The current study focused on evaluating the association between bullying and school satisfaction among Salvadoran elementary school children. Study participants were asked to provide an understanding of bullying without prior explanation of the meaning or definition. Researchers DeSouza and Ribeiro state that “international definitions vary from culture to culture… it is important to minimize socially desirable responses” (DeSouza & Riberio, 2005 p.13). The survey questions were presented in a way that allowed participants to assess whether they had ever been bullied or bullied other students. Espelage & Holt, 2001 argue that “questions presented that enable superiority rather than subjectivity prevent respondents from associating bullying as a mechanism of harm to the individual” (p.). The survey instrument used had similarities to the study by Bostworth et al (1999). In Bostworth et al's study, the study found that 81% of US middle school students reported at least one act of bullying; the current study found that 30% indicated they had been bullied at least once in the past year. The difference between the results could potentially be linked to the interpretation of bullying in different cultures. Although the primary objective did not yield statistically significant results, studies have shown that bullying should be taken into consideration when examining school satisfaction. Verkuyten & Thijs (2002) state: “children perform better educationally when they are satisfied with a school that involves minimal victimization” (p.222). The results of this study showed no significant measures of secondary outcomes of bullying with respect to quality of life. Although quality of life was measured with a participant who was always… halfway through the paper… future studies should explain the cultural definition of the term bullying/bullied or fighting for El Salvador, which would allow for a reduction that distortions occur in the data instrument. Other limitations of the study included obtaining data through a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal methodology. Additionally, the sample population came from two schools rather than multiple schools in El Salvador. The data obtained inhibit the ability to generalize the findings to a larger population, particularly when compared to past research that has found more than one statistically significant result. The research instrument also presented limited response choice responses, which in turn prevented in-depth data collection. Improving the instrument collection tool would help obtain the necessary baseline outcome measures with reduced bias.