying has logically evolved and been complemented as studies have established a series of key elements to flesh out the definition. Marks the starting point in this sense, underscoring the intentionality of harmful actions engaged in repeatedly to cause fear, distress or harm. Consequently, as regards the evaluation of the phenomenon, intentional harm-doing, repetitiveness and power imbalance have traditionally been the three primary criteria or indicators most frequently included in bullying scales or instruments [4]. Given, however, that the concept has progressively evolved, other significant elements have been incorporated, such as duration, subjectivity and frequency [5], as well as a group perspective that, in its analysis, goes beyond the traditional one of perpetrator and victim [6]. This evolution has had a notable impact on the design and development of instruments and scales to measure bullying, such that the discrepancies on what instruments or measures to select to assess the phenomenon primarily depend on the definition of the concept and the components it includes [7,8,9].
Added to this circumstance is the type of intimidation to be evaluated or measured. Broadly speaking, bullying may take many forms. Further to the classic types of school bullying, such as physical, verbal and sexual harassment, exclusion or damage to property, we can add cyberbullying, generated by the sweeping development of ICT [3]. This fact has also significantly influenced the assessment strategies and instruments used. While cyberbullying was first conceptualised as a different type of bullying, with as many as 10 cyberbullying-specific measures having been being developed, discussions in the specialised literature now suggest solid grounds for including cyberbullying in general measures of bullying. In this way, it can then be measured with comparable scales, since the notion that cyberbullying is another sphere of bullying rather than a different type of intimidation, distinct from traditional bullying, has gained considerable traction [7,10,11].
Nonetheless, enhancing the strategies to evaluate school bullying is not merely a question of conceptual or theoretical aspects. Elucidating the causes and consequences of bullying has its corollary in the need to pinpoint the best strategies to assess them and develop specific, precise instruments to measure them.

1.2. Impact and Relevance of School Bullying

The literature has typically analysed the impacts of school bullying by focusing on the roles of victim and perpetrator, although studies have also occasionally addressed the effects on bystanders [12], defenders, assistants and reinforcers [9]. In these cases, scales do not tend to separate their items to specifically address all such roles, and it is thus more difficult to select measures that account for roles other than those of victim and perpetrator [13]. It is worth noting, however, that most situations of bullying not only involve the victim and aggressor or aggressors, but also other individuals that play other roles, while participants may engage in one or more roles, which poses a challenge for evaluation and measurement [14].
The traditional roles of victims, perpetrators and bystanders have been defined more extensively and in greater detail. Using the Participant Role Scale (PRS), distinguished between six different roles: bully, assistant, reinforcer, victim (aggressive or passive), defender and outsider (passive or indifferent) [15]. This hence brings a group dimension or approach to research that delves deeper into the phenomenon, going beyond the traditional perspective of the dyadic relationship between bully and victim [6]. This analytical approach differentiates between aggressive and passive victims, as well as the consequences of such roles. The role of passive victim, for which further studies are required to establish a more precise understanding, is characterised by low self-esteem, social isolation, a lack of friends and leadership qualities, as well as limited competence and social skills and a tendency to avoid school [16]. The typical profile of aggressive victims is that of a male that is highly maladapted and unpopular, with low social competence, and whose aggressive behaviour is reactive, unintentional and defensive [17]. With respect to the consequences of the different roles and their involvement in school bullying, it has been reported that the most serious effects are felt by aggressive victims, more than by passive victims and perpetrators, as they are subject to greater rejection among their peer group [18].
The phenomenon of bullying has an impact, however, on both victims and aggressors, and involvement in bullying entails an increased risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour, psychosomatic problems, substance abuse and even increased delinquent behaviours. It has also been shown that engagement in either role in an episode of bullying negatively impacts physical and mental health [15], educational trajectory, participation in learning, friendships and romantic relationships, as well as financial well-being [18,19]. In the case of victims, research has also found a higher incidence of physical and psychosomatic illness [19], sleep disorders [20], and impaired friendship and partner relationships, educational development and participation in learning [21], as well as problems in employability and financial stability [18]. Aggressors, meanwhile, present a higher risk of anti-social behaviour and delinquency in later life [13], more irregular sleep schedules and a lower sleep duration [20]. Regarding bystanders, the impacts on passive outsiders are not as evident as those for victims and bullies. The fear of being targeted and the feeling that they can do nothing or that doing nothing is more desirable [22] may, however, lead them to develop a fearful, apathetic or individualistic personality, as the fear of being a victim typically acts as a deterrent for engagement in situations of bullying.
These findings on bullying, that is, the evolution of, and new contributions to, its conceptualisation, the identification of new, differential roles in engaging in bullying situations and the detection of multiple consequences of all such roles, which also differ according to the roles played, underscore the crucial need to design and refine instruments of evaluation and measures. The aim would be to clearly and effectively identify the roles involved in episodes of bullying. In short, the design and validation of precise bullying scales and instruments cannot neglect to concisely identify the roles adopted in situations of bullying in school settings, given the different impacts of each one.

