Bullying status and behavior patterns of preadolescents and adolescents with behavioral preadolescents and adolescents with behavioral disorders.

Abstract

A peer-rating scale was employed to identify the bullying status and behavior patterns of 27 preadolescents and adolescents with BD who were included in general education classes. Together with responses of 247 peers (total n = 274), results indicated that 11% of the students with BD were labeled bullies (vs. 11% of peers), 33% victims (vs. 9% of peers), and 15% bully/victims (vs. 4% of peers). Statistically significant differences were found in bullying status and behavior patterns. Bullies tended to be inattentive and hyperactive with limited prosocial interactions. Victims, as well as being withdrawn, were more inattentive and hyperactive than non-bully/non-victims. Bully/victims were highly inattentive and hyperactive. Students with BD were unilaterally rated as having increased behavior problems and decreased prosocial skills.

**********

School bullying has become an issue of serious concern in the past two decades (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Limber, Flerx, Nation, & Melton, 1998; Olweus, 1978; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). According to the recent U.S. government report, "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004" (DeVoe, Peter, Kaufman, Miller, Noonan, Sryder, & Baum, 2004), 7% of students between the ages 12 and 18 reported being bullied at school during the last six months of 2003. In 2001, Nansel and colleagues reported 10.6% of students were victims and 30% were participants in bullying incidents (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001).

What is meant by bullying? Bullying has three commonly accepted components: (1) an intention to harm the victim, (2) a repetitive nature, and (3) an imbalance of power between the victim and the perpetrator(s) (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999; Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Most bullying definitions contain both direct (e.g., physical attacks, name-calling, threats, verbal teasing) and indirect features (e.g., exclusion, rumor spreading).

In the past, a common perception was that bullying was a relatively normal and harmless experience. Today we know that bullying has negative educational, physical, and psychological repercussions on a student's life (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Bijttebier & Vertommen, 1998; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Hoover, Oliver, & Hazier, 1992; Rigby, 2003; Thompson, Whitney, & Smith, 1994), and bullying negatively affects the active and more passive bullying participants. Being bullied by peers is significantly related to educational problems (e.g., fear of going to school, school absence, trouble with concentration), low psychological well-being (e.g., unhappiness, low self-esteem), poor social adjustment (e.g., peer rejection, fewer friends, a lack of social problem-solving), high levels of psychological distress (e.g., anxiety, depression), and physical symptoms (e.g., headaches, mouth sores) (Rigby, 2003). Evidence also suggests long-term harmful effects of bullying on bullies (e.g., criminality, delinquency, social phobia, spousal and child abuse) (Bagwell, Newcomb, & Bukowski, 1998; McCabe, Antony, Summerfeldt, Liss, & Winson, 2003; Parker & Asher, 1987).

Increasingly, researchers have focused on the "status" or role of bullying participants. The four roles a student might play in a bullying incident include: bully, victim, bully/victim, or non-bully/non-victim (Salmivalli, et al., 1999; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Identification of these roles reflects recognition of the larger dynamic of the bullying process. In 2003, Warden and Mackinnon noted that bullies, victims, and bully/victims were more likely to be rejected and less popular than prosocial students (non-bully/non-victims).

Although large-scale studies have investigated bullying, few studies examine how disability and bullying interact (Hawker & Bolton, 2000; Kaukiainen, Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Tamminen, Vaufas, Maki, & Poskiparta, 2002; Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993). Most studies with a disability focus have specifically examined students with learning disabilities (LD). Students with disabilities are overrepresented as victims (Lyewellyn, 1995; O'Moore & Hillery, 1989; Whitney, Nabuzoka, & Smith, 1992).Thompson, Whitney, and Smith (1994) reported 67% of students with disabilities are bullied (vs. 25% of general education students). Unfortunately, students with behavioral disorders (BD) are seldom included in bullying studies, so little is known about the differences (or similarities) among students with BD and other disabilities in relation to the four previously researched subgroups of bully, victim, bully/victim, non-bully/non-victim (Morrison & Furlong, 1994). Although some bullying studies have targeted students with conduct disorder (CD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Salmon, James, Cassidy, & Javaloyes, 2000), these studies were not conducted in neighborhood schools, but in clinical and juvenile justice settings. School-based studies are critical because schools are where students frequently experience bullying.

