Victimized for Being Different: Young Adults With Disabilities and Peer Victimization in Middle and High School

Abstract

Children who are victims of peer aggression can suffer negative emotional, academic and physical consequences that can last into adulthood. Previous research indicates children with disabilities are victimized up to 4 times as often as children without disabilities. However, their unique needs are often not considered in the design and implementation of prevention interventions. The current study examined the perceived effects of family, peer, and school support among children with disabilities to protect them from or help them cope with peer victimization. In this retrospective study, college students registered with a university Disability Resource Center (n = 161) completed an electronic survey about their recollections of peer victimization and of factors that protected them during middle and high school. Three subscales of the Social and Emotional Health Survey measured perception of family, peer, and school support. In open-ended questions, students described instances of peer victimization and of protection. Results indicated that two thirds of participants experienced peer victimization. The most frequently reported type of aggression was relational, followed by verbal. Frequency of victimization did not differ by gender. Most participants experienced victimization related to their disabilities or related to a combination of disability with another personal characteristic. Participants who reported higher levels of family and peer support experienced significantly less peer victimization. Coping with victimization took many forms such as withdrawing from peers, listening to music, and mental health treatment. Unexpectedly, some participants reported disability-related victimization from school staff. Findings highlight the high frequency of victimization and the value of educating parents, school personnel, and other students on strategies to support students with disabilities. These strategies could be incorporated into prevention programs.

Keywords

bullying mental health and violence youth violence

Introduction

Peer victimization is frequently perceived as a rite of passage for children and adolescents, yet victimization can have detrimental and sometimes long-lasting negative consequences on the victims (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Schneider, O’Donnell, Stueve, & Coulter, 2012). However, not all children are at equal risk of victimization. Multiple studies indicate that children and adolescents with disabilities are more likely to be victimized than their peers without disabilities (Hartley, Bauman, Nixon, & Davis, 2015; Pittet, Berchtold, Akre, Michaud, & Suris, 2010; Swearer, Wang, Maag, Siebecker, & Frerichs, 2012; Turner, Vanderminden, Finkelhor, Hamby, & Shattuck, 2011; Twyman et al., 2010; Van Cleave & Cornell, 2006). Jones and colleagues (2012) found that children with mental health disabilities or intellectual impairments were 4 times more likely than peers without disabilities to be victims of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse from parents, caregivers, or peers. Despite the known harms and the high frequency of peer victimization of students with disabilities, gaps in the literature remain on how victimization occurs, what may prevent peer victimization from happening, and how parents, peers, and schools can help youth with disabilities cope with victimization.

Theory and research support the importance of having supportive relationships with family, peers, and school staff to decrease peer victimization (Orpinas & Horne, 2006). However, most of this research has been conducted among children without disabilities. The Division of Violence Prevention, within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emphasizes the usefulness of the public health approach to understand and prevent violence (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2015). This approach has four steps: define the problem, identify risk and protective factors, develop and test interventions to address those factors, and assure widespread intervention of successful programs. Given the complexity of risk and protective factors that influence human behavior, researchers have integrated the ecological model to explain the multiple layers of influence on behavior, in this case on whether the student will be the victim of peer aggression (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The ecological model is frequently depicted as a series of concentric circles, with the child at the center and family, peers, school, and community as the outer circles representing the different levels of influence. Within each one of these levels exist risk (increasing the probability of victimization) or protective (decreasing the probability of victimization) factors. Understanding these levels of influence is fundamental to select the best interventions. The present study focuses on three levels within the ecological model: family, peers, and school staff. These multiple levels of influence can combine to produce a sense of well-being or, conversely, increase the risk of victimization.

Family

Families play an vital role in the development of children. According to the ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), family life is essential to understand and modify behaviors; family members not only have a direct influence on the child, but they also interact with the child’s peers and teachers, and may influence the neighborhood and community. These interactions may be especially useful for parents to identify characteristics of the social environment that can lead to peer victimization (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). However, negative family characteristics—lack of parental involvement and supervision, poor parent–child communication, aggression in the family—may place a child at increased risk for victimization (Boel-Studt & Renner, 2014; Orpinas & Horne, 2006). Dysfuctional family life and insecure attachment to the primary caregiver may increase peer victimization (Vissing & Straus, 1991) and relational aggression (Michiels, Grietens, Onghena, & Kuppens, 2008).

Conversely, positive family relationships may protect children from victimization. In a meta-analysis of parenting behavior and victimization, the authors concluded that parental involvement and support, warm and affectionate relationship between parent and child, and good communication protected children against peer victimization (Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Having a positive, supportive relationship with parents reduces children’s associations with delinquent peers and increases the chance that a child will approach his or her parents during times of trouble (Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Novilla, Barnes, De La Cruz, Williams, & Rogers, 2006). However, these effects have been generally small and studies have not been specific to children with disabilities (Lereya et al., 2013).

Peers

As children mature and enter adolescence, they spend less time with their families and more time with peers (Brown & Larson, 2009). These peer relationships become increasingly important during middle and high school. Acceptance by a peer group is one of the most salient protective factors against peer victimization in all age groups: preschool (Odom et al., 2006), elementary school (Serdiouk, Berry, & Gest, 2016), and secondary school (Schafer et al., 2004). In a qualitative interview study of 10 children with disabilities, investigators found that peer support decreased the probability of being victimized by peers and also helped children cope with victimization (Bourke & Burgman, 2010). In a recollection of primary and secondary school, adults who had been frequently victimized by peers also reported feeling lonely and not having friends (Schafer et al., 2004). In a review of the literature specific to students with autism spectrum disorder, the authors concluded that having friends and supportive peers was associated with less victimization (Serdiouk et al., 2016).