1.3. Instruments to Measure Bullying: Research Gap

Progress in understanding and preventing school bullying depends on valid and reliable instruments that accurately assess participation in the various roles involved [8,9,23,24]. Given the complexity of the phenomenon, psychometrically robust and concise measures are needed tools that clearly define bullying roles, bullying types (physical, psychological, covert, overt, etc.) and situations, enable standardised comparisons, and are feasible to implement in educational and research contexts.
Systematic reviews over the past two decades have revealed substantial differences in the content and structure of existing scales [16,25]. In terms of content, most instruments assess the three core components of bullying—intentionality, repetition, and power imbalance—but they differ in how these dimensions are operationalised, lacking consistent indicators and definitions [16,25]. Structurally, inconsistencies in time frames and response options further complicate comparisons and the assessment of repetitiveness [18]. Moreover, variations in reported prevalence may also stem from differing assessment methods (e.g., self-reports, peer nominations, teacher or parent reports) and social desirability bias among informants [25].
Another key limitation concerns measurement invariance across gender, identity, and developmental stage [16,25]. Although some research has found no psychometric differences by gender or age [26,27], few studies have systematically tested invariance. Only 26.7% of studies reported gender invariance, 6.7% across grade levels, and 5.3% across ethnicity groups, suggesting limited attention to potential sex and age-related biases in measurement [25].
With respect to brevity, most existing instruments remain lengthy, typically including between 20 and 70 items [16,25]. Short, psychometrically robust scales are essential for use in school settings, cohort studies, and longitudinal research, where time constraints and participant fatigue are major concerns [24].
In conclusion, there is a clear need for brief, psychometrically valid bullying measures applicable across genders, developmental stages, and contexts—tools that encompass the essential components of the construct, specify clear time frames, and distinguish among the roles involved. One example is the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS) [24], a concise and user-friendly measure that differentiates between roles and behaviours and shows good validity across genders, although it has not yet been validated or applied in Spanish populations.

2. Methodology

The aim of the present study was to validate a Spanish version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales [24], created and validated in English, as a brief instrument to measure school bullying, both in terms of perpetration and victimisation and for traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The dataset and statistical tests are available in the Zenodo repository (10.5281/zenodo.14913857).

2.1. Sample

A convenience sample of Spanish students was obtained with a sample size of n = 2125 students of compulsory secondary education (ESO, in its Spanish acronym) from 18 secondary education centres in 14 different municipalities, aged 11–17 years (M = 13.35, SD = 1.172). Of these, 45.5% were female and 51.5% were male, being selected from across the 4 grades of ESO (1st = 632, 29.7%; 2nd = 737, 34.7%; 3rd = 514, 24.2%; 4th = 242, 11.4%). The survey was administered in groups during class time. The research protocol was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the relevant institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to their inclusion in the study, ensuring confidentiality and voluntary participation. The students all lived in Spain and were fluent Spanish speakers.

2.2. Procedure

Data was collected in groups and inside each grade’s classroom. The self-report forms were administered in independent and anonymous booklets. Having previously been informed of the characteristics of the tool by the researchers, the school counselling team was tasked with administering the questions and explaining how to complete them. We contacted the school to set a date and time once informed consent had been obtained from the minors’ legal guardians for the students to complete the questionnaire. The anonymous, voluntary and confidential nature of the study was made clear. The questionnaires were typed into a database for analysis using SPSS V.22 software, and missing cases were subsequently removed. 2125 cases and 160 variables were finally obtained, on which the relevant scales were calculated.

2.3. Translation and Adaptation of the ZBBS

The translation-back translation method was used. Two members of the research team independently translated the questionnaire into Spanish. The translations were then analysed, and an initial version was agreed upon and sent to be back translated into English by a bilingual translator unfamiliar with the original text. This version was evaluated and the definitive version agreed upon by the authors can be seen in Table 1. The final step was to administer the test to class of students at a school to check that the question could be appropriately understood. The corrections to that test led to the definitive translated version of the ZBBS items.

2.4. Variables and Instruments

The instrument used was created ad hoc, based on Kidscreen-52 [7], which assesses health-related quality of life in children and adolescents (8 to 18 years). Its psychometric properties have been analysed in European and Spanish population. The Spanish version of Kidscreen-52 consists of 52 items that measure ten dimensions, with an adequate consistency in each case. Our instrument included the Kidscreen dimensions of self-esteem, parent relations and home life, peers and social support, school environment and bullying. The last dimension comprises three items (Have you been afraid of other girls and boys?; Have other girls and boys made fun of you?; Have other girls and boys bullied you?). These are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (never, seldom, quite often, very often, always) and serve as a comparison to evaluate the validity of the measurement of the victimisation construct in the ZBBS.
In addition, the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales [24] of victimisation and bullying perpetration, translated into Spanish, were added to the instrument. Each of these scales comprises five items assessing different bullying behaviours that may have occurred over the last year, as detailed in Table 1. These are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging between never and almost every day (1 = never, 2 = 1 to 2-times, 3 = 3 to 10-times, 4 = about once a month, 5 = about once a week, and 6 = (almost) every day). The ZBBS assess self-reported involvement in bullying, both as a victim and as a perpetrator, across different forms (physical, verbal, relational, and cyber). It does not include diagnostic cutoff points. Higher scores indicate greater involvement in bullying behaviours or experiences, making the instrument suitable for prevalence and correlational analyses.
Additionally, the instrument included two cyberbullying scales, one on victimisation and another on perpetration, from a brief version [9] of the original European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire [5]. The brief version comprises 6 items related to experiences of cyberbullying (exclusion, insults, spreading rumours, threats or identity theft via mobile phone, social networks, online games or the internet) and 6 related to cyberbullying perpetration, using the same situations. These are scored, referring to the last 30 days, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “never” to “several times a week” over the past 30 days (1 = never, 2 = 1 to 2 times, 3 = once a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = several times a week).
Finally, we included various items designed to collect other information on other aspects, such as sociodemographic data (sex, age, grade, family life/arrangements, parents’ level of education, parents’ professions) personal factors (impulsivity, leadership), school, family and peer social support and health (self-perception), with a total of 27 questions. These variables were used for other analyses and not in the present study on the validation of the Zurich scales.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

