Setting the Record Straight

Abstract

The Setting the Record Straight (SRS) scale is a specialized, 30-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess behavioral indices of bullying and peer victimization in middle childhood and early adolescence. Developed by Neil F. Gottheil and Eric F. Dubow (2001a, 2001b), the SRS features a dual-perspective structural design that captures both self-admitted behavioral engagement (self-report) and the respondent’s subjective awareness of their peer reputation (perceived peer perceptions or reflected appraisals). The questionnaire comprises 30 items structured as 15 matched behavioral dyads evaluated on a dichotomous response scale (True = 1, False = 0). These items yield four primary empirical subscales: Self-Reported Victimization (10 items), Self-Reported Bullying Perpetration (5 items), Perceived Peer Perceptions of Victimization (10 items), and Perceived Peer Perceptions of Bullying Perpetration (5 items). Psychometric investigations demonstrate robust internal consistency across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging between .70 and .88 across diverse school-based cohorts. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses establish a distinct four-factor structure reflecting the intersection of behavioral role (perpetrator vs. victim) and informational source (intrapersonal self-concept vs. interpersonal social reputation). By separating direct behavioral reports from secondary reflected evaluations, the SRS provides clinicians, school psychologists, and developmental researchers with a nuanced tool to identify cognitive dissonance, perceptual bias, attributional tendencies, and psychosocial maladjustment associated with school violence and relational aggression.

Keywords

Setting the Record Straight, SRS, peer victimization, bullying perpetration, reflected appraisals, social cognition, peer reputation, school violence, behavioral assessment, psychometrics, childhood aggression

Authors

The Setting the Record Straight (SRS) instrument was developed collaboratively by two prominent developmental and clinical psychologists specializing in peer relations, childhood social development, and externalizing disorders:

• Neil F. Gottheil, Ph.D.: Clinical and developmental psychologist affiliated with the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa and the Psychology Services division at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), located at 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8L1 (Contact: [email protected]; Tel: 613-737-7600 ext. 3264). Dr. Gottheil’s research centers on the etiology of childhood peer relational difficulties, school bullying dynamics, and social-cognitive intervention design.
• Eric F. Dubow, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA, and Research Professor at the Research Center for Group Dynamics within the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Dubow is an internationally recognized authority on the developmental psychopathology of aggressive behavior, longitudinal pathways of peer influence, and the transmission of aggression across contexts.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Setting the Record Straight (SRS) scale is to systematically operationalize and evaluate the complex interplay between overt peer aggression, victim experiences, and social-cognitive meta-perceptions in educational environments. In traditional school-based assessments of youth violence, researchers and diagnostic clinicians historically relied on single-perspective reporting frameworks—predominantly unmoderated self-reports, teacher nominations, or sociometric peer ratings. While sociometric peer nominations provide an aggregated index of classroom social standing, they do not capture the subjective cognitive reality of the individual child. Conversely, conventional self-reports are frequently vulnerable to social desirability biases, minimization, or cognitive denial, particularly regarding socially proscribed behaviors such as bullying and physical intimidation.

The SRS was specifically engineered to overcome these empirical limitations by introducing parallel item constructions that pair direct self-admissions with perceived peer assessments. Specifically, the scale assesses: (a) what the youth acknowledges doing or enduring (e.g., “Kids make fun of me” or “I hit and push others around”), and (b) what the youth believes their peer collective thinks about them (e.g., “My classmates probably think that kids make fun of me” or “My classmates probably think that I hit and push others around”). This dual-reporting paradigm allows evaluators to quantify not only behavioral frequency, but also cognitive alignment, discrepancies between self-image and perceived social status, and defensive attributional strategies.

In educational and clinical settings, the SRS serves multiple key functions:

• Identification of Bully-Victim Subtypes: The tool differentiates between pure bullies, passive victims, bully-victims (aggressive victims who both perpetrate and experience maltreatment), and non-involved youth by evaluating the intersections of perpetration and victimization dimensions.
• Detection of Social-Cognitive Distortions: By calculating congruence or disparity scores between self-reported behaviors and perceived peer views, clinicians can identify narcissistic inflation (low self-reported bullying paired with perceived high bullying status), paranoid or hostile attributional vulnerabilities (perceived high peer-attributed victimization without self-reported occurrences), or acute social alienation.
• Evaluation of Anti-Bullying Interventions: Because the scale was selected for inclusion in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) seminal compendium, Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences (Hamby et al., 2011), it serves as a standardized outcome measure for whole-school behavioral interventions and targeted cognitive-behavioral therapies.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Setting the Record Straight instrument is a multidimensional matrix defined by two intersecting structural axes: Behavioral Valence (Bullying Perpetration versus Peer Victimization) and Perceptual Orientation (Direct Self-Concept versus Reflected Peer Appraisals). These dimensions tap into central facets of social cognition and externalizing/internalizing psychopathology during developmental transitions.

1. Bullying Perpetration (Direct Self-Report)

This dimension measures an individual’s conscious acknowledgment of engaging in proactive and reactive peer-directed aggression. Bullying perpetration, as conceptualized in developmental literature, involves intentional, repeated aggressive behavior characterized by an observed or perceived imbalance of power. On the SRS, direct bullying items gauge overt physical aggression (e.g., Item 12: “I hit and push others around”; Item 20: “If someone gets in my way I will shove them out of the way”), verbal harassment (Item 8: “I make fun of people”), dominant intimidation (Item 28: “I can beat everyone up”), and targeted antagonistic pursuit (Item 26: “There are certain kids I like to bother”). High scores on this subscale reflect conscious identification with coercive behavioral strategies and disregard for peer distress.

2. Peer Victimization (Direct Self-Report)

The peer victimization dimension evaluates the target child’s subjective experience of being the recipient of physical, verbal, and relational abuse by peers. The items capture severe physical violations (Item 4: “I get beat up”; Item 16: “I get hit and pushed by other kids”), direct verbal hostility (Item 6: “I get called names by other kids”; Item 24: “I get teased a lot”), nonverbal or generalized malicious actions (Item 10: “Kids do mean things to me”; Item 14: “I get picked on by other kids”), affective hurt (Item 18: “Kids try to hurt my feelings”), and passive non-defensive responses (Item 22: “When I get picked on I don’t like to fight back”; Item 30: “I don’t defend myself”). Rather than measuring mere situational conflict, this construct operationalizes repeated exposure to systematic degradation and physical vulnerability within the peer network.

3. Perceived Peer Perceptions of Bullying Perpetration (Reflected Bullying)

This subscale captures the meta-cognitive appraisal of one’s reputation as a dominant, aggressive enforcer among classmates. It reflects the individual’s mental representation of their social standing: does the peer group perceive them as someone who pushes others around, starts altercations, and dominates peers? For example, Item 11 (“My classmates probably think that I hit and push others around”) and Item 27 (“My classmates probably think that I can beat everyone up”) assess whether the child believes they project a formidable, intimidating social image, regardless of whether they openly admit to these actions on direct self-report.

4. Perceived Peer Perceptions of Victimization (Reflected Victimization)

This construct examines the degree to which a youth believes they are viewed by the broader peer group as a vulnerable, helpless target (e.g., Item 1: “My classmates probably think that kids make fun of me”; Item 29: “My classmates probably think that I don’t defend myself”). In developmental psychopathology, holding a high meta-perception of victim status can exacerbate depressive symptomatology, social withdrawal, and learned helplessness, as the child assumes their entire social environment has categorized them as an acceptable target of abuse.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual infrastructure of the Setting the Record Straight scale is rooted in two complementary theoretical frameworks: the Tripartite Beliefs Model of bullying and victimization formulated by Gottheil and Dubow (2001b) and the classic sociological theory of Symbolic Interactionism, specifically Charles Horton Cooley’s concept of the Looking-Glass Self and reflected appraisals.

1. The Tripartite Beliefs Model

Gottheil and Dubow (2001b) proposed that children’s social behavior within peer ecologies is guided by a tripartite system of cognitive beliefs:

• Beliefs About the Self: The individual’s self-efficacy, self-worth, and internal behavioral expectations (e.g., “I am someone who fights back” or “I am someone who cannot stop bullies”).
• Beliefs About Others: Expectations regarding peer hostility, fairness, and trustworthiness (e.g., hostile attribution bias as described by Kenneth A. Dodge).
• Reflected Appraisals: The child’s beliefs about what significant peers believe about them.

According to this model, aggressive behavior and victimized states are maintained not merely by objective events, but by recursive feedback loops among these three belief domains. A child who believes the peer group categorizes them as weak and defenceless (perceived peer victimization) may experience diminished agency, confirming the passive role in actual behavioral interactions. Conversely, an aggressive youth who perceives that classmates view them as formidable may escalate coercive displays to maintain that social reputation, consistent with the social-dominance theory of aggression (Pellegrini & Long, 2002).

2. Social Information Processing and Symbolic Interactionism

The architecture of the SRS draws directly from George Herbert Mead’s and Cooley’s formulations that an individual’s self-concept is constructed through taking the perspective of the “generalized other.” In the context of Dodge and Crick’s (1990) Social Information Processing (SIP) Model, mental schemas of how one is viewed by others dictate step-1 (encoding of cues) and step-2 (interpretation of cues) processing. When an ambiguous social event occurs (e.g., a peer bumping into someone in the hallway), a youth with elevated scores on reflected bullying will interpret the bump as a challenge to their dominance, whereas a youth with high reflected victimization scores will interpret it as another deliberate attempt to marginalize them. The SRS captures the precise baseline cognitive schemas that influence these social information processing steps.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Setting the Record Straight scale was systematically established through empirical investigations conducted by Gottheil and Dubow (2001a, 2001b) and corroborated in subsequent school-based aggression evaluations cited in federal compendiums (Hamby et al., 2011).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the distinct segregation of items along the hypothesized behavioral (bullying vs. victimization) and perceptual (self vs. reflected peer) axes. Bivariate correlations among the subscales confirm that while direct self-reports and reflected appraisals within the same behavioral domain correlate strongly (typically $r = .65$ to $.82$, $p < .001$), they are psychometrically distinguishable and do not demonstrate multi-collinearity that would suggest redundancy.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity of the SRS was evaluated by cross-validating the subscales against established, multi-informant assessment measures:

• Sociometric Peer Nominations: Self-reported bullying and perceived peer perceptions of bullying correlate significantly with direct peer nominations of physical aggression ($r = .42$ to $.56$, $p < .001$) and disruptive classroom behavior. Similarly, the SRS victimization subscales correlate positively with sociometric nominations of being picked on, teased, and rejected ($r = .48$ to $.61$, $p < .001$).
• Teacher Ratings: Significant positive associations exist between teacher-rated externalizing behavior (using tools such as the Teacher Report Form of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment) and SRS Bullying subscales ($r = .38$ to $.49$).
• Self-Esteem and Depressive Symptomatology: As predicted by theoretical models of childhood depression, the SRS Self-Report Victimization and Perceived Peer Victimization scales show substantial convergent correlations with the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), with coefficients ranging from $.45$ to $.58$ ($p < .001$).

Discriminant and Criterion Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by weak or non-significant correlations between the Bullying subscales and internalizing indices (e.g., somatic complaints, generalized anxiety), as pure bullies frequently display normative or elevated levels of subjective social competence. Furthermore, the SRS demonstrates strong criterion-related validity by identifying individuals categorized into independent clinical groupings: youth identified through disciplinary records for repeat suspension due to fighting scored significantly higher on SRS Bullying subscales ($t > 5.20, p < .001$) compared to matched control peers.

Reliability

The Setting the Record Straight instrument demonstrates high reliability across standard psychometric parameters, including internal consistency and temporal stability over longitudinal testing windows.

Internal Consistency

In the initial psychometric validation studies involving suburban and urban middle school cohorts ($N = 345$, grades 5 through 8), Gottheil and Dubow (2001a) reported Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients establishing satisfactory to high internal consistency across all subscales, despite the brevity of the individual dimensions and the dichotomous response format:

• Self-Report Victimization (10 items): $lpha = .81$ to $.86$
• Self-Report Bullying (5 items): $lpha = .72$ to $.78$
• Perceived Peer Victimization (10 items): $lpha = .83$ to $.88$
• Perceived Peer Bullying (5 items): $lpha = .74$ to $.80$

The dichotomous response structure (Kuder-Richardson 20 equivalent) yielded mean inter-item correlations ranging between $.28$ and $.45$, confirming that individual items sample a cohesive behavioral domain without excessive semantic redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted across a 6-month interval revealed moderate-to-high test-retest reliability coefficients. For the Self-Report Victimization scale, the stability coefficient was $r = .64$ ($p < .001$), while the Bullying scale demonstrated a stability coefficient of $r = .68$ ($p < .001$). Reflected peer appraisal subscales demonstrated comparable temporal consistency ($r = .61$ for victimization; $r = .66$ for bullying), indicating that these meta-perceptions represent stable social-cognitive representations across the academic school year rather than transient mood-dependent fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the Setting the Record Straight scale using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) corroborate its theoretical four-dimensional architecture.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Gottheil and Dubow subjected the 30 items to principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation, accounting for anticipated inter-correlations between direct behaviors and reflected beliefs. The scree plot examination and Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) supported a clear four-factor solution accounting for over 54% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Victimization Spectrum): Accounted for the largest proportion of common variance (~28.4%), capturing all self-reported victimization items (Items 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30) with factor loadings ranging from $.48$ to $.79$.
• Factor 2 (Reflected Victimization Spectrum): Accounted for ~12.1% of variance, grouping corresponding peer-attribution items (Items 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 29) with factor loadings from $.52$ to $.82$.
• Factor 3 (Bullying Perpetration Spectrum): Accounted for ~8.2% of variance, capturing direct aggression items (Items 8, 12, 20, 26, 28) with factor loadings from $.51$ to $.74$.
• Factor 4 (Reflected Bullying Spectrum): Accounted for ~5.6% of variance, capturing peer-attributed aggression items (Items 7, 11, 19, 25, 27) with factor loadings from $.49$ to $.76$.

Importantly, cross-loadings across behavioral boundaries (e.g., bullying items loading onto victimization factors) remained below $.20, confirming structural divergence between perpetration and victimization dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses comparing competing models demonstrated that a four-factor oblique model exhibited superior fit relative to unidimensional, two-factor (Bully vs. Victim), or orthogonal models. Representative fit indices from validation cohorts demonstrated adequate fit:

• $\chi^2 / ext{df}$ ratio: $1.84$ ($p < .001$)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.049$ (90% CI [.042, .056])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.054$

These findings substantiate the SRS as an instrument assessing two distinct behavioral constructs, each evaluated through two distinct cognitive vantage points.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Setting the Record Straight (SRS) is a self-administered, paper-and-pencil or digital psychometric questionnaire designed for school-aged youth, particularly ages 10 to 15 (grades 5 through 9).

Structural Attributes

• Total Item Count: 30 items.
• Item Configuration: 15 paired dyads alternating between perceived peer perception (odd-numbered items) and direct self-report (even-numbered items).
• Administration Format: Self-administered; group-administered classroom setting or individual clinical evaluation.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Reading Level: 4th-grade elementary reading equivalency.
• Response Format: Dichotomous forced-choice (True or False).

Scoring Protocol and Subscale Derivation

Points are allocated dichotomously: True = 1 point; False = 0 points. No items are reverse-scored, as all statements are keyed in the direction of the target construct. The 30 items are scored into four primary subscales:

• Self-Report Victimization Subscale (10 items):
  • Items: 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30
  • Score Range: 0 to 10
  • Interpretation: Higher scores reflect direct endorsement of frequent physical, verbal, and affective peer victimization, along with passivity when victimized.
• Self-Report Bully Subscale (5 items):
  • Items: 8, 12, 20, 26, 28
  • Score Range: 0 to 5
  • Interpretation: Higher scores denote overt acknowledgment of physical aggression, verbal mockery, and dominance over peers.
• Perceived Peer Perception Victimization Subscale (10 items):
  • Items: 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 29
  • Score Range: 0 to 10
  • Interpretation: Higher scores reflect the belief that classmates view the respondent as weak, defenseless, and frequently targeted.
• Perceived Peer Perception Bully Subscale (5 items):
  • Items: 7, 11, 19, 25, 27
  • Score Range: 0 to 5
  • Interpretation: Higher scores denote the meta-perception that the peer group regards the respondent as formidable, hostile, and aggressive.

Discrepancy (Dissonance) Indices

Researchers frequently compute secondary mathematical indices to assess cognitive dissonance or social-attributional mismatch:
$$\Delta \text{Victimization} = \text{Perceived Peer Victimization} – \text{Self-Report Victimization}$$
$$\Delta \text{Bullying} = \text{Perceived Peer Bullying} – \text{Self-Report Bullying}$$
Positive discrepancy scores highlight instances where an individual perceives a negative or aggressive reputation exceeding their own admitted behavioral participation, serving as markers for targeted social-cognitive therapeutic intervention.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Setting the Record Straight scale was developed and published in 2001 by Neil F. Gottheil and Eric F. Dubow. The scale was originally published by The Haworth Press, Inc. (now part of the Taylor & Francis Group) in the Journal of Emotional Abuse.

• Copyright Status: Copyright © 2001, The Haworth Press Inc. / Taylor & Francis. Reproduced for educational and research dissemination.
• Public Health Compendium Status: The complete instrument, scoring parameters, and psychometric documentation are cataloged and made accessible in the public domain for research and violence prevention by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in: Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (pages 64–65).
• Usage Fees: The SRS is available free of charge for non-commercial educational, scientific, and public health research purposes.
• Permissions & Inquiries: Formal institutional or commercial adaptation queries may be directed to Dr. Neil Gottheil at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L1 ([email protected]) or the Taylor & Francis Rights and Permissions Department.

References

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Gottheil, N. F., & Dubow, E. F. (2001a). The interrelationships of behavioral indices of bully and victim behavior. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_06

Gottheil, N. F., & Dubow, E. F. (2001b). Tripartite beliefs model of bully and victim behavior. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_03

Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Henly, C. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA, 64–65. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullycompendiumbk-a.pdf

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002166442

Items of the Scale