School Staff

Given the large amount of time that children spend at school each day, peer victimization researchers must consider sources of support within the school environment that may protect children against peer victimization. Schools with a positive social climate are especially effective at reducing peer victimization (Bosworth & Judkins, 2014; Orpinas & Horne, 2006). A positive school climate is an environment in which students, teachers, and administrators mutually respect and support one another. This respect and support between school staff and students has also been associated with less victimization by peers (Bosworth & Judkins, 2014; Burke, Pardini, & Loeher, 2008; Evans, Smokowski, & Cotter, 2014) and lower school dropout (Orpinas & Raczynski, 2016). Researchers found that Canadian adolescents with stronger feelings of connectedness to their teachers were less involved in peer victimization (Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, & Li, 2010). Conversely, higher levels of cumulative victimization were associated with lower levels of teacher support (Evans et al., 2014).

Current Study

The purpose of the present study is to describe the recollections of university students with disabilities of the peer victimization experienced during middle and high school and identify factors that protected them from victimization. We chose to study middle and high school because of the high prevalence of aggression, particularly in middle school (Nansel et al., 2001), and because these time periods are closer to the age of most college students. Research on peer aggression has shown that recall of peer victimization is reliable (Olweus, 1993; Rivers, 2004). In one study, 23-year-old participants accurately recalled peer victimization in ninth grade (Olweus, 1993). The authors verified the participants’ recollections with parent and teacher reports, and they were strongly associated.

The present study had three objectives. The first objective was to describe the recollections that young adults with disabilities have of the frequency and characteristics of peer victimization during middle and high school. Based on existing studies, we hypothesized that at least 20% of participants would report peer victimization in middle or high school (Blake, Lund, Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). Based on the quantitative portion of the survey, we examined the frequency, timing (middle or high school) and reasons (disability related vs. other reasons) for victimization. Based on the open-ended questions, we provide examples of aggressive behaviors and describe the perceived reasons for being victimized. The second objective was to examine the association between peer victimization and having supportive family, peers, and school staff, using structural equation modeling. The goal was to contribute to theory regarding how family, peer, and school support relate to peer victimization in this population. We expected that all three types of support would be negatively associated with peer victimization. The third objective was to explore two questions from the perspectives of the participants: what experiences helped them cope with peer victimization and what protected them from peer victimization during middle or high school. To answer these questions, we used qualitative analysis of open-ended questions.

Method

Design and Sample

We invited all students who subscribed to the email listserv of the Disability Resource Center at a large southeastern university to participate in the online survey. This center serves approximately 1,500 undergraduate and graduate students with a range of physical, mental health, and medical disabilities. The online survey assessed retrospectively peer victimization during middle and high school, factors that are theorized to protect students from peer victimization, and characteristics of the disability. In addition to the scales designed to measure each construct, the survey included open-ended questions about peer victimization and protection from victimization. The inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older, having a diagnosed disability, and being a student at the university. No disabilities were excluded. History of peer victimization was not a requirement to participate in the study.

A total of 161 participants started the survey. Of these students, 29 (20%) self-identified as male, 114 (78%) as female, and three (2%) as transgender; 15 students did not report their gender. The majority of participants were White (n = 118; 87% of those who reported their race; 14 students did not disclose their race), which is slightly higher than the overall proportion of White students enrolled at the university (72%). The majority of respondents were full-time students (90%) and over half (56%) were not employed. The mean age of the sample was 22.4 years (SD = 6.0). The majority of the participants were of traditional college age (73% between 18 and 24 years old; 17% older than 24 years; 10% did not provide their age); we did not ask students whether they were an undergraduate or graduate student.

Table 1 summarizes the disability diagnoses that participants reported. The most prevalent categories were Psychological Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Learning Disabilities. On average, participants reported 2.2 (SD = 1.5) disability diagnoses.

Table 1.

Disability Diagnoses.

University Disability Documentation Category	Study Sample		DRC Population	Age of Diagnosis
University Disability Documentation Category	n	%	%	M (SD)
Psychological disorder	63	45	25	17.1 (7.9)
ADHD	61	42	44	15.4 (8.5)
Learning disability	45	32	20	14.1 (6.9)
Systemic disorder	43	31	12	12.4 (5.8)
Mobility disorder	27	19	6	14.4 (11.7)
Sensory processing disorder	21	16	N/A	11.5 (13.8)
Acquired brain injury	18	13	9	13.8 (7.8)
Pervasive developmental disorder	13	9	2	12.2 (10.6)
Other	21	16	N/A	12.9 (7.3)

Note. Participants could report more than one disability; thus, percentages do not add to 100%. ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; DRC = Disability Resource Center.

Recruitment

The Institutional Review Board of the university approved all study procedures. The Disability Resource Center maintains a listserv of the students they serve and sends regular announcements. For this study, a letter of support from the listserv administrator accompanied the link to the survey. The survey was anonymous, and students signed an online consent form before starting the survey.

Measures

The survey queried participants about peer victimization, protective factors, and demographic and disability-related information.

Retrospective recollection of peer victimization

Retrospective Recollection of Peer victimization was measured using the Retrospective Peer victimization Scale (six items; α = .87) (Schafer et al., 2004). It measures the frequency of being the target of physical (being hit, punched, or shoved; stolen from), verbal (being called bad names, being threatened), and relational (having lies or rumors told, being deliberately excluded) aggression. Participants were instructed to recollect incidents that occurred during the period in which they were enrolled in middle and high school. The location of the victimization (i.e., school grounds, neighborhood) was not assessed. Questions were slightly adapted for the U.S. population. For example, “having lies or nasty rumors told about you behind your back” was changed to “having lies or bad rumors told about you behind your back.” One question was added to capture incidents of electronic peer victimization: “being called bad names, being threatened, or having lies or bad rumors told about you through an electronic source (e.g., email, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, or texting).” Another question was added to capture additional forms of peer victimization: “other problematic behavior (please specify).” Response categories were never, rarely, sometimes, frequently, and constantly, ranging from 0 to 4, with an additional open-ended space to elaborate. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, for the current sample of this eight-item scale was .88. The scale was calculated as an average of all items with higher values indicating more peer victimization.