To validate the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS) for measuring school bullying in Spanish, various consistent and precise statistical tests were conducted to ensure its reliability and both construct and concurrent validity. Although the factor structure and item composition of the SBBS had been established in the original validation, we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the dimensionality of the scales in the Spanish sample with SPSS V.22 software. This decision was motivated by deviations from normality in the item distributions (a phenomenon commonly observed when measuring bullying) and the need to verify that the factor structure remained consistent in the cultural and linguistic context of Spain. Following the EFA, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the robustness of the resulting model and evaluate overall model fit through multiple indices. This two-step approach ensures both the exploration of potential sample-specific variations and the confirmation of the theoretical structure of the instrument. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS. Due to the non-normal distribution of the items, the model was estimated using unweighted least squares (ULS) with bootstrapping.
Additionally, the concurrent validity was tested by correlating this scale with another one previously validated and used, namely the Kidscreen victimisation scale. Furthermore, construct validity was examined through correlation with the Kidscreen self-esteem scale and cyberbullying scales, given the association established between self-esteem and different school bullying roles [28,29] and between traditional bullying and cyberbullying [30,31].
The scales’ reliability and internal consistency were measured using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. Gender invariance was assessed through factorial analysis, and we examined the correlations between the victimisation, perpetration, and self-esteem scales according to gender. As part of the validity analysis, the correlations between the different bullying roles (victim, perpetrator) from the Zurich scale and the self-esteem variable (Kidscreen-52) were analysed.
To examine gender invariance of the adapted ZBBS bullying scale, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted following the same modelling strategy described above. Four increasingly restrictive nested models were estimated: (1) configural invariance, which assessed whether the same two-factor structure (victimisation and aggression) held across males and females; (2) metric invariance, in which factor loadings were constrained to be equal across groups; (3) structural covariance invariance, which additionally constrained factor covariances (corresponding to the scalar level in the AMOS output used); and (4) strict invariance, which further constrained residual variances to equality across groups. Model fit was evaluated using several goodness-of-fit indices (RMR, GFI, AGFI, PGFI, and CFI). Invariance across nested models was assessed primarily through changes in the Comparative Fit Index (ΔCFI), supplemented by chi-square difference tests, to determine the degree to which invariance assumptions were supported by the data.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability and Construct Validity

Mean scores for the ZBSS items and subscales (see Table 2) were largely consistent with those reported by the instrument’s developers in Switzerland, with slightly higher scores for being ignored and slightly lower scores for ignoring or mocking others.
Reliability analyses indicated that the Zurich Bullying Behaviour Scale (ZBBS) demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency across both victimisation and perpetration subscales. For the victimisation scale, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.738 without the sexual harassment item and 0.736 when including it, compared to 0.786 for the Kidscreen victimisation scale used for concurrent validity. The perpetration subscale showed alpha values of 0.786 and 0.783, with and without the sexual harassment item, respectively. Cyberbullying subscales demonstrated strong reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.822 for victimisation and 0.842 for perpetration.
With respect to the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the ZBBS victimisation scale, without the item on sexual harassment, we ran the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of sampling adequacy (0.708), Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Chi-squared = 1958.596; df = 10; p = 0.000) and the goodness of fit test (Chi-squared = 234.910; df = 5; p = 0.000). When including the sexual harassment item, the same test yielded the following results: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of sampling adequacy (0.749), Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Chi-squared = 2280.438; df = 10; p = 0.000) with a variance explained of 49.232.
For the ZBBS perpetration scale, including the item on sexual harassment, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test of sampling adequacy value was 0.804, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was (Chi-squared = 2321.438; df = 6; p = 0.000) with a variance explained of 55.17. Excluding the sexual harassment item, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.777, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was (Chi-squared = 2969.140; df = 10; p = 0.000) with a variance explained of 60.87.
Meanwhile, in the case of the cyberbullying victimisation scale, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.823, Bartlett’s 59.497 sphericity was (Chi-squared = 3420.011; df = 10; p = 0.000) and the goodness of fit test was (Chi-squared = 137.357; df = 5; p = 0.000), with a variance explained of 59.497.
For the cyberbullying perpetration scale, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.846, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was (Chi-squared = 7800.849; df = 10; p = 0.000) with a variance explained of 64.732.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using unweighted least squares (ULS) with bootstrapping supported the two-factor structure of the Zurich Bullying Behaviour Scale. Factor loadings were strong for both victimisation (λ = 0.878–1.230) and perpetration (λ = 0.920–1.247) subscales, while all estimates were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The model including all items showed good fit indices (χ2 = 359.155, RMR = 0.055, GFI = 0.984, AGFI = 0.974, CFI = 0.965, TLI = 0.954) and satisfactory parsimony-adjusted measures (PNFI = 0.729, PCFI = 0.729).

3.2. Concurrent Validity

We also explored whether the Zurich victimisation scale correlated with other previously validated measures of bullying as could be seen in Table 3. The construct validity between the ZBBS (M = 6.84; SD = 3.421; n = 2122), excluding the sexual harassment item, and the Kidscreen bullying scale (M = 4.54; SD= 2.339; N= 2120; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.786) showed a significant correlation (r = 0.611; p = 0.000; CI = 0.584–0.637). With the sexual harassment item included, the ZBBS (M = 8.04; SD = 3.754; N = 2122) also exhibited a significant correlation with the Kidscreen bullying scale, albeit slightly lower (r = 0.621; p = 0.000; CI = 0.594–0.647).
The correlations between the victimisation and perpetration scales (ZBSS) and the cyberbullying scales were also examined. Here, victimisation measured by the ZBSS presented a significant and relatively strong correlation with cyber-victimisation (r = 0.574; p < 0.001). The correlation was slightly higher between perpetration measured on the ZBBS and cyber-perpetration scale (r = 0.684; p < 0.001).