The present study sought to gather preliminary school-based data related to bullying and students with and without BD who are served in general education classrooms. The study represents an initial effort to improve our understanding of the prevalence of bullying in inclusive settings as well as the behavioral patterns associated with bullying. By querying both students with and without BD we hoped to establish a unique snapshot of bullying as seen through the eyes of preadolescent and adolescent students.

Method

Participants and Setting

Students were considered as BD if they met one of the following criteria: (1) identification as BD by the school district or (2) identification as an Eligible Individual (EI) by the school district and met the criteria for the definition of "Emotionally Disturbed" from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004). Teacher knowledge and review of school records were used to differentiate EI with BD from EI with other disabilities. In addition to having been identified as BD, students needed to be at least partially included, that is, attend one or more general education classes for at least four months. All students with and without BD had gone to class together and known each other for at least 3 months--a period of interaction that ensures that the students were familiar with one another, as recommended by Salmivalli and Nieminen (2002).

Four school districts in one Midwestern state participated in this study. Across a five month period, 274 preadolescents and adolescents in 25 general education classrooms which included students with BD were surveyed. The number of participants who completed a survey in each class varied from 4 to 15 students with a mean class size of 11. Approximately 50% of the total number of students did not participate because of nonconsent or absenteeism. Table 1 presents a summary of the demographic characteristics of the preadolescents and adolescents with and without BD who participated in the study.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants

                            All Participants  BD (n=27)     Non-BD
                               (n=274)                     (n=247)

Gender     Male              134 (48.9%)       4 (88.9%)  110 (44.5%)
           Female            140 (51.1%)       3 (11.1%)  137 (55.5%)

Age        11                 46 (16.8%)       4 (14.8%)   42 (17.0%)
           12                 82 (29.9%)       9 (33.3%)   73 (29.6%)
           13                 39 (14.2%)       2 (7.4%)    37 (15.0%)
           14                 44 (16.0%)       5 (18.5%)   39 (15.8%)
           15                 30 (10.9%)       3 (11.1%)   27 (10.9%)
           16                 10 (3.6%)        1 (3.7%)     9 (3.6%)
           17                 10 (3.6%)        3 (11.1%)    7 (2.8%)
           18                  7 (2.6%)        0 (0.0%)     7 (2.8%)
           19 and older        1 (0.4%)        0 (0.0%)     1 (0.4%)
           Missing Data        5 (1.8%)        0 (0.0%)     5 (2.0%)

Grade      6                  93 (33.9%)       8 (29.6%)   85 (34.4%)
           7                  56 (20.4%)       7 (25.9%)   49 (19 8%)
           8                  42 (15.3%)       4 (14.8%)   38 (15.4%)
           9                  39 (14.2%)       2 (7.4%)    37 (15.0%)
           10                 15 (5.5%)        3 (11.1%)   12 (4.9%)
           11                 13 (4.7%)        2 (7.4%)    11 (4.5%)
           12                 12 (4.4%)        1 (3.7%)     4 (1.6%)
           Missing Data        4 (1.5%)        0 (0.0%)

Ethnicity  African             7 (2.6%)        0 (0.0%)     7 (2.8%)
           American
           Asian               1 (0.4%)        0 (0.0%)     1 (0.4%)
           American
           Caucasian         238(86.9%)       22 (80.8%)  216 (87.4%)
           Hispanic/Latino     6 (2.2%)        1 (3.8%)     5 (2.0%)
           Native              3 (1.1%)        0 (0.0%)     3 (1.2%)
           American
           Pacific             2 (0.7%)        0 (0.0%)     2 (0.8%)
           Islander
           Others             11 (4.0%)        4 (15.4%)    7 (2.8%)
           Missing Data        6 (2.2%)        0 (0.0%)     6 (2.4%)

Procedure

Data collection began after parental consent and child assent had been obtained. Two trained graduate students in the special education leadership training program administered the survey on a classroom by classroom basis following standardized instructions (Cho, 2007). Before filling out the survey, the administrator read and discussed the definitions of "bullying" and "non-bullying." Students completed the survey in one 40-50 minute session. Confidentiality was emphasized. Students were asked and verbally agreed not to discuss their ratings of themselves or others.