Two additional questions related to peer victimization were added. One question asked whether the participant believed the peer victimization was related to disability status: “Do you think the peer victimization you experienced was related to your disability?” Response categories were as follows: Yes, it was related to my disability; No, it was related to other things (for example, being LGBT or being overweight); Yes, it was related to my disability and other things too; and I did not experience any problematic behavior in middle or high school. If participants selected either of the yes options, they were prompted to describe what happened. An additional question captured the time frame in which the peer victimization occurred: “During what time in your life did this peer victimization occur?” Response categories were as follows: It did not happen, mostly in middle school, mostly in high school, both middle and high school, and other (please specify).

Protective factors

Protective factors were measured with three subscales of the Social and Emotional Health Survey: perception of family support (three items, for example, “My family members really help and support one another”), peer support (three items, for example, “I had a friend my age who really cared about me”), and school support (three items, for example, “In my high school, there was a teacher or other adult who listened to me when I had something to say”) (Furlong, You, Renshaw, Smith, & O’Malley, 2013). Three additional questions, developed for this survey, queried participants about family, peer, and school support for their disability (e.g., “my parents or guardians had a good understanding of my disability”). Response categories were not at all true, a little true, pretty much true, and very much true, ranging from 0 to 3. Internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .79 for school support and .85 for both family and peer support.

Coping and protection

Two open-ended questions prompted students to expound on factors that helped them cope with peer victimization and factors that protected them from peer victimization in middle or high school.

Demographic information

Participants reported their age, gender, race, type of school attended (public or private), employment status, geographic location (urban or rural), diagnosed disability (with the option to include more than one diagnosis), and age at diagnosis for each disability.

Data Analysis

To address the first objective (frequency and characteristics of peer victimization), we reported frequencies of each behavior, reasons for, and timing of victimization (middle or high school). To obtain a single measure of peer victimization, we took the following steps. First, each aggression variable was dichotomized into: no peer victimization (never/rarely) and peer victimization (sometimes/frequently/constantly). The never/rarely group was defined as not experiencing peer victimization. Second, the dichotomized items were summed and these scores were then dichotomized into no peer victimization (score of 0) and peer victimization (summed score of 1 or more).

To address the second objective, we used structural equation modeling to examine the relation between peer victimization and having supportive family, peers, and school staff. Analyses were run in SPSS 23 and Mplus 6. For all structural equation modeling analyses, we used MLR, a maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors, and the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) approach to estimation with missing values. Two records were removed from the analysis because they did not have any values for the dependent variable (peer victimization). Otherwise, missing values were minimal. The final sample size for these analyses was 159.

First, we estimated a measurement model relating survey items of the measures of family, peer, and school support. This model is akin to conducting a three-factor confirmatory factor analysis. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square fit index, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The null hypothesis for the chi-square fit index tests is that the population covariance matrix is equal to the model-implied covariance matrix; a nonsignificant chi-square value is desirable. CFI is an incremental fit index that compares the improvement in fit of the tested model versus a baseline model; a cutoff value of close to .95 is recommended, with higher values indicating better fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998). RMSEA is a measure of lack of fit; values below .06 are desirable, and values between .06 and .08 are acceptable (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). SRMR is an index that adjusts for parsimony; recommended values are less than .09 (Hu & Bentler, 1998).

Next, we estimated the full structural equation model, which includes the measurement model, along with a structural model, equivalent to a path model, relating the protective factors to peer victimization. We evaluated overall model fit and examined parameter estimates for the path values. We hypothesized that family, peer, and school support would all be negatively associated with reports of peer victimization.

We used thematic analysis to identify themes from open-ended questions. Thematic analysis is a process of encoding qualitative information (Obradovic, Shaffer, & Masten, 2012). We approached the thematic analysis both deductively and inductively. Some themes (e.g., family, peer, and school support) were deduced from review of the literature and professional experience. Using induction, we allowed the remaining theme development to be driven by the content of the data. The open-ended questions included on the survey were coded using in vivo coding methods. Some codes were generated from the data using terms from participants (e.g., “blending in” to avoid victimization and gain peer acceptance) and other codes were influenced by the literature (i.e., family, peer, and school support). To increase reliability, codes were checked by three researchers with experience in qualitative analysis.

Results

Frequency and Characteristics of Peer Victimization

Frequency

Overall, 68.4% of participants experienced some form of peer aggression. Table 2 details the responses to each of the seven types of aggression, as well as those who reported “other” forms of peer victimization. The most common form of victimization (experienced sometimes, frequently, or constantly) was relational aggression, such as being deliberately excluded from social groups (53%) and having lies or rumors told about them (46%). Note that one in eight students reported that being excluded from social groups happened constantly. A third (37%) of participants reported being victims of verbal aggression, and one fifth (20%) reported being victimized using electronic media, such as email, social websites, or texting. The least common forms of victimization were physical aggression (9%), being stolen from (11%), or being threatened (11%), but still approximately one in 10 students experienced these types of violence.

Table 2.

Frequency of Aggression Victimization.

Aggression Type	Never %	Rarely %	Sometimes %	Frequently %	Constantly %
Being hit, punched, or shoved	78.0	12.6	7.5	1.9	0.0
Stolen from	64.6	24.1	10.8	0.6	0.0
Being called bad names	38.4	24.5	20.1	11.9	5.0
Being threatened	72.8	15.8	8.9	2.5	0.0
Having lies or bad rumors told	32.9	20.9	25.3	14.6	6.3
Being deliberately excluded	28.3	18.2	28.9	12.6	11.9
Being bullied via electronics	61.4	19.0	15.2	3.2	1.3
Other	59.5	16.5	15.8	5.1	3.2