3.3. Gender Invariance

To examine gender invariance, that is, the fit of the scales to adequately measure victimisation or perpetration in both sexes, we used factor analysis exploratory, considering the results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin’s test of adequacy (KMO) and the goodness of fit of the model. These tests were run for the scales of victimisation, perpetration, cyberbullying victimisation and cyberbullying perpetration, for both the total sample and for male and female participants separately, as detailed in Table 4.
The KMO values were adequate for both the scales, ranging from 0.744 to 0.813, showing that the partial correlations between items are relatively low and that the factor analysis was appropriate. On the victimisation scale, the total sample exhibited a KMO value of 0.749, while the boys and girls obtained 0.755 and 0.744, respectively. Meanwhile, the KMO value for the total sample on the perpetration scale was 0.804, and 0.813 for the boys and 0.806 for the girls.
The scores on Bartlett’s test of sphericity were significant (p < 0.001) for both scales and both groups, showing that the correlations between items are sufficiently robust for a factor analysis to be conducted. For example, on the victimisation scale, the total sample obtained a chi-squared value of 2280.438 (df = 10; p = 0.000), while the values were 1321.765 and 978.800 for the boys and girls, respectively.
Furthermore, the models were found to have a good fit in all cases, with significant chi-squared values (p < 0.001). In the total sample, the fit for the victimisation scale was 234.910 (dg = 5; p = 0.000).
The results of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), that could be seen in Table 5, indicated that the two-factor structure (victimisation and aggression) was maintained for both males and females, supporting configural invariance. Factor loadings were generally similar across groups, providing evidence for metric invariance, with victimisation items ranging from 0.328 to 1.283 and aggression items from 0.301 to 1.279. Covariances between the factors were moderate and of similar magnitude across genders (males = 0.318; females = 0.239), but scalar invariance (implemented in AMOS by constraining both factor loadings and item intercepts) was not supported statistically, as ΔCFI exceeded the recommended threshold (ΔCFI = 0.025). Error variances also differed between genders, indicating that strict invariance was not achieved. This was further confirmed by chi-square difference tests, where changes between the configural and metric models were non-significant (p > 0.05), but adding constraints on structural covariances and measurement residuals produced significant chi-square differences (Δχ2 = 247.622 for residuals), indicating worsened model fit. Overall fit indices (RMR, GFI, AGFI, PGFI, CFI) were adequate across all models, demonstrating that the scale functions consistently for males and females in terms of structure and factor loadings, although differences emerged in factor covariances and item error variances.

3.4. Predictive Validity

Additionally, we estimated the correlations between the scales for victimisation and perpetration (ZBBS) and the self-esteem scale (Kidscreen-52). Our results for the self-esteem scale (M = 18.84; SD = 4.472; N = 2123) show the highest significant negative correlations with victimisation (r = −0.300, p < 0.001), but also with perpetration (r = −0.118, p < 0.001).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to validate the Spanish version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS), evaluating its reliability and psychometric validity in measuring both victimisation and perpetration of school bullying. Our results provide robust evidence of the instrument’s reliability and validity and confirm the suitability of the scale as a brief, reliable and valid tool to rapidly and easily measure victimisation and perpetration of bullying in school settings, in both its traditional and cybernetic form. The study further corroborates the appropriateness of the tool as brief scale for use in school settings.

4.1. Instrument Reliability

Our analyses revealed high levels of internal consistency in the scales, with Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients above 0.7 (victimisation: 0.736; perpetration: 0.786). This indicates acceptable reliability and adequate internal consistency, redundancy intended, which is consistent with recommendations in the literature [32]. These findings are consistent with those of the initial validation of the ZBBS in English and German [24], thus suggesting that the Spanish version maintains the robust psychometric structure of the original scale and us a highly reliable tool for measuring such behaviours.
Furthermore, including the sexual harassment item in the scale, which is not typically done in such instruments, does not substantively change its reliability (α = 0.738 without the sexual harassment item and 0.736 with it). That is, the item does not interfere with the measurement of bullying and does not suggest other sexually related acts, which could cause confusion in respondents.
The possible impact of the sexual harassment item on the internal consistency of the ZBBS barely diminishes the reliability of the scale in measuring more general bullying behaviours and its inclusion could be relevant given the severity of the behaviour and the limited existing knowledge on peer sexual violence in school environments.