Definitions of Bullying and Not Bullying

In the bullying study, the definitions of Finnish researchers, Salmivalli and Nieminen (2002), were modified to make it easier for American students to understand:

Bullying occurs when one student is repeatedly harassed and attacked verbally or physically by one or more students. Harassment and attacks include repeatedly calling another student names; making jokes about a student; spreading rumors about a student; excluding a student from the group; threatening a student; shoving, hitting, or fighting with him or her; taking or destroying his or her things; or behaving in a way meant to hurt the other student. It is not bullying when two students of equal strength, equal power, or equal status have a fight; when a student teases another student from time to time; when a student makes a joke that is not intended to hurt anyone.

Instrumentation: The Peer Relationship Survey (PRS)

The PRS is designed to identify the bullying status of students--bullies, victims, bully/victims, and non-bully/non-victims, and to identify specific behavior patterns (e.g., Inattention, Hyperactivity, Withdrawal/Shyness, Prosocial Behavior) known to be related to bullying (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1995). Administration of the surveys followed a scripted text.

According to Cho (2007) the internal consistency of the PRS is based on scales with coefficients established in prior research; the scales have moderate to high positive correlations with other published scales. Cho (2007) also conducted an extensive field-testing and expert review process to establish the face and content validity of the PRS.

PRS Scoring Criteria

Bullying Status Score. Following the procedure employed by Salmivalli and Nieminen (2002), bullies, victims, bully/victims, and non-bully/non-victims were identified based on each student's within-class standardized scores (z scores) on the Bully and Victim Scales (see Table 2). Both the Bully and Victim Scale items were rated using a 3-point Likert scale (0 = "Never or Rarely," 1 = "Sometimes or Occasionally," 2 = "Often or Always"). Students also could choose DK (DK = "Don't Know").

Table 2 Peer Relationship Survey (PRS) Items Rated by Peers

Item *

This student ...

1 - helps other classmates. (P)

2 - is always on the go; acts like he or she is driven by a motor. (H)

3 - works well alone. (I)

4 - encourages others to join in the bullying. (B)

5 - is excluded from the group. (V)

6 - starts or initiates bullying. (B)

7 - gets hit or pushed by other kids. (V)

8 - is shy. (W)

9 - is friendly. (P)

10 - initiates conversations and activities. (W)

11 - runs around a lot; climbs on things. (H)

12 - gets picked on by other students. (V)

13 - likes to work or play with others. (W)

14 - finds new ways of harassing others. (B)

15 - is made fun of by other students. (V)

16 - stays on task. (I)

17 - pays attention to the teacher and the lesson. (I)

18 - cares about others' feelings. (P)

19 - spreads rumors. (B)

20 - sits still during class. (H)

Note. *Items rated on a 3-point (0 to 2) scale.

B = Bully items; V = Victim items; 1 = Inattention items;

H = Hyperactivity items; W = Withdrawal/Shyness items; P = Prosocial Behavior items

A student was considered to be a bully if he or she received a standardized score (z score) on or above 1.0 on the Bully Scale and a standardized score (z score) below 1.0 on the Victim Scale. A student was identified as a victim if he or she received a standardized score (z score) on or above 1.0 on the Victim Scale and a standardized score (z score) below 1.0 on the Bully Scale. If a student received a standardized score (z score) on or above 1.0 on both the Bully and Victim Scales, he or she was considered as a bully/victim. A student who received a standardized score (z score) below 1.0 on both the Bully and Victim Scales was considered to be a non-bully/non-victim.

Behavior Pattern Score. Each participant also was rated by self and peers on 12 behavior patterns and received a mean score for each subscale. Students wrote one of three numerals: 0 = "Never or Rarely," 1 = "Sometimes or Occasionally," or 2 = "Often or Always" to indicate the frequency of a specific behavior. Students had an option of entering DK (DK = "Don't Know"). The scores received by each student on each of the subscales were added and then divided by the number of items in each subscale: Inattention (n = 3 items), Hyperactivity (n = 3 items), Withdrawal/Shyness (n = 3 items), and Prosocial Behavior (n = 3 items). Scores were inverted for items that imply the opposite of a behavior pattern to which it is associated (e.g., Table 2, item 9).

Results

Reliability Analysis of All Variables

Among six scales on the PRS, two of the scales are bullying status variables (i.e., Bully and Victim) and four scales are dependent behavior pattern variables (i.e., Inattention, Hyperactivity, Withdrawal/Shyness, and Prosocial Behavior). Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the scales and was found to be adequate (Thorndike & Hagen, 1977), ranging from .71 to .90 (alpha of .90 for Bully Scale; .89 for Victim Scale; .90 for Inattention Scale; .78 for Hyperactivity Scale; .71 for Withdrawal/Shyness Scale; .85 for Prosocial Behavior Scale).

Correlation among Variables

Pearson Product Moment Correlations were conducted to determine if a significant relationship existed among the six variables (i.e., Bully, Victim, Inattention, Hyperactivity, Withdrawal/Shyness, and Prosocial Behavior). The average ratings of the Bully and Victim Scales were correlated modestly and positively with ratings on most of the other scales (p < .01 in all cases). The Bully Scale was significantly positively correlated with the Victim, Inattention, and Hyperactivity Scales (r = .34, r = .68, r = .62, respectively). Both the Bully and Victim Scales were significantly negatively correlated with the Prosocial Behavior Scale (r = -.64, r = -.51, respectively). That is, students who received higher Bully and/or Victim ratings tended to receive a lower Prosocial Behavior rating.

Ratings of the dependent behavior pattern variables (i.e., Inattention, Hyperactivity, Withdrawal/Shyness, and Prosocial Behavior) were correlated positively with all of the other scales with an exception of the Withdrawal/Shyness and Prosocial Behavior Scales. The Withdrawal/Shyness Scale was positively correlated with the Victim Scale (r = .44) and negatively correlated with the Hyperactivity and Prosocial Behavior Scales (r = .-30, r = -.33, respectively). The Prosocial Behavior Scale was negatively correlated with the Inattention and Hyperactivity Scales (r = -.75, r = -.43, respectively). That is, students who received a higher Prosocial Behavior rating tended to receive lower Inattention, Hyperactivity, and Withdrawal/Shyness ratings.

Prevalence of Bullying and Behavior Patterns

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and non-bully/non-victims among BD and non-BD groups. Students with BD (59.3% of the BD group) were more often involved in bullying as bullies, victims, and bully/victims than students without BD (23.9% of the non-BD group). Table 4 displays means and standard deviations of peer ratings on the behavior pattern scales for each bullying status for both BD and non-BD groups. In order to test the overall effect of the presence of BD and bullying status on the ratings of the four behavior patterns, a two-way (presence of BD X bullying status) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted for the dependent measures--Inattention, Hyperactivity, Withdrawal/Shyness, and Prosocial Behaviors. The results of the MANOVA indicated a significant interaction effect between the presence of BD and bullying status. Wilks's lambda for the interaction was .92, with approximate multivariate F(12, 696.12) = 1.64 and p = .04. The MANOVA showed a significant main effect for the presence of BD. Wilks's lambda for the presence of BD was .87, with approximate multivariate F(4, 263.00) = 9.84, and p = .00. The MANOVA also showed a significant main effect for bullying status. Wilks's lambda for bullying status was .69, with approximate multivariate F(12, 696, 12) = 8.92, and p = .00.

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage of Bullying Status of BD and Non-BD Groups

Bullying Status       All Participants      BD        Non-BD

Bully                  30 (10.9%)        3 (11.1%)   27 (10.9%)
Victim                 30 (10.9%)        9 (33.3%)   21 (8.5%)
Bully/victim           15 (5.5%)         4 (14.8%)   11 (4.5%)
Non-bully/non-victim  199 (72.6%)       11 (40.7%)  188 (76.1%)

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations of BD and Non-BD Groups by the Bullying
Status and Behavior Pattern Scores

                             Behavior Patterns

Bullying Status          Inattention  Hyperactivity

                         Mean   SD    Mean   SD

BD
Bully                    1.20   .13    .76  .32
Victim                   1.05   .41    .90  .43
Bully/victim             1.31   .40   1.11  .19
Non-bully/ non-victim    1.87   .32    .72  .35

Non-BD
Bully                     .93    .28   .92  .29
Victim                    .62    .34   .61  .32
Bully/victim             1.10    .29   .93  .33
Non-bully/ non-victim     .48    .27   .53  .24

All Participants
Bully 1                   .95    .28   .90  .29
Victim 2                  .75    .41   .70  .38
Bully/victim 3           1.16    .32   .98  .30
Non-bully/ non-victim 4   .50    .29   .55  .25

                               Behavior Patterns

Bullying Status          Withdrawal/Shyness  Prosocial Behavior

                           Mean   SD           Mean    SD

BD
Bully                       .96  .44            .57   .16
Victim                     1.05  .27            .93   .30
Bully/victim                .82  .34            .50   .32
Non-bully/ non-victim       .62  .21           1.18   .22

Non-BD
Bully                       .49  .22           1.08   .31
Victim                      .80  .34           1.15   .27
Bully/victim                .73  .26            .81   .20
Non-bully/ non-victim       .62  .27           1.45   .24

All Participants
Bully 1                     .53  .28           1.03   .33
Victim 2                    .87  .34           1.09   .29
Bully/victim 3              .75  .27            .73   .27
Non-bully/ non-victim 4     .63  .27           1.44   .24

A series of subsequent two-way ANOVAs were performed to determine the interaction effect between bullying status and the presence of BD and the effects of both independent variables on each dependent variable. The main effects of the presence of BD revealed a significant difference between BD and non-BD groups on the three behavior pattern scales: Inattention, F = 21.61, p = .00; Withdrawal/Shyness, F = 9.33, p = .00; and, Prosocial Behavior, F = 29.70, p = .00. The BD group received higher mean ratings than the non-BD group on the Inattention and Withdrawal/Shyness scales. The non-BD group had a higher mean rating than the BD group on the Prosocial Behavior Scale.

The main effect of bullying status revealed significant differences for all four of the behavior pattern scales: Inattention, F = 13.30, p = .00; Hyperactivity, F = 7.24, p = .00; Withdrawal/Shyness, F = 6.46, p = .00; and, Prosocial Behavior, F = 27.94, p = .00. Two-way ANOVAs showed no interaction effect on three behavior pattern scales (i.e., Inattention, Hyperactivity, and Prosocial Behavior) between the presence of BD and bullying status.

The two-way ANOVA results on the Withdrawal/Shyness Scale showed a significant interaction effect between the presence of BD and bullying status (F = 2.72, p = .045) (See Figure 1). A difference was found between BD and non-BD groups on bully and non-bully/non-victim status. This analysis means that the relationship between the presence of BD and bullying status was different for the BD and non-BD groups. The largest mean difference between the BD and non-BD groups was for those with a bully status (BD bully M = .96 vs. non-BD bully M = .49). The BD bully averaged .47 higher than the non-BD bully on the Withdrawal/Shyness Scale. The smallest mean difference occurred for those with a non-bully/non-victim status (BD non-bully/non-victim M = .62 vs. non-BD non-bully/non-victim M = .63). The interaction effect on Withdrawal/Shyness (p = .045) contributed to the significance of interaction in the result of the two-way MANOVA. On the Withdrawal/Shyness Scale, the BD group received higher mean ratings across three bullying statuses - bully, victim, and bully/victim than the non-BD group with an exception of the non-bully/non-victim status (BD M = .62 vs. non-BD M = .62). In both the BD and non-BD groups, the victim status received the highest Withdrawal/Shyness mean ratings (1.05 and .80). In the BD group, the non-bully/non-victim status received the lowest Withdrawal/Shyness mean rating (.62). In the non-BD group, the bully status received the lowest Withdrawal/Shyness mean rating (.49). In general, the data show that students with BD were viewed by peers as more inattentive, hyperactive, and withdrawn/shy than their peers, while students without BD tended to be more prosocial than students with BD.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Discussion

School bullying is a challenging issue of serious concern to students, parents, and educators. This concern is evidenced in the increasing attention that researchers have given to bullying over the past two decades (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Limber et. al., 1998; Olweus, 1978; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). In addition to the catastrophic outcomes that have captured public attention, researchers have found that being bullied by peers is significantly related to negative individual outcomes such as unhappiness, low self-esteem, peer rejection, anxiety, and depression (Rigby, 2003). Moreover, researchers have determined that certain individual characteristics are associated with bully and/or victim status. Nabuzoka (2003) found that aggression and hyperactivity associate with bully status, while shyness, low self-esteem, and disability seem to correlate with victim status.

Although there is some consensus that students with disabilities are overrepresented as victims of bullying (Lyewellyn, 1995; O'Moore & Hillery, 1989; Whitney et. al., 1992), less is known about the degree to which students with BD participate in acts of bullying. The disability category of BD subsumes individual characteristics that include behavior problems, academic difficulties, peer rejection, and/or negative social relationships--all risk factors for bullying. The present study examined the relationship between BD status, bullying status, and related behavioral patterns.

To this end, the first author developed and administered the PRS to 274 preadolescent and adolescent students, 27 of whom had been identified with BD. Frequency distributions indicated that 11% of the students with BD were labeled bullies (vs. 11% of peers), 33% victims (vs. 9% of peers), and 15% bully/victims (vs. 4% of peers). Additionally, the researchers found that although the majority of non-BD students were identified as non-bully/non-victims by their peers (76.1%), about 60 % of students with BD were identified as bullies, victims, or bully/victims. Of these students, over half (n= 9/16) were identified as victims. This finding is consistent with that of earlier studies documenting that students with disabilities were overrepresented as victims of bullying (Lyewellyn, 1995; O'Moore & Hillery, 1989; Whitney et al., 1992). This current finding also extends the available research base by demonstrating that overrepresentation occurs not only for students with learning disabilities, but also for students with BD. More research is necessary to determine whether significant differences exist among these disability areas vis a vis bullying status.

The results of this study also indicated that statistically significant differences exist between bullying status and behavior patterns. Bullies tended to be inattentive and hyperactive with limited pro-social interactions, whereas victims were more withdrawn, inattentive and hyperactive than non-bully/non-victims. Bully/victims were highly inattentive, hyperactive, and aggressive. These results confirm the findings established in previous studies (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1995).

The trend toward increased behavior problems and decreased prosocial skills among students with BD is worthy of note when considering bullying and its prevention. As stated before, disability status puts students at risk for bullying. At the same time, behaviors that are characteristic of BD, such as increased behavior problems and decreased prosocial skills, also put students at risk for bullying behaviors. At present, it is unclear whether the specific behavioral problems associated with BD, if observed and acknowledged through peer ratings, actually put students at greater risk for bullying. More research is needed to explore this relationship; however, these preliminary findings seem to suggest that students with BD may be at increased risk for acts of bullying due to disability status as well as the aforementioned behavioral patterns. Interventions designed to prevent bullying would require a clearer understanding of these risk factors and their interaction.

Additionally, practitioners and researchers attempting to decrease risk for bullying among students with BD may need to consider limitations and deficits specific to BD. Researchers have suggested that if behaviors associated with BD are not changed by third grade, the behaviors should be viewed as chronic and managed accordingly (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Consequently, if researchers are attempting to decrease risk for bullying among students with BD, interventions may need to begin during a critical period when behavioral change is more probable.

Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Conclusion

The results of this study are limited by several factors. First, it is important to note that the current study only examined one of the multiple factors linked to bullying: behavior patterns. Previous studies have reported other risk factors such as school climate, family factors, peer group factors, and personal factors. Thus, it would be erroneous to conclude that bullying among preadolescent and adolescent students was strictly the result of their behavior patterns.

The results of this study are also limited by the use of self- report and peer ratings of the preadolescent and adolescent students who rated themselves and others. In completing the Peer Relationship Survey (PRS), students may have reported information that was inconsistent with their actual experiences. Additionally, although the reliability analysis for internal consistency of all measures on the PRS was shown to be adequate (Thorndike & Hagen, 1977), further research needs to be conducted to firmly establish the values of the psychometric properties of the PRS. Finally, the results of this study cannot be generalized to other preadolescent and adolescent students in other education settings as it was conducted in rural communities in one Midwestern state.

Future research needs to address the relationship between bullying and other key variables such as peer preference and friendship quality. Students with BD are vulnerable and likely to be involved in negative peer interactions and to be rejected by their classmates without disabilities (Salmon et al., 2000). Pellegrin, Bartini, and Brooks (1999) examined the relationship between bullying status and peer status. Their study found that having friends and being liked by one's classmates was a protective factor against victimization. Ability to fit in with peers and popularity play a crucial role in the establishment and maintenance of friendships in adolescence. Thus, educators need to address the social and behavioral needs as well as the academic needs of students with BD in order for these students to succeed in general education classrooms.

One way of obtaining data on peer preference and friendship would be to add items to the PRS that probe this area. Alternatively, observational data might provide a better portrait of the actual social interactions and social status (e.g., peer rejection, peer likeability) of students with and without BD. However, observational data are difficult to collect due to the hidden nature of bullying. Methodologies using video cameras stationed unobtrusively in hallways, lunch rooms, and such locations might be useful for observing situations in which the presence of an adult does not impact student interactions.

In all, the dearth of research related to bullying and students with disabilities is likely to remain an issue that directly or indirectly impedes the provision of a free, appropriate education. With increased placement of students with disabilities, students with BD in particular, in inclusive education settings, identifying protective factors is more critical than ever. Sound, scientifically based prevention and intervention programs individualized to meet the needs of students with BD are sorely needed. Longitudinal studies and studies using multiple modes of data collection are essential for a better understanding of the nature and trajectory of bullying and how it affects the gamut of education and social outcomes for students with BD. Moreover, interventions that effectively prevent and address bullying, rest upon complete and accurate understandings of the nature of bullying across age, setting, and disability status. Research investigating these areas must therefore inform and direct efforts at intervention.

References

Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69(1), 140-153.

Batsche, G. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1994). Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools. School Psychology Review, 23, 165-174.

Bijttebier, P., & Vertommen, H. (1998). Coping with peer arguments in school-age children with bully/victim problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 387-394.

Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 315-329.

Cho, J. (2007). Bullying status and behavior patterns of middle and high school students with and without behavior disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06), 135A (UMI No. 3265937).

DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Miller, A., Noonan, M., Sryder, T. D., et al. (2004). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2004 (NCES 2005-002/NCJ 205290). U.S. Departments of Education and justice. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hawker, D. S., & Bolton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-455.

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazier, R. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16.

Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C, Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vaufas, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002). Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269-278.

Limber, S., Flerx, V., Nation, M., & Melton, G. (1998). Bullying Among School Children in the United States. In M. Watt (Ed.), Contemporary Studies in Sociology (Vol. 18). Stamford, CT: Jai Press Inc.

Lyewellyn, A. (1995). The abuse of children with physical disabilities in mainstream schooling. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37, 740-743.

McCabe, R.E., Antony, M.M., Summerfeldt, L.J., Liss, A., & Swinson, R.P. (2003). Preliminary examination of the relationship between anxiety disorders in adults and self reported history of teasing or bullying experiences. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 32(4), 187-193.

Morrison, G. M., & Furlong, M. J. (1994). Factors associated with the experience of school violence among general education, leadership class, opportunity class, and special day class pupils. Education and Treatment of Children, 17(3), 356-369.

Nabuzoka, D. (2003). Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 307-322.

Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social behavior of children with and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(8), 1435-1448.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Jama: Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying at school. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

O'Moore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1989). Bullying in Dublin Schools. Irish Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 426-441.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357-389.

Pellegrini, A. D., Bartini, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216-224.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canada Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583-590.

Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javaloyes, M. A. (2000). Bullying a review: Presentations to an adolescent psychiatric service and within a school for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 5(4), 563-579.

Salmivalli, C, Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents' participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1268-1278.

Salmivalli, C, & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44.

Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C, & Moody, J. C. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educational Research, 41(3), 267-285.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 239-268.

Thompson, D., Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 9(3), 103-106.

Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1977). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: Wiley.

Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school; Strategies and best practices (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Warden, D. & Mackinnon, S. (2003). Prosocial children, bullies and victims: An investigation of their sociometric status, empathy and social problem-solving strategies. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 367-385.

Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1992). Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special needs. Support for Learning, 7(1), 3-7.

Jeong-il Cho

Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne 

Jo M. Hendrickson

University of Iowa 

Devery R. Mock

Appalachian State University 

Correspondence to to Jeong-il Cho, Dept of Professional Studies, 250 Neff Hall, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805; e-mail: [e-mail].