“Other” victimizations

Forty percent (n = 64) of students reported being victims of other forms of aggression; of these participants, 46 explained what happened. Relational aggression was the most common form of aggression cited in this question (n = 22). Several students reported being left out: “[I was] excluded from friend groups, looked at differently” and “people went out of their way to exclude me . . . people would organize events and tell me the wrong day or place deliberately.” Several participants reported rumors about faking their disability: “rumors were spread that I was making up my disability to get attention and that I was faking it” and “some of my peers believed I was faking or exaggerating my disability and would tell this to others so they would not support me or include me.” Seventeen participants reported instances of verbal aggression. Examples were “I was made fun of, called “weird.” I didn’t have a lot of friends. They laughed at me if I tripped due to my disability.” Another student stated, “[I was] constantly being told I was stupid because I couldn’t understand concepts or focus during class.” One female student said, “[they were] calling names, making up mean nicknames.” Several participants reported threats of violence and such as “one girl continuously threatened to kill me during seventh grade.” Fourteen students reported instances of physical aggression. Examples of physical aggression were tripping, having personal belongings vandalized, and “pulling hair on the bus, trying to pull off hair pieces worn to cover my hair loss.” Some participants (n = 12) reported multiple types of aggression. One participant with a mobility impairment stated,

Since I’m in a wheelchair, backpacks were constantly shoved in my face, I was cussed at when people ran into me, and when I asked politely for someone to get something for me, there was normally a negative attitude with it.

Reasons for victimization

One third of students (n = 50; 32%) reported no peer victimization behaviors during middle and high school. Of the students who did report peer victimization (n = 107), 15% reported that the aggression was related to their disability, 45% reported that the aggression was related to their disability and other things, and 40% reported that it was not related to their disability. Four students did not indicate the reasons for the victimization. A second open-ended question prompted students to explain why they thought they experienced these aggressive behaviors. Of the 96 participants who answered this question, 55 stated that their disability was a reason for experiencing aggressive behavior. Sometimes the aggression was clearly about disability, such as making fun of someone for having seizures or walking differently. Sometimes participants were targeted because of the way they acted, most often those who had “invisible” disabilities such as Autism Spectrum Disorder or ADHD. Several participants reported their disability influenced the way they acted in class, which made them a target:

I acted out in class when I didn’t want to work. Many things stressed me so I tried to control the rest of the world around me to manage my stress. Bullies found it humorous. I was always the last one to finish in class, on either quizzes, assignments, or busy work. Other peers would get frustrated, and it was embarrassing. Also, emotionally along with mentally, I was not as mature as others my age so I was picked on multiple times.

Several participants described having difficulty with social interaction due to their disability, which resulted in peer victimization: “I have Asperger’s, so I really struggle with social interactions.” Another reinforced the problems with social interactions, “I was shy and quiet. I was really awkward in middle school and had trouble fitting in, relating to other students” and “I believe I experienced those things because my severe anxiety made me an easy target.”

Three participants who identified as transgender reported that their gender identity was a component of the peer victimization they experienced. For example, one student with ADHD stated:

I received harassment often for my gender and sexuality in addition to my disabilities. Male classmates would often harass me, tease me, and make purposeful statements in class to upset me. They would instigate arguments or act difficult during group projects, then blame me for lack of participation. Because I was being “mean” to them. I experienced them speaking loudly about me, calling me names such as “bitch.” Female classmates would speak directly to my friends about how much they disliked me and would act cold toward me even though I was polite. I was called names, threatened, and generally harassed throughout middle and high school.

Timing of peer victimization

Among students who reported being victims of peer victimization, the majority reported that they had experienced peer victimization in middle school (38%) or both middle and high school (28%). Less than one fourth of students (22%) reported being victims only in high school. An additional, 12% reported “other” time period. In an open-ended question, a few students commented that the peer victimization happened mostly in elementary school, and a few indicated that peer victimization also happened in college.

Association Between Peer Victimization and Family, Peers, and School Support

Both the measurement model and structural equation models had an acceptable fit. For the measurement model, the chi-square value was significant, and the CFI value (.93) was slightly lower than the recommended .95 cutoff (CFI is known to somewhat over-reject models at sample sizes >250; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values of RMSEA (.08) and SRMR (.07) were acceptable. Because the fit of the measurement model was acceptable, we next estimated the full (measurement + structural) model. For the full model, the chi-square value was also significant, and the CFI value (.93) was somewhat low. RMSEA (.08) and SRMR (.07) met the criteria for acceptable fit.

Figure 1 presents the full model and salient parameter estimates for the substantive analyses. The standardized estimate relating family support to peer victimization was −.291 (p = .001), indicating that higher levels of family support were associated with lower levels of peer victimization. A similar negative association with peer victimization was also observed for peer support (−.164, p = .05). The path value for school support was also negative but nonsignificant at an alpha level of .05 (−.147, p = .072).

Figure 1.

Relation of protective factors to peer victimization.

Family support, peer support, and school support were significantly and positively correlated with each other. The correlation between peer support and school support (r = .539) was stronger than the correlation between family support and school support (r = .259) and between family support and peer support (r = .229).

We further explored the data to examine whether there was a relation between gender, race, and current age and the variables in the model. For gender and race, there were no significant correlations with any variables in the model. For current age, several variables were significant, with respondents who were of traditional college age reporting better relationships with their families (all four items), more supportive relationships at school (two items), and less victimization (four items) than nontraditional students (i.e., older than 24). We ran the structural equation modeling analysis with age as a covariate, but the fit of the model substantially worsened (fit indices penalize for lack of parsimony).

Coping and Protection

As part of the electronic survey, participants answered two open-ended questions that prompted them to describe what experiences helped them cope with peer victimization, when it did occur, and what protected them from peer victimization during middle or high school.

Experiences that helped cope with peer victimization

Participants were prompted to answer the question, If you did experience aggressive behaviors in middle school or high school, what helped you cope? The most commonly reported coping mechanisms were support from friends and support from family. Of the 91 participants who answered this question, 22 mentioned friends as a coping mechanism for peer victimization. One young woman with a psychological disability recalled, “My friends were also very understanding and helped me by coping with humor. My friends and I came up with jokes about my disabilities and sexuality that made it easy to laugh about the experiences I had in school.” Family support was commonly reported as a big help to cope (n = 34). One female participant with multiple disabilities (ADHD, psychological and sensory impairments) stated that the support from her family was one of the only things to give her hope that things would get better:

Mental strength and my parents. No matter how much I got in trouble or how much my parents talked trash about each other, my stepfather, father, and mother all supported me and praised me for my talents. They were always there for me. So even though I had no one else, I had my family. They saw my potential and always reminded me of it, giving me hope that someday things would be better.