4.2. Construct and Concurrent Validity

The exploratory factor analysis corroborated the proposed theoretical structure, with clear factors explaining an acceptable percentage of the variance in all the subscales, which is also consistent with previous validations in other languages [24].
The analysis of the factor weights of the different ZBBS items shows all the items presented significant factor loadings within their respective dimensions. In particular, the sexual harassment item was found to have a slightly lower factor loading than the others, with its value being 0.52, compared with a mean of 0.68 across the other items. The confirmatory factor analysis also revealed that, although excluding the sexual harassment item marginally improved the model’s fit indices (RMSEA = 0.05 compared with 0.048), its inclusion in the general structure remains valid.
The subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed this structure, demonstrating that the two-factor model fits the data well and that both subscales are reliable and valid. Overall, the results from the EFA and CFA converge, providing strong evidence for the factorial validity of the Zurich Bullying Behaviour Scale in this sample.
Additionally, the concurrent validity between the ZBBS and the Kidscreen-52 victimisations scale showed significant correlations (r = 0.611, p < 0.001), which bolsters the capacity of the ZBBS to accurately measure the phenomenon of school bullying. Furthermore, in comparison with the Kidscreen victimisation scale, the ZBBS provides a broader and more specific assessment of victimisation, extending the range of behaviours considered, which highlights the strengths of the scale, which should be adapted to the context and timing of application. Similarly, the ZBSS scales also show the expected relationships with the cyberbullying scales, such as the association between involvement in school bullying and cyberbullying, as well as the increased risk of experiencing both types of aggression. These findings suggest that traditional bullying and cyberbullying are interconnected phenomena [33,34,35], with involvement in one form often increasing the risk of involvement in the other.
According to this, having an instrument like the ZBBS, which simultaneously measures both traditional and cyber forms of bullying, offers several advantages over using separate tools. First, it provides a more comprehensive assessment of a student’s overall involvement in bullying, capturing both victimisation and perpetration across contexts. Second, using a single, integrated instrument reduces respondent burden and survey fatigue, which are common issues with long self-report questionnaires, particularly in younger or vulnerable populations [9]. Finally, a unified measure facilitates more straightforward data analysis and interpretation, allowing researchers to examine overarching patterns of bullying behaviour, interactions between forms of aggression, and their cumulative impact on wellbeing. Overall, integrated instruments like the ZBBS enhance both methodological rigour and ethical research practices by providing a concise, reliable, and holistic measure of bullying.
In addition to capturing traditional and cyber forms of bullying, studies on bullying often include a range of other measures to assess risk factors and potential consequences, such as self-esteem, mental health, or social adjustment. The finding that the ZBBS correlates negatively with self-esteem confirm patterns reported in the literature [28,29,36] and suggests that it can provide meaningful information about these associated outcomes in a concise format. By combining assessment of victimisation and perpetration with established links to relevant psychosocial factors, the ZBBS allows researchers to explore both risk factors and consequences of bullying efficiently, reducing the need for multiple lengthy instruments while maintaining the validity of the data. This highlights its utility not only as a measure of bullying behaviours but also as a tool to understand their broader impact on youth wellbeing.

4.3. Gender and Age Invariance

Our findings on gender invariance are broadly consistent with those reported in the original validation of the ZBBS. Both studies supported configural invariance, confirming that the two-factor structure of victimisation and aggression is equivalent across genders. Full metric invariance was achieved in our sample, whereas Murray et al. [24] reported only partial metric invariance after releasing constraints on items reflecting physical aggression. As in the original study, structural covariance invariance and residual invariance were not supported, reflecting differences in factor covariances and error variances between males and females. Taken together, these results replicate the general pattern while extending prior evidence, highlighting the need for partial invariance models when comparing groups.
This is a critical advantage because previous research has identified the lack of measurement invariance as a limitation in many bullying studies, which can lead to inaccurate comparisons between boys and girls or misinterpretation of prevalence and severity of bullying behaviours [16,25]. By ensuring that the scale functions equivalently across genders, the ZBBS allows researchers to make valid cross-gender comparisons, examine potential differences in patterns of victimisation and perpetration, and explore gender-specific risk factors or protective mechanisms.
Although the factorial structure functions similarly across genders, differences in factor covariances and error variances suggest that the intensity or perception of bullying may differ between males and females. These differences appear related to the types of aggression they experience or perpetrate. In our sample, females scored higher on social victimization, whereas males were more prone to physical or verbal aggression. This aligns with the original findings, which suggest that, for the same level of bullying, females are more likely to experience relational bullying (social exclusion), while males are more likely to engage in physical aggression. However, our results also indicate that males are not limited to physical aggression, as they also engage in social aggression. This reflects a more complex dynamic in bullying behaviours than originally proposed. This points to a more complex dynamic in bullying behaviours than originally proposed. These findings suggest that measurement strategies could benefit from a more nuanced approach that considers both gender differences and the interplay between different types of aggression, rather than a simple dichotomy between social victimization and physical aggression.
Nonetheless, we suggest future studies also extend the analysis to other sociodemographic variables, such as cultural context, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, to ensure the applicability of the instrument in varying subpopulations

4.4. Practical and Ethical Implications

The validation of the Spanish ZBBS offers significant implications for both research and practice. Practically, it provides educators and researchers with a rapid, low-burden assessment tool capable of producing reliable data without disrupting the flow of school activities. The scale’s brevity makes it ideally suited for large-scale screenings, longitudinal studies, and intervention monitoring—contexts where efficiency directly affects participation, accuracy, and sustainability. In such environments, shorter instruments are not merely an advantage; they are a prerequisite for the effective integration of research and prevention efforts.
Theoretically, the availability of a validated Spanish version strengthens the cross-cultural comparability of bullying research. Consistent, standardised measures across languages and cultural settings enable researchers to distinguish universal patterns of bullying from culturally specific expressions, a distinction essential for developing effective global and local interventions. As emphasised [25], advancing international research on bullying depends on the dissemination of brief, psychometrically sound, and culturally adaptable tools.
In sum, Despite the existence of numerous instruments for measuring bullying, validating the Zurich Bullying Behaviour Scale (ZBBS) remains highly relevant. Long self-report surveys (SRS) can induce fatigue and boredom, which not only reduce participation rates but may also compromise data quality, particularly among youths most involved in antisocial behaviours. Beyond methodological concerns, there is a strong ethical imperative to minimise the burden on child and adolescent participants, ensuring that research does not cause unnecessary stress or discomfort. The ZBBS offers a concise and reliable alternative, capturing both victimisation and perpetration effectively while respecting participants’ well-being. Its validation allows researchers to measure bullying accurately, responsibly, and ethically, even in contexts where shorter, well-designed instruments are required [9].

