Olenchak, F. RichardDay, Susan X.2016-09-082016-09-08May 20162016-05http://hdl.handle.net/10657/1563The current study examines the construct of academic competency teasing. While research has shown that competency teasing is one of the most frequent forms of teasing, research in this area remains sparse. Only two currently published scales assess competency teasing: the Perception of Teasing Scale (POTS; Thompson et al., 1995) and the Teasing Questionnaire-Revised (TQ-R; Storch et al., 2004). In a previous study, the Academic Competency Teasing Scales (ACTS) were created and piloted on college-aged students (Lee, unpublished manuscript). The three scales included High Competency Teasing, Low Competency Teasing, and Impactful Name-Calling. The current study assessed the newly developed ACTS with college students. First, two distinct factor analyses were conducted: principal component analysis (PCA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) measurement model analysis. The PCA demonstrated a revised three- factor solution, with the scales of high competency teasing, low competency teasing, and impactful name-calling, similar to the 2012 data results (Lee, unpublished manuscript). The SEM measurement model showed the best-fit model as the three-factor revised structure. The constructs of the ACTS were compared to the other established competency teasing scales and demonstrated significant convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, statistical group differences were discovered for giftedness and ethnicity. Gifted students reported more teasing for high competence and higher current college GPA. For ethnicity, Black students reported less teasing related to low competence compared to Asian Americans, and Black students reported lower impact for name-calling compared to Whites and Asian Americans. The manuscript concludes with a discussion, limitations, and implications.application/pdfengThe author of this work is the copyright owner. UH Libraries and the Texas Digital Library have their permission to store and provide access to this work. Further transmission, reproduction, or presentation of this work is prohibited except with permission of the author(s).Peer victimizationTeasingCompetence2016-09-08Thesisborn digital