Other reported copings mechanisms ranged from extreme actions like changing schools (n = 1) or withdrawing from peers (n = 13; for example, “being a recluse”) to everyday activities that made participants feel better, specifically listening to music (n = 7), receiving mental health treatment such as medication or psychotherapy (n = 5), reading (n = 5), having a religious faith (n = 4), participating in sports (n = 4), journaling (n = 3), and having pets (n = 1).

Some participants (n = 10) reported that their experiences exceeded their ability to cope. For some, this resulted in increased depression. For example, one female participant with bipolar disorder said, “Eventually a suicide attempt was the ultimate form of coping” and “I was really depressed. I would try different methods; some I wasn’t so proud of. Mostly though I would sit alone in my room and listen to music and read books. Anything that would make me forget my reality.” For other participants, this resulted in externalizing symptoms such as “I would just get worse and throw a fit” and

I learned how to fight, and started standing up to people that were abusing me. When it became too much trouble to bother about, I got left alone. It wasn’t an ideal solution, because it made me appear to be a troublemaker in the eyes of adults, but it was short lived, and short-term problems with adults was better to me at the time than constant harassment.

Finally, a few participants (n = 5) reported that nothing helped them cope.

Experiences that protected from peer victimization

Several participants reported that they did not experience aggression during middle and high school (n = 12). For those participants who did experience victimization, three themes emerged from the 89 responses to this question: friends, family, and school. Friends were mentioned in 26 separate answers. One young man with a chronic medical condition indicated, “I experienced very little aggressive behavior mostly because I had a lot of friends that would back me up if I ever felt uncomfortable in a situation.” Another male participant with a Learning Disability and ADHD reported having close, consistent friends was helpful:

I had a close group of friends that I grew up with. Those friendships were consistent throughout middle school and high school. We lived near each other and I suppose we were fairly popular. We were all fairly athletic and we participated on the school sports teams, which gave us a larger group of friends.

In addition to peers, family was cited (n = 7) as a source of protection from peer victimization. Several participants mentioned having a popular older sibling at the same school to be helpful, including one young woman with a psychological disability: “I also had a popular older brother (he was two grades above me at school), which I think was helpful.” Another participant with a pervasive developmental disorder, a chronic medical disability, and a learning disability stated, “My older sister absorbed a lot of it [peer victimization] for me. She basically had an intimidation campaign against my bullies in high school.” Participants reported protection from victimization when parents encouraged them to find areas in which they were successful and would be accepted by peers:

Swimming! That I was successful at, and my parents encouraged me in school [to swim] and expected me to succeed. In doing so, they never brought up my deafness but held me to a higher standard than they would hold anyone to. It helped me to forget about it.

Several participants recognized that the school climate and school rules played a role in their protection from victimization (n = 11). For example, one respondent with a psychological disability and a chronic illness described the school as having: “ . . . a very strict no tolerance policy.” Another student reinforced this point, “Strict school rules. A general school culture that didn’t promote peer victimization. If people could actually connect the dots and realize that something was bully-type behavior, it would be seen by pretty much everyone as bad form.” However, school policies did not cover all types of peer victimization behavior: “Rumors, however, were common and not something a person could be penalized for.”

In addition to family, peer, and school support, participants reported many other sources of protection from victimization including staying quiet or purposefully avoiding socializing (n = 8), participating in sports (n = 6), and ignoring the bully (n = 4). Some participants felt protected because they had social skills (n = 15):

Despite my illnesses, I’ve been blessed with a good nature, wit, and a natural athletic ability (you wouldn’t think it, look at me) and never had problems making friends even despite my illnesses and the fact that I moved away from friends in both middle and high-school.

Others were able to stand up for themselves (n = 5). For example, one young man with ADHD reported that aggression was his method of standing up for himself: “I am a very independent and aggressive person myself. In no way did I use that aggression upon others, but if they used aggression on me, I stood up for myself.” Two participants reported not knowing what protected them from victimization.

Additional themes from open-ended questions

Five themes emerged during the analysis of the open-ended survey questions. These themes were not specifically addressed in the survey, yet emerged in the narratives of participants. The themes were normalizing aggression, difficulty with advocacy, lack of peer understanding of disability, blending in with peers to gain peer acceptance, and lack of support from school staff.

Normalizing of aggression

Some participants (n = 10) tended to normalize the aggression they experienced. For example, one young woman with a chronic medical condition wrote that aggression was a normal thing to experience in middle school, “It was middle school, things happen” and several other participants wrote, “boys will be boys” and “girls will be girls.”

Difficulty with advocacy

Sometimes disability characteristics made advocacy difficult (n = 10), as the statement from this female participant with Generalized Anxiety Disorder illustrates, “My paralysis regarding social events and people made me the easiest target, and I was too terrified to stand up for myself.” However, parents played a role in their children’s ability to advocate for themselves. For example, several participants reported that when they saw their parents stand up for them, they found the voice needed to do the same.

Lack of peer understanding of disability

Some participants felt their peers did not understand their disability (n = 49). Due to lack of understanding, they were excluded because peers did not know how to accommodate their disability:

Deafness affects people socially. A few boys called me names in middle school (but I didn’t hear them, others filled me in) but the bigger issue was exclusion. It is extra work to make sure the “deaf girl” can hear what’s going on, to make her feel welcome, and to consider if she would even have fun doing whatever it was they were planning to do. I think it was easier for them to just not invite me than to try and work out the details. Honestly, while it was hurtful, I probably would have done the same thing.

Participants with invisible disabilities (e.g., type 1 diabetes, ADHD, and learning disabilities) experienced ostracism from peers who thought they were trying to avoid work or school responsibilities: “Some of my peers believed I was faking or exaggerating my disability and would tell this to others so they would not support me or include me.”