4.5. Study Limitations

Despite the study’s positive findings, it behoves us to recognise certain limitations. The results of this study should be interpreted considering several methodological limitations that constrain the scope and generalizability of the findings. First, the use of convenience sampling introduces a significant risk of selection bias, as the sample may not accurately represent the broader population of interest. This limitation reduces external validity and calls for caution when extrapolating the results to other contexts or demographic groups. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the design precludes the establishment of temporal or causal relationships among the variables examined. While the analysis provides valuable insights into associations, it does not allow for conclusions regarding the directionality or stability of these relationships over time.
Additionally, although the scale efficiently measures victimisation and perpetration, the item on sexual harassment was found to have lower internal consistency than the other items, suggesting the need to make modifications or conduct further research in this area.

4.6. Future Research Lines

Future studies are recommended to assess the temporal invariance of the ZBBS and its applicability in different cultural contexts and developmental stages. Future research should prioritise probabilistic sampling strategies to ensure a more representative and diverse participant base. In addition, it would be of interest to explore the use of this scale in longitudinal studies to determine how bullying and cyberbullying evolve over time. Including new variables, such as the role of bystanders or defenders, could enrich the understanding of group dynamics in bullying situations, which is relevant to the nature of bullying in schools [6]. This would allow patterns of change and risk factors to be identified, which could help shape more effective and personalised interventions to prevent bullying across early to late adolescence at different stages of students’ development. Further research should examine how bullying relates to individual and contextual factors, including temperament, personality traits, stress levels, and family dynamics. Understanding these interactions through longitudinal and cross-cultural studies could clarify underlying mechanisms and inform more comprehensive prevention strategies.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the study shows that the Spanish version of the ZBBS is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring school bullying in its different forms. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained reveal adequate internal consistency in all the subscales, which corroborates the stability and accuracy of the ZBBS in assessing the phenomenon of bullying that can be used across early to late adolescence.
The significance of the test results and the consistency of the KMO values support the robustness of the factor structure and the adequacy of the scales of victimisation, perpetration, cyber victimisation and cyber perpetration to measure victimisation and perpetration appropriately, allowing the different roles involved in bullying situations to be identified. Furthermore, the factor analysis of the scales is robust and reliable for application to both sexes, which in turn supports the gender invariance of the scales. Therefore, the gender invariance observed supports the use of the scale in both males and females, which strengthens its applicability in different educational and research contexts. Furthermore, the correlations we found with self-esteem bolster the construct validity and its ability to reflect the psychological impact of bullying on victims and perpetrators.
The brevity and precision of the scale make it easy to apply in identifying and preventing bullying, thus making it a particularly useful instrument. It thus makes available a new assessment instrument validated in Spanish, facilitating the use of the scale in Spanish-speaking research and educational contexts.
The results of this study have important practical implications for educational settings. The validation of the ZBBS in this specific context allows for its use by educational professionals as a rapid, valid and reliable diagnostic tool to identify bullying situations. Its implementation could facilitate the early identification of students at risk, allowing for timely intervention and the design of effective preventive strategies or the evaluation of bullying interventions and intervention programmes.
Furthermore, the results regarding the applicability of the ZBBS to both sexes indicate that it can be used to assess bullying across the entire school population, from early to late adolescence. This is crucial for designing intervention programmes that are sensitive to the different manifestations of victimisation and perpetration according to gender.
The Spanish ZBBS enables faster and more accurate identification of students at risk, thereby enhancing prevention and early intervention in multiple ways. Its brevity enables rapid detection of distinct roles (victim, perpetrator, and bully–victim), allowing schools to prioritise cases that require immediate support and to design and implement targeted interventions. The reliability and concision of the subscales support ongoing monitoring of the severity and symptomatic patterns associated with each role, informing decisions about individual, group, or whole-school responses and policies. Moreover, the availability of a validated Spanish version enables harmonisation and international comparison of prevalence, patterns, and role distributions. Finally, the ZBBS’s psychometric strengths—stability and sensitivity—make it particularly suitable for longitudinal research by providing reliable repeated measures while its brief format reduces participant burden and attrition risk in cohort studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; methodology, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; software, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; validation, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; formal analysis, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; investigation, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; resources, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; data curation, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; writing—review and editing, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; visualization, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; supervision, A.P.A., E.D.H. and R.B.-G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by FEDER of UE and Research and Innovation Agency of Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha grant number [SBPLY/23/180225/000088].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Social Research Ethics Committee of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (protocol code: CEIS-2025-86139 and date of approval: 30 January 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset and statistical tests are available in the Zenodo repository (10.5281/zenodo.14913857).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, C.A.; Bushman, B.J. The effects of media violence on society. Science 2022, 5564, 2377–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pueyo, A.; Redondo, S. Predicción de la violencia: Entre la peligrosidad y la valoración del riesgo de violencia [Predicting violence: Between dangerousness and assessing the risk of violence]. Papeles Psicol. 2007, 28, 157–173. [Google Scholar]
