"It's bull s--t," Ramsey said of the Mail's story.
Bull-S is mainly used to detect Bull roles (victim, aggressor, and victim-aggressor) [ 9, 26].
Bull-M was as good as Bull-S for measuring Bull prevalence.
Baldry [ 37] and Cerezo [ 26] found similar CA results with Bull-S and a self-report anonymous questionnaire, respectively.
Here, 100 participants from the second application (retest) of Bull-M were also invited to answer Bull-S.
In the Bull-M the average of items 6 to 10 were considered, in the Bull-S only the item 13.
Third, Bull-M was designed to allow assessment of the prevalence of bullying in schools which it actually allows, at least when compared to Bull-S (convergent validity).
Pooled frequencies from the "bullying other" subscale (items 6 9) of Bull-M and from item #13 of Bull-S were then compared, making a proper adjustment of both frequency scales for a proper comparison [Sometimes + often (Bull-M) = Twice a week (Bull-S)].
Validation criteria were: content (CV, judges); reliability [Cronbach's alpha (CA), test-retest (spearman correlation, rs)]; construct [principal component (PCA), confirmatory factor (CFA), goodness-of-fit (GF) analysis]; and convergent (Bull-M vs. Bull-S test) validity.
Pooled frequencies from the "bullying other" subscale (items 6 9) of Bull-M and from item #13 from Bull-S were similar (Table 3): Never (~3.6%), everyday (~18%) while 78% were distributed among intermediate frequencies.