Blending in

One frequently occurring theme among participants was “blending in” to fit in with peers (n = 26). One young man with an undisclosed disability stated, “I tried my best to hide my disability at all times”; another stated, “My goal was to not be noticed by anyone.” For some participants, this strategy led to social isolation: “My disability was never an issue because I hid it for various reasons. This led to a lot of isolation and other issues, but was necessary.” For some participants with invisible disabilities, blending in resulted in more friendships as “nobody could tell I was different.”

Lack of support from school staff

An unexpected theme from the open-ended questions was related to negative interactions with and lack of support from school staff including teachers and administrators (n = 6). Some participants reported lack of support for their disability-related needs from school staff members: “Teachers were also unfair and used hurtful words too often, they didn’t understand or care that I took longer to understand and got frustrated with me, yelling and giving up on teaching me.” Some reported hostility from school staff when they tried to advocate for their disabilities. For example, one participant with mobility impairments was excluded from many school activities and when she confronted school staff, “nothing was done and no one cared.”

Discussion

Children and youth with disabilities suffer an inordinate amount of peer victimization at school (Hartley et al., 2015; Pittet et al., 2010; Swearer et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2011; Twyman et al., 2010; Van Cleave & Cornell, 2006). The purpose of this study was to describe the recollections of college students of the peer victimization they experienced in middle and high school; examine associations between family, peer, and school support and victimization; and describe the participants’ perceptions of what helped them cope with victimization and what protected them from victimization. Data came from an online survey conducted at a Southeastern university that included scales to measure family, peer and school protection, as well as open-ended questions that allowed to capture the lived experience of participants. Results of this study highlight the importance of protective factors in understanding peer victimization and in helping youth with disabilities cope with peer victimization.

The first objective was to describe the frequency and characteristics of peer victimization that participants experienced. The frequency was very high: Two thirds of participants reported being the victim of peer victimization sometimes, frequently, or constantly. Compared with the national averages, which have a range of 20% to 26%, our frequencies were very high (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; Jenkins Tucker, Finkelhor, Turner, & Shattuck, 2014; Schneider et al., 2012). Although the time frame (i.e., middle and high school) was vast, this high frequency is concerning. Students did not report a count of times it happened, rather their perception of how frequently it occurred, which may help explain the high proportion of students reporting victimization. The measure of peer victimization was conservative, as we did not consider the response category rarely as peer victimization. It is possible, however, that students who had experienced peer victimization were more interested in completing the survey. In spite of these caveats, our survey results are in line with national and international studies supporting that students with disabilities experience high rates of physical, verbal, and relational peer victimization (Hartley et al., 2015; Pittet et al., 2010; Swearer et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2011; Twyman et al., 2010; Van Cleave & Cornell, 2006).

Two thirds of students reported that victimization occurred in middle school, which is consistent with studies of the general population, showing high levels of victimization in middle school and tapering off in high school (Craig et al., 2009; Orpinas & Horne, 2006). However, the proportion of students reporting victimization in high school, half of them, was also very high and unexpected. The present study did not specify grade levels, which could have clarified whether the victimization occurred mostly in early high school (i.e., ninth grade) or throughout the 4 years.

In addition to the quantitative findings, this study provides a rich description of the characteristics of the peer victimization. A large number of students wrote comments in the open-ended questions describing the victimization they endured. Most notable are the descriptions of violence related to the disability. Almost two thirds of respondents who were victimized indicated their victimization was related to their disability alone or to the disability plus another personal characteristic. The reported victimization was relational, verbal, and physical. Schools should pay particular attention to disability-related victimization not only because it is mean but also because it violates students’ civil rights. Schools are required by federal antidiscrimination laws (e.g., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 29 U.S.C § 794) to take measures to stop this victimization. Educators should directly ask students about peer victimization. Learning what specific behaviors to watch for will help school personnel to identify and address behaviors in a timely manner. The descriptions of victimization are a unique aspect of our study and add a depth of understanding to the literature.

The second objective was to examine the association of family, peer, and school support with peer victimization among students with disabilities in middle and high school. Using structural equation modeling, we confirmed that higher levels of family and peer support were associated with lower levels of victimization. Family support had the strongest association with low levels of victimization, followed by peers. The relation between school support and victimization was nonsignificant, which was unexpected. However, the greater influence of family and peers is supported by an ecological perspective, which posits a stronger influence of those who are closer to the individual (Sallis & Owen, 2015). Responses to the open-ended survey questions provided a better understanding of how these groups were supportive including nurturing talents and encouraging students to participate in activities (e.g., sports, joining school clubs) that increased confidence. Interestingly, students gave more examples of peer support than family support, which may be due to the heightened importance of peer acceptance and support during this period of development. The exploratory finding that older students reported slightly more victimization may reflect a cohort effect, in which schools over time have become more prepared to prevent and stop these behaviors.

The third objective was to explore from the perspectives of participants the experiences that helped them cope with or avoid peer victimization, based on the open-ended questions. Two themes emerged: family protection from parents and siblings and peer support. Parents play a central role in the lives of their children, and that relationship influences children’s social, emotional, and school functioning (Murray & Greenberg, 2006); parental support has been associated with less depression among student victimized by peers (Conners-Burrow, Johnson, Whiteside-Mansell, McKelvey, & Gargus, 2009). Participants described how parental support helped prevent victimization, a relationship supported by the literature (Boel-Studt & Renner, 2014; Michiels et al., 2008; Vissing & Straus, 1991). Participants highlighted one important process through which this happened: confidence to advocate for themselves by observing their parents’ advocacy, an effect supported by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). Participants reported advocating for themselves in victimization situations and for their disability-related needs. Additional forms of family support were parents’ role in encouraging advocacy, parents believing in them, and families that encourage them to participate in activities in which they can excel. Research indicates that parental support can protect students from peer victimization, and can buffer against the negative effects of victimization (Conners-Burrow et al., 2009). Several students in this study reported that because they had the support of their family, they were better able to advocate for themselves when victimized. Participants who reported experiencing more family support reported to be more effective at advocating for their disability-related needs.

In addition to parents, siblings played an important role; having an older sibling or relative at the same school was seen as an advantage and protected participants from peer victimization. Indeed, this concept is supported in the literature on sibling relationships among children with disabilities (Tsao, Davenport, & Schmiege, 2012). Siblings who are socially skilled can facilitate interactions among the youth with a disability and peers. These siblings play an enormous role in the lives of children with disabilities, serving as a teacher, a caregiver, a model for appropriate behavior in social situations, and someone with whom the child can confide (Brody, 2004). More research is needed to understand how this role as protector may help or hinder the development of the child with a disability.

Peers were supportive because they intervened when peer victimization was taking place and provided protection to reduce victimization (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Fox & Boulton, 2006; Odom et al., 2006; Schafer et al., 2004; Serdiouk et al., 2016). They used strategies such as humor to help participants cope with peer victimization. In terms of school support, most participants stated that a positive school climate was important to prevent victimization. Participants who felt support from their school reported that school was a safe place where peer victimization was not acceptable.

School policies also played a role in protection from victimization. Several participants highlighted the value of having a school that had clear rules against peer victimization. Research indicates that schools with a positive school climate, in which students and adults have a mutually respectful relationship, have lower rates of peer victimization (Bosworth, Orpinas, & Hein, 2009; Orpinas & Raczynski, 2016). Unfortunately, some participants felt victimized or misunderstood by school personnel. This finding was unexpected and was not something included in the electronic survey. However, several participants described this victimization from the adults in the school. Participants reported difficulty getting the needed accommodations at school and having to argue with administration to get services for which they were legally entitled under their 504 plan. This victimization from adults in school settings has not been studied as widely as peer violence.

The present study highlights the need to develop a peer victimization scale designed specifically for youth with disabilities. The measure of peer victimization did not include disability-related items. We found that in 60% of those who reported victimization, the aggression was related to their disability. This study provides examples of how participants were ridiculed or left out of groups due to their disability. Furthermore, studies of children with disabilities should include victimization and neglect from adults and from the school system. In developing a survey, researchers must find a balance between being inclusive of possible aggressive behaviors and the length of the survey. Long surveys are a problem to all students, but may be particularly onerous for youth with cognitive disabilities. In our study, we used the open-ended question to achieve this balance. Open-ended questions provided a rich description of the problems students encountered and allowed them to have their voices heard.

Research indicates that disability-related support from adults at school can have a profound influence on the physical and mental well-being of children with disabilities. In a study of middle school students with type 1 diabetes, those students who attended a school in which school personnel received training on type 1 diabetes controlled their diabetes more effectively (Wagner, Heapy, James, & Abbott, 2006). Students whose classmates received training on diabetes reported higher quality of life than students with untrained classmates. Several participants felt protected from peer victimization based on the type of school they attended.

This study had some limitations. Most of the respondents were female (78%) and White (87% of those who disclosed race); more information on peer victimization of male students and non-White students is needed. The study population was composed of students at one public university, and was based on 161 respondents of 1,500 students who used the Disability Resource Center. These respondents may have self-selected because their experiences of victimization were particularly memorable. Of the students diagnosed with a disability during their K-12 education, approximately one-third enrolled in a postsecondary educational institution (“Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,” 2004). Because the sample for the present study was functioning well enough to gain admittance into a selective university, it is possible that they have more protective factors than students with disabilities who did not attend college. Furthermore, the present sample was selected from students who were registered with the Disability Resource Center. In a meta-analysis of help-seeking behaviors among postsecondary students, Trammel and Hathaway (2007) found that only 40% of students who received disability accommodations in high school did so at the postsecondary level. Therefore, university students not registered at the Disability Resource Center did not have a chance to participate in this study. Finally, the cross sectional design of this study limited our ability to predict what factors resulted in decreased rates of victimization (Mann, 2003).

To conclude, this study provides a comprehensive overview of factors that are theorized to protect children with disabilities from peer victimization at each level of the ecological model. Participants reported how family, peer, and school support played a major role in coping with and avoiding peer victimization. The online survey provided an estimate of the high frequency of the problem and of the strength of the association between protective factors and peer victimization, while the open-ended responses provided context and understanding of the students’ experiences. Information gained from this study could be used to inform interventions for family, peers, and school officials. These educational components could reduce stigma associated with the disability, help give people a language with which they can communicate with the students who have disabilities, and establish clear school policies that enhance a positive school climate. This study clearly demonstrated a need for more research into peer victimization among this population.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Caroline I. McNicholas, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Science at Towson University. The focus of her research is prevention of peer victimization, dating violence, and child maltreatment, mental health promotion, and violence toward people with disabilities.

Pamela Orpinas, PhD, MPH, is a professor in the Department of Health Promotion and Behavior at the College of Public Health, University of Georgia. Her research focuses on adolescent and family health, longitudinal examination of adolescent risk behaviors, and prevention of youth violence.

Katherine Raczynski, PhD, is director of the Safe and Welcoming Schools project in the College of Education at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on school climate, bullying, and peer victimization, with a particular emphasis on early prevention.

References

Arseneault

Bowes

Shakoor

(2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717-729. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991383

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barnes

G. M.

Farrell

M. P.

(1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 763-776.

Berthold

K. A.

Hoover

J. H.

(2000). Correlates of bullying and victimization among intermediate students in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 21, 65-78.

Blake

J. J.

Lund

E. M.

Zhou

Kwok

Benz

(2012). National prevalence rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 210-222.

Boel-Studt

Renner

L. M.

(2014). Child and family-level correlates of direct and indirect peer victimization among children ages 6-9. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 1051-1060.

Bollmer

J. M.

Milich

Harris

M. J.

Maras

M. A.

(2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701-712.

Bosworth

Judkins

(2014). Tapping into the power of school climate to prevent bullying: One application of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Theory Into Practice, 53, 300-307.

Bosworth

Orpinas

Hein

(2009). Development of a positive school climate. In Kenny

M. E.

Horne

A. M.

Orpinas

Reese

L. E.

(Eds.), Realizing social justice: The challenge of preventive interventions (pp. 229-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

10.

Bourke

Burgman

(2010). Coping with bullying in Australian schools: How children with disabilities experience support from friends, parents and teachers. Disability & Society, 25, 359-371.

11.

Brody

G. H.

(2004). Siblings’ direct and indirect contributions to child development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 124-126.

12.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Lerner

Stenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 74-102). New York, NY: John Wiley.

14.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, VA: Sage.

15.

Burke

J. D.

Pardini

D. A.

Loeher

(2008). Reciprocal relationships between parenting and disruptive psychopathology from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 679-692.

16.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Youth risk behavior survey. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/yrbs

17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, & National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2015). The public health approach to violence prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/publichealthapproach.html

18.

Conners-Burrow

N. A.

Johnson

D. L.

Whiteside-Mansell

McKelvey

Gargus

R. A.

(2009). Adults matter: Protecting children from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 593-604.

19.

Craig

Harel-Fisch

Fogel-Grinvald

Dostaler

Hetland

Simons-Morton

, . . . HBSC Bullying Writing Group. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216-224.

20.

Evans

C. B. R.

Smokowski

P. R.

Cotter

K. L.

(2014). Cumulative bullying victimization: An investigation of the dose-response relationship between victimization and the associated mental health outcomes, social supports, and school experiences of rural adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 256-264.

21.

Fox

C. L.

Boulton

M. J.

(2006). Friendship as a moderator of the relationship between social skills problems and peer victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 110-121.

22.

Furlong

M. J.

You

Renshaw

T. L.

Smith

D. C.

O’Malley

M. D.

(2013). Preliminary development and validation of the Social and Emotional Health Survey for secondary school students. Social Indicators Research, 117, 1011-1032. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0373-0

23.

Hartley

M. T.

Bauman

Nixon

C. L.

Davis

(2015). Comparative study of bullying victimization among students in general and special education. Exceptional Children, 81, 176-193.

24.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.

25.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

26.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004).

27.

Jenkins Tucker

Finkelhor

Turner

Shattuck

. (2014). Sibling and peer victimization in childhood and adolescence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 1599-1606.

28.

Jones

Bellis

M. A.

Wood

Hughes

McCoy

Eckley

. . . Officer

(2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Lancet, 380, 899-907.

29.

Konishi

Hymel

Zumbo

(2010). Do school bullying and student-teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel analysis. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25, 19-39.

30.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

31.

Lereya

S. T.

Samara

Wolke

(2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091-1108.

32.

Mann

C. J.

(2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medical Journal, 20, 54-60.

33.

Michiels

Grietens

Onghena

Kuppens

(2008). Parent–child interactions and relational aggression in peer relationships. Developmental Review, 28, 522-540.

34.

Murray

Greenberg

M. T.

(2006). Examining the importance of social relationships and social contexts in the lives of children with high-incidence disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 220-233.

35.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth—Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100.

36.

Novilla

M. L.

Barnes

M. D.

De La Cruz

N. G.

Williams

P. N.

Rogers

(2006). Public health perspectives on the family: An ecological approach to promoting health in the family and community. Family and Community Health, 29, 28-42.

37.

Obradovic

Shaffer

Masten

A. S.

(2012). Adversity and risk in developmental psychopathology: Progress and future directions. In Mayes

L. C.

Lewis

(Eds.), A developmental environment measurement handbook (pp. 35-57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Odom

S. L.

Zercher

Marquart

J. M.

Sandall

Brown

W. H.

(2006). Social acceptance and rejection of preschool children with disabilities: A mixed-methods analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 807-823.

39.

Olweus

(1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In Rubin

K. H.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Orpinas

Horne

A. M.

(2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

41.

Orpinas

Raczynski

(2016). School climate associated with school dropout among tenth graders. Pensamiento Psicologico, 14(1), 9-20.

42.

Pittet

Berchtold

Akre

Michaud

P.-A.

Suris

J.-C.

(2010). Are adolescents with chronic conditions particularly at risk for bullying? Archives of Disability in Childhood, 95, 711-716.

43.

Rehabilitation Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 104, Section 504, (1973).

44.

Rivers

(2004). Recollections of bullying at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Crisis, 25, 169-175.

45.

Sallis

J. F.

Owen

(2015). Ecological models of health behavior. In Glanz

Rimer

B. K.

Viswanath

(Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed., pp. 43-64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

46.

Schafer

Korn

Smith

P. K.

Hunter

S. C.

Mora-Merchan

J. A.

Singer

M. M.

(2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 379-394.

47.

Schneider

S. K.

O’Donnell

Stueve

Coulter

(2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A Regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 171-177.

48.

Serdiouk

Berry

Gest

S. D.

(2016). Teacher-child relationships and friendships and peer victimization across the school year. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 46, 63-72.

49.

Swearer

Wang

Maag

Siebecker

Frerichs

(2012). Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 503-520.

50.

Trammel

Hathaway

(2007). Help seeking patterns in college students with disabilities. The Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 20(1), 5-15.

51.

Tsao

Davenport

Schmiege

(2012). Supporting siblings of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 47-54.

52.

Turner

H. A.

Vanderminden

Finkelhor

Hamby

Shattuck

(2011). Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16, 275-286.

53.

Twyman

K. A.

Saylor

C. F.

Saia

Macias

M. M.

Taylor

L. A.

Spratt

(2010). Bullying and ostracism experiences in children with Special health care needs. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 1-8.

54.

Van Cleave

Cornell

D. G

. (2006). Bullying and peer victimization among children with special health care needs. Pediatrics, 118, 1212-1219.

55.

Vissing

Y. M.

Straus

M. A.

(1991). Verbal aggression by parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 223-238.

56.

Wagner

Heapy

James

Abbott

(2006). Brief report: Glycemic control, quality of life, and school experiences among students with diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 764-769.