  3. Concha-Eastman, A.; Krug, E. Informe mundial sobre la salud y la violencia de la OMS: Una herramienta de trabajo. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 2002, 12, 227–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hymel, S. Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. Am. Psychol. 2015, 70, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Del Rey, R.; Casas, J.A.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Schultze-Krumbholz, A.; Scheithauer, H.; Smith, P.; Plichta, P. Structural validation and cross-cultural robustness of the European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sagar, R.; Sen, M. Bullying Escolar ¿Causa o consecuencia? [School Bullying: Cause or Consequence?]. Rev. Pediatría 2021, 10, 955–956. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tebe, C.; Berra, S.; Herdman, M.; Aymerich, M.; Alonso, J.; Rajmil, L. Fiabilidad y validez de la versión española del KIDSCREEN-52 para población infantil y adolescente [Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the KIDSCREEN-52 for child and adolescent population]. Med. Clínica 2008, 130, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vilca, L.; Herrera, R.; Caycho-Rodríguez, T.; Tomas, J.M.; Herrera-López, M. Is It Possible to Measure the Role of the Bystander and the Victim of Bullying in Children? Construct Validity of Two Brief Pictorial Scales with IRT and CFA Models. Psychol. Rep. 2021, 125, 3238–3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Williford, A.; DePaolis, K.J. Validation of a Cyber Bullying and Victimization Measure Among Elementary School-Aged Children. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work. J. 2019, 36, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Patchin, J.W.; Hinduja, S. Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2006, 4, 148–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cheng, Y.Y.; Chen, L.M.; Liu, K.S.; Chen, Y.L. Development and psychometric evaluation of the school bullying scales: A Rasch measurement approach. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2011, 71, 200–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thomas, H.; Scott, J.; Coates, J.; Connor, J. Development and validation of the Bullying and Cyberbullying Scale for Adolescents: A multi-dimensional measurement model. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 89, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Luque, M.; Guiraldo, I.; López-Rodriguez, L. Fiabilidad y evidencias de validez de la Escala de Percepción de Amenaza Exogrupal (EPAE) [Reliability and validity evidence of the Outgroup Threat Perception Scale]. Psicothema 2012, 24, 477–482. [Google Scholar]
  14. González Laguna, M.V.; Arrimada García, M. Análisis comparativo de instrumentos para la evaluación del acoso escolar [Comparative analysis of instruments for the assessment of school bullying]. Papeles Psicólogo 2021, 42, 222–229. [Google Scholar]
  15. Salmivalli, C. Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2010, 15, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Catone, G.; Signoriello, S.; Pisano, S.; Siciliano, M.; Russo, K.; Marotta, R.; Pascotto, A. Epidemiological pattern of bullying using a multi-assessment approach: Results from the Bullying and Youth Mental Health Naples Study (BYMHNS). Child Abus. Negl. 2019, 89, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, A.; Salmivalli, C. Different forms of bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and victims. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 10, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bochaver, A. Posledstviya shkol’noy travli dlya ee uchastnikov [Consequences of School Bullying for Its Participants]. Psychology J. High. Sch. Econ. 2021, 18, 393–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Murray, A.L.; Zych, I.; Ribeaud, D.; Eisner, M. Developmental relations between ADHD symptoms and bullying perpetration and victimization in adolescence. Aggress. Behav. 2021, 47, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kubiszewiski, V.; Fontaine, R.; Gimenes, G. Bullying, sleep/wake patterns and subjective sleep disorders: Findings from a cross-sectional survey. Cronobiología Int. 2014, 31, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cañas-Pardo, E. Acoso escolar: Características, factores de riesgo y consecuencias. Rev. Dr. UMH 2017, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carozo, J.C. Los espectadores y el código del silencio [Spectators and the Code of Silence]. Rev. Espiga 2015, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Maynard, H.; Joseph, S. Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggress. Behav. 2000, 26, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Murray, A.L.; Eisner, M.; Ribeaud, D.; Kaiser, D.; McKenzie, K.; Murray, G. Validation of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Adolescent Bullying Perpetration and Victimization. Assessment 2021, 28, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vivolo-Kantor, A.M.; Martell, B.N.; Holland, K.M.; Westby, R. A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2014, 19, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cutbush, S.; Williams, J.; Miller, S. Teen Dating Violence, Sexual Harassment, and Bullying Among Middle School Students: Examining Mediation and Moderated Mediation by Gender. Prev. Sci. 2016, 17, 1024–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Jenkins, L.N.; Fredrick, S.S.; Nickerson, A. The assessment of bystander intervention in bullying: Examining measurement invariance across gender. J. Sch. Psychol. 2018, 69, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Luo, X.; Zheng, R.; Xiao, P.; Xie, X.; Liu, Q.; Zhu, K.; Wu, X.; Xiang, Z.; Song, R. Relationship between school bullying and mental health status of adolescent students in China: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Asian J. Psychiatry 2022, 70, 103043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nakman, S.J.; Azid, N.; Nur, A.H.B. Level of self-esteem: Is there any difference among physical, verbal, anti-social, and cyber bullies? Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2023, 12, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Low, S.; Espelage, D. Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from nonphysical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychol. Violence 2013, 3, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Malinowska-Cieślik, M.; Kleszczewska, D.; Dzielska, A.; Scibor, M.; Mazur, J. Similarities and Differences between Psychosocial Determinants of Bullying and Cyberbullying Perpetration among Polish Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  33. Buendía Giraldo, N.; Castaño Castrillón, J.; Cañón, S.; Giraldo Acevedo, J.; Marín Echeverri, L.; Sánchez Pacheco, S.; Suárez Ruis, F. Frecuencia y factores asociados al acoso escolar en colegios de Chinchiná (Colombia), 2014. Rev. Psicol. Desde Caribe 2016, 33, 312–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Romera, E.M.; Casas, J.A.; Muñoz, Y.; Ortega-Ruiz, R. Estatus social, búsqueda de popularidad y narcisismo en la conducta agresiva del acoso escolar y el ciberacoso [Social status, popularity goals, and narcissism in bullying and cyberbullying perpetration]. Rev. Psicol. y Educ. 2021, 16, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zych, I.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Del Rey, R. Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2015, 24, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pajuelo Flores, J.; Noé Grijalva, M. Acoso escolar y autoestima en estudiantes de secundaria [Bullying and self-esteem in high school students]. Rev. Investig. Estud. Psicol. 2017, 6, 86–100. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Items translated into Spanish (ZBSS): victimisation and perpetration.
Table 1. Items translated into Spanish (ZBSS): victimisation and perpetration.
Victimisation
¿Cuántas veces te han ignorado o excluido de algo intencionadamente? [how many times have other youths purposely ignored you or excluded you from something?]
¿Cuántas veces se han reído de ti, burlado o insultado? [how many times have other youths laughed at you, mocked you, or insulted you?]
¿Cuántas veces te han pegado, mordido, dado patadas o tirado del pelo? [how many times have other youths hit you, bitten you, kicked you, or pulled your hair?]
¿Cuántas veces te han robado, roto o escondido tus cosas intencionadamente? [how many times have other youths purposely stolen, broken, or hidden your things?]
¿Cuántas veces te han acosado sexualmente (por ej. flirteo, toqueteado) [how many times have other youths sexually harassed you (e.g., hit on you, groped you)?]
Perpetration
¿Cuántas veces has ignorado o excluido a alguien intencionadamente? [how many times have you purposely ignored or excluded another youth?]
¿Cuántas veces has insultado, te has reído o burlado de alguien? [how many times have you laughed at, mocked, or insulted another youth?]
¿Cuántas veces has pegado, mordido, dado patadas o tirado del pelo? [how many times have you hit, bitten or kicked another youth, or pulled their hair?]
¿Cuántas veces has robado, roto o escondido las cosas de alguien intencionadamente? [how many times have you purposely stolen, broken or hidden another youth’s things?]
¿Cuántas veces has acosado, tocado o hecho proposiciones sexuales de una forma que resultó molesta a la otra persona? [how many times have you sexually harassed (e.g., hit on, groped) another youth?]
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for ZBBS Items and Scale Scores.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for ZBBS Items and Scale Scores.
Variable n M SD
Item victimisation 121231.921.24
Item victimisation 221231.961.33
Item victimisation 321231.430.96
Item victimisation 421221.530.99
Item victimisation 521231.200.75
Item perpetration 121191.550.98
Item perpetration 221181.691.09
Item perpetration 321161.370.87
Item perpetration 421191.320.84
Item perpetration 521191.070.50
ZBBS victimisation (5 items)21228.043.75
ZBBS victimisation (no sexual item)21226.843.42
ZBBS perpetration (5 items)21156.993.22
ZBBS perpetration (no sexual item)21155.922.95
Table 3. Correlations among bullying scales.
Table 3. Correlations among bullying scales.
Variable1234567
1. ZBBS Victimisation—
2. ZBBS Perpetration0.462 **—
3. ZBBS Victimisation (no sexual item)0.982 **0.437 **—
4. ZBBS Perpetration (no sexual item)0.455 **0.991 **0.434 **—
5. Kidscreen 0.621 **0.303 **0.791 **0.330 **—
6. Cybervictimization0.574 **0.495 **0.547 **0.470 **0.444 **—
7. Cyberperpetration0.362 **0.684 **0.324 **0.654 **0.232 **0.636 **—
Note. r values above the diagonal are not shown for clarity. ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
Table 4. KMO, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and goodness of fit for the total sample and by gender.
Table 4. KMO, Bartlett’s test of sphericity and goodness of fit for the total sample and by gender.
N (n)KMOBartlettGoodness of Fit
Chi-SquareddfpChi-Squareddfp
Sample Victimisation21220.7492280.438100.000234.91050.000
Boys victimisation10920.7551321.76510<0.001131.97150.000
Girls victimisation9660.744978.80010<0.00194.32550.000
Sample perpetration21150.8042969.140100.000145.34050.000
Boys perpetration10900.8131517.687100.00054.24050.000
Girls perpetration9610.8061490.050100.00091.85250.000
Table 5. Statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis model.
Table 5. Statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis model.
RMRGFIAGFIPGFICFIΔCFI
1. Configural 0.0530.9850.9760.6090.968
2. Measurement weights0.0570.9820.9740.6790.9630.005
3. Structural covariances0.0740.9710.9590.6970.9380.025
4. Measurement residuals0.0950.9610.9520.7780.9180.020
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pérez Arenas, A.; Díaz Herráiz, E.; Bartolomé-Gutiérrez, R. Validation of the Spanish Version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS): Reliability and Psychometric Validity. Psychiatry Int. 2026, 7, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7010020

AMA Style

Pérez Arenas A, Díaz Herráiz E, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R. Validation of the Spanish Version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS): Reliability and Psychometric Validity. Psychiatry International. 2026; 7(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7010020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pérez Arenas, Alberto, Eduardo Díaz Herráiz, and Raquel Bartolomé-Gutiérrez. 2026. "Validation of the Spanish Version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS): Reliability and Psychometric Validity" Psychiatry International 7, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7010020

APA Style

Pérez Arenas, A., Díaz Herráiz, E., & Bartolomé-Gutiérrez, R. (2026). Validation of the Spanish Version of the Zurich Brief Bullying Scales (ZBBS): Reliability and Psychometric Validity. Psychiatry International, 7(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint7010020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop