Journal of School Violence

ISSN: 1538-8220 (Print) 1538-8239 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

The Impact of Social Network Characteristics and

Gender on Covert Bullying in Australian Students
with Disability in the Middle Years

Anna K. Moffat, Gerry Redmond & Parimala Raghavendra

To cite this article: Anna K. Moffat, Gerry Redmond & Parimala Raghavendra (2019)
The Impact of Social Network Characteristics and Gender on Covert Bullying in Australian
Students with Disability in the Middle Years, Journal of School Violence, 18:4, 613-629, DOI:
10.1080/15388220.2019.1644180

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1644180

Published online: 24 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 167

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsv20
JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE
2019, VOL. 18, NO. 4, 613–629
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1644180

The Impact of Social Network Characteristics and Gender on

Covert Bullying in Australian Students with Disability in the Middle
Years
Anna K. Moffata, Gerry Redmond b
, and Parimala Raghavendrac
a
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; bCollege of Business,
Government and Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia; cDisability & Community Inclusion, College of Nursing
and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Addressing bullying victimization of students with disability is a significant Received 18 October 2018
challenge for schools. While social support can protect against bullying victi- Accepted 2 July 2019
mization in the general population, its role in mediating the relationship
KEYWORDS
between disability and bullying is under-researched. This paper examined covert bullying; self-
covert bullying prevalence (encompassing relational, social and indirect aggres- identified disability; routine
sion) and its relationship to social support (peer, family, and teacher) among opportunities theory; middle
a national sample of 4,753 Australian 8–14 year olds, 490 of whom self- years; social support;
identified as living with disability. Positive teacher and peer support predicted gender; national survey
the reduced probability of bullying victimization among students overall, but
low support levels among students with disability negated this effect.
Interventions to address covert bullying of students with disability need to
focus on whole-school approaches that reduce opportunities for victimization
of students with disability.

Introduction
Bullying in school, commonly defined as a student’s exposure “repeatedly and over time, to negative
actions on the part of one or more other students” (Olweus, 2013, p. 755) is now recognised as
a pervasive problem in both primary and secondary schools (Nansel et al., 2001). Schools provide
contexts where routine activities (at recreation times, and in class) provide opportunities for
victimizing behavior (Peguero, 2009). Risk factors associated with increased vulnerability to bullying
victimization include not having supportive relationships with family or teachers, having few friends,
and not having close friendships (Chu, Saucier, & Hafner, 2010; Eslea et al., 2004). These risks are
commonly experienced by students with disability (Carter & Spencer, 2006; Nadeau & Tessier, 2006;
Raghavendra, Olsson, Sampson, Mcinerney, & Connell, 2012), who are at a greater risk of bullying
victimisation than peers without disability (Sentenac et al., 2012; Turner, Vanderminden, Finkelhor,
Hamby, & Shattuck, 2011; Van Cleave & Davis, 2006).
Increased risk of bullying experienced by students with disability has been attributed to their
sometimes differential social skills (Turner et al., 2011). Research on some specific groups of children
and young people with disability shows that levels of social support are also associated with the
experience of bullying (Humphrey & Hebron, 2015; Humphrey & Symes, 2010). However, the role of
social support from family, peers, and teachers as a mediator in the relationship between disability
and bullying victimization has not been adequately examined, especially where students themselves

CONTACT Anna K. Moffat anna.moffat@unisa.edu.au School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South
Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, 5001, Australia
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjsv.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
614 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

identify as living with disability. In addition, the question of whether the relationship between
disability, social support, and bullying varies by gender, or by age (for example, in secondary school,
compared with primary school), is under-researched (Humphrey & Hebron, 2015; Humphrey &
Symes, 2010).
To address these questions, we used survey data from a large national sample of Australian
students in school years 4, 6 and 8, where respondents could self-identify as living with disability. In
this study, we focus on the experience of covert bullying of students with and without disability. The
term “covert bullying” encompasses a range of bullying behaviors that are often hard to detect,
including indirect aggression, relational aggression and social aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005;
Cross et al., 2009). Experience of bullying victimization peaks in late primary school, and girls tend
to experience covert bullying to a greater extent than boys (Cross et al., 2009; Fekkes, Pijpers, &
Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005; Smith & Ananiadou, 2003). However, it is not clear whether similar
patterns hold among students with disability, or the extent to which social support disrupts these
patterns for students with disability. Addressing these gaps in knowledge is important for better
understanding of victimization of students with disability, and for design of interventions to
promote their inclusion in the school setting.

Covert bullying
The term covert bullying is used by Cross and colleagues (Cross et al., 2009) as embracing three
overlapping types of bullying behavior: indirect aggression, for example, spreading rumors
(Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992); relational aggression, such as manipulation and
damaging of peer relations through purposeful exclusion (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Pernice-Duca,
Taiariol, & Yoon, 2010); and social aggression – verbal rejection, spreading slanderous rumours, or
deliberate social exclusion (Galen & Underwood, 1997). Some studies show that the prevalence of
covert bullying is higher than that of overt bullying though it is more likely to be under-reported in
school settings (Brighi, Guarini, Melotti, Galli, & Genta, 2012; Cross et al., 2009; Wang, Iannotti, &
Nansel, 2009). Students who experience different types of covert bullying are likely to experience
multiple negative outcomes, including lower connectedness to school, higher loneliness, reduced
feelings of safety and higher levels of depression (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Carlyle & Steinman, 2007).
Of all bullying types, covert bullying likely presents the greatest effect-to-danger ratio as it causes the
greatest harm while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood of the bully being caught or put in
danger themselves (Cross et al., 2009).

Bullying, social support, and disability

Research has linked bullying in a school setting to routine activity theory, that posits particular
ecological arrangements involving routine activities (such as occur at school) bring together in the
same location a bully, a victim, and an absence of social control or guardianship (Cho, Hong,
Espelage, & Choi, 2017; Felson & Cohen, 1980; Peguero, 2009). That disability should matter as
a factor in victimization can be associated with theories of target congruence: “the fact that some
characteristics of potential victims are congruent with the needs or psychological vulnerabilities of
potential offenders” (Finkelhor, 2008, p. 60). In this paradigm, some students (e.g., those with
disability) can be theorized as vulnerable to victimization because they are perceived by potential
bullies as physically or behaviourally “different” (target antagonism), or because they are assessed by
bullies as having little protection from peers or teachers, and as having little capacity to resist
bullying themselves (target vulnerability) (Kahle & Peguero, 2017).
Social support can reduce target vulnerability and protect against bullying (Chu et al., 2010; Wang
et al., 2009). Three main sources of support are identified: family members (mostly parents), peers,
and teachers (Chu et al., 2010; Davidson & Demaray, 2007). While no clear picture emerges from the
literature about one particular source of support being more protective than the others, support from
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 615

the three sources is often positively correlated (Woolley, Kol, & Bowen, 2009). Low-power positions
within peer groups, and low levels of social support and peer acceptance are associated with
increased risk of bullying victimization by peers (Demaray & Malecki, 2003). Low friendship quality
has also been shown to increase the likelihood of victimization among children in their middle years
(Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005). Some research suggests that teacher support is more
important for girls than for boys (Rigby, 2000), and that the importance of peer support for reducing
the likelihood of bullying increases as children grow older (Rothon, Head, Klineberg, & Stansfeld,
2011). While there is no agreement on which sources of support are most important for reducing
target vulnerability in the school context, there is general agreement, consistent with theory on target
vulnerability (Kahle & Peguero, 2017) that social support is negatively associated with bullying
victimization.
The relationship between disability, support networks, and bullying is likely to reside within a complex
framework that includes multiple aspects of an individual’s personal and societal position (McGee, 2014).
For example, children and young people with disability often have smaller social and support networks,
comprising fewer peers than those without disability, and perhaps consisting mainly of family members,
and sometimes paid workers such as teachers and therapists (Carter & Spencer, 2006; Nadeau & Tessier,
2006; Raghavendra et al., 2012). This suggests the possibility that family and teachers or other adult
professionals may be of greater importance in protecting students with disability from bullying than might
be the case among students without disability. Risks of victimization may also vary according to school
context. In Australia, two-thirds of students with a diagnosed disability attend mixed classed in mainstream
schools, about a quarter attend special classes in mainstream schools, and one in ten attends special schools
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). The majority of Australian students with disability are therefore
likely to engage in routine activities with a wide range of students with and without disability, either in class,
or at recreation times. Students with disability who have interpersonal difficulties may have trouble making
friends, or may not readily understand social cues, facilitating a perception of target vulnerability (Bollmer
et al., 2005). Some behaviors by students with disability may be perceived as unconventional, thereby
provoking target antagonism among potential bullying perpetrators (Van Cleave & Davis, 2006). Ideally,
teachers and other school staff should provide guardianship to protect students with disability from
victimization. While national data on teacher-student ratios are not available, ratios in mainstream primary
school classes in the state of South Australia are about 1:30; and in special primary classes ratios are about
1:12, with a teacher’s aide additionally allocated to each special class (May, 2019). However, how teachers
respond to covert bullying is a subject of some debate (Cross et al., 2009).

Disability, bullying, age, and gender

Research suggests that girls and boys often experience bullying in different ways. Boys are more
likely to experience physical bullying (Smith & Ananiadou, 2003), while girls more frequently report
bullying through exclusion (Redmond et al., 2016), or verbal and relational bullying (Wang, Iannotti,
Luk, & Nansel, 2010). Overall, girls are more likely to experience covert bullying than boys, and
students in primary school are more likely to be victimized than students in secondary school (Cross
et al., 2009). With respect to students with disability, some studies have shown that boys were bullied
more frequently than girls (Carter & Spencer, 2006). Other studies, however, have found that girls
were more likely than boys to be socially isolated and victimized by their peers (Nadeau & Tessier,
2006), while others again have found no difference (Cappadocia, Weiss, & Pepler, 2012). It is
possible that these disparate findings reflect differences in bullying definitions, disabilities and age
groups studied. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined whether the
relationship between disability, social support, and bullying differs by gender.
Concerning age, a number of studies have found that the prevalence of bullying peaks in the late
primary school years, and decreases in high school years (Hong & Espelage, 2012). However, in their
review of bullying of children with Autism Spectrum Conditions, Humphrey and Hebron (2015, p. 850)
argue: “given that social difficulties are likely to become more apparent as children enter adolescence and
616 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

social groupings become more complex, it is questionable whether bullying would decrease with age [in
Autism Spectrum Conditions], as found in the general bullying research field.” Given that many students
with disability may experience interpersonal and communication difficulties, it is conceivable that the
relationship between age, disability, and bullying may be different for students with disability than for
their peers without disability (Humphrey & Hebron, 2015; Turner et al., 2011). As children move
towards early adolescence, differences begin to emerge between how girls and boys interact with each
other and select their peer networks. This results in concomitant differences in victimization risks, with
girls posited to be more likely than boys to base their choices of peers on physical similarities and social
status (Mrug, Hoza, & Bukowski, 2004; Nadeau & Tessier, 2006). Peer selection on such criteria may in
turn influence perceptions of target antagonism (physically different) or target vulnerability (socially
isolated) among potential bullying perpetrators (Nadeau & Tessier, 2006). For boys, where physical
similarity is less important in their attraction to peers for friendship, these differences as a result of
disability may perhaps not increase the likelihood of bullying in the same way (Nangle, Erdley, Zeff,
Stanchfield, & Gold, 2004; Pellegrini, 2002).

Aims of this analysis

The aim of this paper was to examine differences in the relationship between social support and the
experience of covert bullying among boys and girls with self-identified disability, and those without
disability, in late primary and early secondary school. It was predicted that both boys and girls with
disability would report (a) lower levels of social support, and (b) higher rates of bullying than those
who were not with disability. Given that the incidence of covert bullying is higher among girls than
among boys, it was anticipated that girls with disability would experience the highest rates of
bullying victimization. It was expected that students without disability in primary school would
report higher levels of covert bullying victimization than students without disability in secondary
school. However, existing literature gives little guidance as to whether similar patterns would pertain
among students with disability (Humphrey & Hebron, 2015; Kasari, Locke, Gulsrud, & Rotheram-
Fuller, 2011). Finally, it was expected that levels of social support from friends, family, and teachers
would mediate the relationship between disability and experience of bullying victimization. Given
the lack of agreement in the literature, it was not hypothesized how type or level of social support
would differentially mediate the relationship between disability and bullying for boys and girls in
primary and secondary school. Figure 1 shows a conceptual mediation model of the relationship
between disability, social support, and experience of bullying, with disability hypothesized to be
negatively associated with social support, and social support, in turn, hypothesized to be negatively
associated with the experience of bullying, while disability is positively associated with bullying.
Analysis of the relationship by age and sex will test the extent to which social support mediates the
relationship between disability and bullying for boys and girls in primary and secondary school.

Method
Data
Data were drawn from a survey conducted as part of the Australian Child Wellbeing Project (ACWP –
www.australianchildwellbeing.com.au). The survey instrument was developed following direct consul-
tations with 97 children and young people (many of whom were recognised as marginalised in the
Australian policy context – those in out of home care, living in rural and remote areas, living in low
income households, with disability, culturally and linguistically diverse, or Indigenous) on what
contributes to a “good life”. Their reflections helped shape the overall structure of the survey instru-
ment, the dimensions it covered, and the issues covered within each dimension (Redmond et al., 2016).
The survey was administered online, took approximately 20–30 min to complete, and could be
completed over any number of sessions. Audio functionalities were available for students with reading
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 617

Mediation model of disability, social support and experience of frequent bullying

Age & Sex Age & Sex

Teacher
support

(-) (-)
Family
(-) cohesion (-)

Disability
(+) Bullying

(-) (-)
Number of
(-) close friends
(-)

Best friend
support

Figure 1. Mediation model of disability, social support, and experience of frequent bullying.

difficulties (Lietz et al., 2015). Schools and teachers were encouraged to support students (especially
students with disability or learning difficulties) in completing the survey. Ethics approval was obtained
from university human research ethics committees, from Australian state and territory education
departments, and from Catholic diocesan school authorities. ACWP data are available for analysis by
researchers via the Australian Data Archive (https://legacy.ada.edu.au/social-science/01309).

Participants
A multi-stage stratified probability sample (states/territories, sectors, and schools), derived from
a sampling frame that included all primary and secondary schools in Australia was used to arrive at
a nationally representative sample of students in Years 4, 6 and 8 (approximately equivalent to 4th,
6th and 8th grades in US school systems, or age 9–10, 11–12 and 13–14 years old, respectively) (Lietz
et al., 2015). Active parental and student consent were required for students to participate. The final
sample comprised 5,440 valid student responses from 180 state, Catholic and independent schools in
every state and territory in Australia. This represents a response rate of 38% among schools, and 33%
among students in participating schools (Redmond et al., 2016). The final sample included main-
stream schools with special classes, but no special schools. However, responding students were not
asked if they attended special classes. Of those students in the final sample, 1544 (28.4% of the
unweighted sample) were in years four or six (primary school), and 2821 (51.9% of the unweighted
sample) were girls.
618 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Instruments
Self-identification of disability
Traditionally researchers in disability have used medical diagnosis, impairment or special needs as
their criteria for identifying children and young people with disability (Chalk, 2016). However,
recently researchers have used self-identification of children, youth and emerging adults with
disability to capture a broader range of people with disability (Chalk, 2016). Students in the
ACWP survey were identified as having disability according to their responses to two questions.
First, students were asked: “Have you had a disability for a long time (more than 6 months) (such as,
hearing or visual difficulties, using a wheelchair, mental illness)?” and could select one response from
“Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t Know”. Respondents who answered “Yes” or “Don’t know” to this question
were then asked: “Does your disability make it hard for you, or stop you from … ” (1) Doing
everyday activities that other children your age can usually do (such as getting ready for school;
eating, washing yourself, getting dressed or going to the toilet), (2) Talking to people, understanding
what other people say or hanging out with friends, (3) Doing any other activity that children your
age can usually do (such as sports and hobbies like football, cricket, swimming, playing games or
playing a musical instrument) or (4) No difficulty with any of these. Students who responded “Yes”
or “Don’t know” to the “disability” question, and answered “yes” to any of the first three aforemen-
tioned activity items from the second question were coded as having disability. This question was
taken from The Youth ’12 Survey conducted in New Zealand where 14.9% of students aged 12–18
reported living with disability (Clark et al., 2013). In the analysis sample, 140 students in years 4 and
6 identified as living with disability (10.4%), among whom 56.1% were girls. In the year 8 sample,
350 students identified as living with disability (10.3%), among whom 48.0% were girls. These
percentages are similar to those from other Australian sources where adults report whether their
child has a disability (Redmond et al., 2016). If disability was defined as simply answering “yes” to
the question “Have you had a disability for a long time (more than 6 months) (such as, hearing or
visual difficulties, using a wheelchair, mental illness)”, the number in the analysis sample identifying
as disabled was smaller (years 4&6: N = 112; year 8: N = 291). However, analysis results were not
substantially different where this definition was used.
Three dimensions of social and support networks were captured in the survey data: relating to
teachers, peers, and family. Teacher support was derived from three statements that students were
asked to respond to: “At my school, there is a teacher or another adult – who really cares about me;
who believes that I will be a success; who listens to me when I have something to say”. Responses ranged
from 0 (Not at all true) to 4 (Very much true) (Constantine & Bernard, 2001). The Teacher support scale
showed adequate reliability (α = 0.84; factor loadings = 0.80– 0.91), with a structure that was invariant
across boys and girls with and without disability (χ2 [df= 33] = 87.73, p < .01; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.04).
Peer support was measured using two indicators. Students were asked to identify the number of close
friends they had by selecting one option of none (0) to four (4), with a fifth option of five or more (5).
Closeness with best friend was assessed using four questions. Students were asked to think about their
closest friend and rate separately how often (from “never or hardly ever” (1) to “always or almost always”
(5)) “I spend fun time with this person”, “I share private thoughts and feelings with this person”, “I
depend on this person for help, advice, and support”, and “this person sticks up for me”. Total scores
were tallied to create a maximum score of 20, where higher scores reflect more closeness to their friends.
The closeness with best friend scale exhibited adequate reliability (α = 0.97; factor loadings = 0.96– 0.97),
with a structure that was invariant across boys and girls in primary and secondary school with and
without disability (years 4&6: χ2 [df= 27] = 51.27, p < .01; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03; year 8: χ2 [df= 27] =
111.09, p < .001; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Lietz et al., 2015).
Family support was measured using three indicators. Two were derived from ME! Rings. In the
online survey, participants were shown a diagram with five concentric rings, and the word “ME!”
in the center. Alongside the diagram was a list of persons: mother, father, stepmother, stepfather,
foster mother, foster father, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather, other adults,
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 619

other child, and pet. Students were asked: “How close are these people to you? Drag them into
the circle, as close to you as you feel they are. If you don’t know a person or you don’t feel close
to them, just leave it where it is.” (modified from Sturgess, Dunn, & Davies, 2001). Students
could place up to five of each “type” of person in the ring. Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–2
counted the number of people in the two innermost concentric rings (closest to the student),
while Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–5 counted the number of people in all five rings,
denoting innermost and wider support networks, respectively. The third family support indicator
comprised a family cohesion scale, which was measured using three questions: “How often in the
past week have you spent time doing the following things with your family?” Talking together;
having fun together; laughing together. Responses ranged from 0 (not at all last week) to 3 (most
days last week). A “Don’t know” response (4) was also allowed for items in this scale. This was
recoded to the average of other responses to items on this scale for each student. The family
cohesion scale exhibited good reliability (α = 0.97; factor loadings = 0.96– 0.97), with a structure
that was invariant across boys and girls with and without disability (years 4&6: χ2 [df= 27] =
51.27, p < .01; CFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.03; year 8: χ2 [df= 27] = 111.09, p < .001; CFI = 0.99;
RMSEA = 0.040). (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Lietz et al., 2015).
Covert Bullying was measured using a scale adapted from the Australian Covert Bullying
Prevalence Study (Cross et al., 2009). As it is common in surveys to provide a definition of
bullying prior to obtaining self-report, in order to help respondents to think about bullying in
terms of key characteristics: repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality (Hanish et al., 2013),
the survey stated “Bullying is when people tease, threaten, spread rumours about, hit, shove, or hurt
other people over and over again. It is NOT bullying when two people of about the same strength or
power argue or fight or tease each other in a friendly way”. Students were asked to select the
frequency with which they had experienced each of the following six statements: “Students
deliberately ignored or left me out of a group to hurt me”, “I was teased in nasty ways”, “I
had a student tell lies about me behind my back, to make other students not like me”, “I’ve been
made to feel afraid I would get hurt”, “I had secrets told about me to others behind my back, to
hurt me”, and “a group decided to hurt me by ganging up on me”. Frequency could be selected
from one of five options: (1) “this did not happen to me”, (2) once or twice this term, (3) every
few weeks this term, (4) about once a week this term, (5) several times a week or more. Total
scores reflecting overall frequency of bullying were calculated by totalling each of the six
frequency scores (maximum possible total of 30, lowest 0.74 to 0.84). The structure of the latent
variable was invariant across boys and girls with and without disability (years 4&6: χ2 [df= 47] =
71.60, p < .05; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.03; year 8: χ2 [df= 47] = 131.84, p < .001; CFI = 0.997;
RMSEA = 0.03) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Lietz et al., 2015). For the purposes of the present
analysis, a binary indicator was derived with a value of 0 for students who gave a score of 1 or 2
on all six bullying items, and a value of 1 who gave a score of 3–5 (bullied at least every few
weeks this term) on any of the bullying items.

Exclusion of observations with missing data

Missing data necessitated 687 exclusions (12.6%) from the full sample. Information relating to
disability was missing for 82 observations. In addition, at least some information was missing on
family cohesion (277 observations), teacher support (196), peer support (176), and bullying (174).
Among the 5,358 observations with full information on disability, the share of students with
disability among the excluded was 13.1%, compared with 10.3% among the included sample.
Shares of students with disability with information on bullying who reported being frequently
bullied were similar in both included and excluded samples. The final analysis sample comprised
4,753 observations.
620 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Data analysis
Descriptive analysis was performed using Stata/SE V.14.2 for Windows (copyright 1985–2015
StataCorp LP). To facilitate interpretation of findings, social support indicators were converted to
z-scores, with weighted sample mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1 (unstandardized means are
presented in the Appendix Table A1). Complex survey design weights were applied, adjusting for
differential non-response in terms of state/territory, school sector and socio-economic status, and
student gender. Structural equation modeling, elaborated with MPlus 8.0 was implemented to test
the conceptual framework proposed in Figure 1. The use of a binary response variable for bullying
(frequent bullying = 1; 0 otherwise) and a complex weighting structure necessitated a probit
regression approach. Coefficients in the probit model can be interpreted as the predicted change
in the probability of a student experiencing frequent bullying, given a one unit increase in an
independent variable, where all independent variables are binary (0/1), or converted to Z-scores
(mean = 0; SD = 1). First, the role of social support in mediating the association between disability
and bullying was tested. Second, multigroup analysis (age and sex) was added to this model.
A measurement model, the purpose of which was to test the associations between latent variables
included in the structural equation model, showed adequate fit (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA =
0.02). All factor loadings were large and statistically significant (p < .001). Bootstrapping (1,000
replications) was used to test standard errors associated with model coefficients.

Results
Standardized descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals for social support and covert
bullying indicators are shown in Table 1. Among both samples without disability and samples
with disability, there were notable differences between age groups with respect to teacher support
(lower among older students), numbers of people in ME! Rings (fewer among older students), family
cohesion (lower among older students), and experience of bullying (lower among older students).
However, within both primary and secondary school samples, notable differences were also evident
between students with and without disability. Girls with disability in Years 4&6 reported significantly
lower levels of teacher support, family cohesion and number of people in ME! Rings 1–2 than girls
without disability in years 4&6. They also reported significantly higher levels of covert bullying (57%
compared with 28%; p < .001). Boys with disability in Years 4&6 reported significantly more people
in ME! Rings 1–5 than their equivalents without disability. Moreover, the difference in shares
between the two groups of boys reporting covert bullying was not significant (39% compared with
24%; p = .07). Among students in year 8 on the other hand, girls with disability had significantly
lower levels of teacher support, fewer friends, less support from their closest friend, fewer people in
ME! Rings 1–2, and lower levels of family cohesion. Girls in year 8 also experienced significantly
higher levels of bullying than girls without disability (47% compared with 20%; p < .001). There were
fewer differences between boys with and without disability in year 8 with respect to social support.
However, differences between the two groups with respect to number of close friends and family
cohesion were significant. Boys in year 8 with disability also reported significantly higher levels of
covert bullying compared with boys without disability (37% compared with 19%; p < .001).
Figure 2 shows standardized path coefficients for the mediation analysis of the overall relationship
between disability, social support and bullying (indicators of number of people in ME! Rings were
excluded, as they were non-significant in all models tested). These show, as hypothesized, negative
associations between disability and all social support indicators. Associations are strongest in the
case of teacher support (β = −0.11, p < .001) and family cohesion (β = −0.10, p < .001). Figure 2 also
shows negative relationships between all social support indicators and experience of bullying.
However, associations are only significant with respect to teacher support (β = −0.13, p < .001)
and number of close friends (β = −0.19, p < .001). Finally, a positive and significant direct association
between disability and bullying is shown (β = 0.17, p < .001). This suggests that among students
Table 1. Comparison of Weighted Means and Standard Errors Related to Social Support Networks and Bullying
Years 4 and 6 Year 8
Without disability (n = 1,212) With disability (n = 140) Without disability (n = 3,051) With disability (n = 350)
Mean SE 95% CI Mean SE 95% CI p Mean SE 95% CI Mean SE 95% CI p
Teacher support scale score (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 6.40 [2.25])
Boys 0.11 0.06 [−0.02,0.24] −0.09 0.18 [−0.45,0.27] .24 −0.29 0.03 [−0.36,-0.22] −0.43 0.09 [−0.61,-0.24] .19
Girls 0.26 0.05 [0.17,0.35] −0.10 0.14 [−0.38,0.18] .01 −0.23 0.05 [−0.32,-0.14] −0.83 0.14 [−1.10,-0.56] <.001
Number of close friends (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 4.11 [1.31])
Boys 0.15 0.05 [0.05,0.24] 0.26 0.14 [−0.01,0.54] .39 0.09 0.04 [0.02,0.17] −0.11 0.09 [−0.28,0.07] .04
Girls −0.12 0.06 [−0.23,-0.00] −0.31 0.20 [−0.70,0.07] .32 −0.07 0.06 [−0.18,0.04] −0.45 0.14 [−0.73,-0.17] .003
Closeness to best friend scale score (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 11.43 [3.90])
Boys −0.24 0.08 [−0.40,-0.08] −0.31 0.22 [−0.74,0.13] .81 −0.14 0.04 [−0.21,-0.06] −0.04 0.08 [−0.21,0.12] .29
Girls 0.13 0.05 [0.04,0.23] −0.04 0.20 [−0.43,0.36] .43 0.45 0.03 [0.38,0.51] −0.08 0.14 [−0.36,0.21] .001
Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–2 (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 6.20 [2.81])
Boys 0.11 0.05 [0.00,0.22] 0.35 0.18 [−0.01,0.72] .24 −0.14 0.04 [−0.22,-0.06] −0.29 0.08 [−0.44,-0.13] .10
Girls 0.11 0.06 [−0.01,0.23] −0.26 0.15 [−0.55,0.04] .04 −0.20 0.03 [−0.26,-0.14] −0.54 0.09 [−0.72,-0.37] <.001
Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–5 (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 7.94 [3.32])
Boys 0.00 0.06 [−0.11,0.12] 0.28 0.09 [0.10,0.46] .03 −0.21 0.03 [−0.27,-0.15] −0.21 0.11 [−0.43,0.01] .99
Girls 0.12 0.05 [0.01,0.22] 0.21 0.30 [−0.38,0.81] .75 −0.11 0.03 [−0.17,-0.04] −0.05 0.09 [−0.23,0.13] .54
Family cohesion scale score (z-score; unadjusted mean [SD]: 6.06 [2.01])
Boys 0.04 0.07 [−0.09,0.17] 0.10 0.15 [−0.20,0.40] .67 −0.08 0.04 [−0.16,-0.01] −0.33 0.10 [−0.53,-0.13] .02
Girls 0.13 0.05 [0.04,0.23] −0.29 0.18 [−0.64,0.07] .02 −0.07 0.05 [−0.17,0.02] −0.75 0.10 [−0.94,-0.55] <.001
Experienced covert bullying at least weekly (proportion)
Boys 0.24 0.03 [0.19,0.29] 0.39 0.08 [0.24,0.54] .07 0.19 0.01 [0.17,0.22] 0.37 0.04 [0.30,0.44] <.001
Girls 0.28 0.02 [0.23,0.32] 0.57 0.07 [0.44,0.70] <.001 0.20 0.02 [0.16,0.23] 0.47 0.05 [0.36,0.58] <.001
Note. Ns is unweighted. Means are weighted. Unadjusted means (SD) are sample means and standard deviations before z-scores applied. P = probability null hypothesis is supported – that means
for boys (girls) without disability are the same as means for boys (girls) with disability.
JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE
621
 622

Teacher
support
A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Family
cohesion

+0.17***
Disability Bullying

Number of
close friends

Best friend
support

Figure 2. Standardized path coefficients for mediation analysis of relationship between disability, social support, and experience of bullying.
Path coefficients represent the predicted probability of a one unit change in the dependent variable, given a one unit change in the independent variable. *p < .05. **p <
.01. ***p < .001. Model fit: Chi2 (55DF) 231.45, p < .001; RMSEA 0.03; CFI 0.97; TLI 0.96.
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 623

whose levels of social support are at the average for the whole sample, those with disability have
a 17% higher predicted probability of experiencing frequent bullying than those without disability.
Table 2 shows that the total effect of disability, taking into account the mediating effect of social
support (the sum of direct and indirect effects), is to increase predicted probability of bullying by
19% (β = 0.19, p < .001). Most of this is comprised of direct effect (17%). It is notable, however, that
disability, at least in part, increases the risk of bullying due to it being associated with less social
support. Controlling for disability, associations between teacher support and number of close friends
on the one hand, and experience of bullying on the other, are negative and significant.
Table 2 also shows results from the multigroup analysis, with total direct and indirect effects of
the relationship between disability and bullying disaggregated by age and sex. The multigroup
analysis produces four sets of predictors in a single structural equation model. Controlling for
disability, associations between social support and bullying are mostly negative – greater social
support is associated with a lower predicted probability of experiencing frequent bullying: number of
close friends has the strongest negative association with bullying, followed by family cohesion for
older boys, and teacher support for older girls. For students with disability, the mediating effect of
social support on bullying is either not significant or slightly positive. Most notably, for girls with
disability in year 8, the mediating effect of lower social support is to increase predicted probability of
frequent bullying (β=0.08, p<.001), with this mediating effect coming from teacher support (β= 0.04,
p<.01), family cohesion (β= 0.04, p<.05), and number of close friends (β= 0.03, p<.01), though there
is no mediating effect from closeness to best friend (β= -0.02, NS). Figure 3 shows that for boys in
year 8, over a quarter of the total effects of disability on bullying are mediated through indirect
effects of social support, as are over a third of the total effects of disability for girls in year 8 Figure 3.

Discussion
This study shows that among primary school students, girls with disability experience a significantly
higher incidence of frequent covert bullying than girls without disability. Among secondary school
students, both boys and girls with disability experience more frequent covert bullying than those without
disability. Overall, victimization rates reported in this study are higher than those reported by children in
the eleven country study by Sentenac and colleagues (Sentenac et al., 2013), whose measure included
indicators of both overt and covert bullying. The higher prevalence rates in the present study may be at
least partly associated with its focus on covert bullying, which has been found in other studies to be more
commonly experienced in middle childhood than overt bullying (Brighi et al., 2012). The high rate of

Table 2. Total and Indirect Associations Between Disability and Experience of Bullying (Path Coefficients)
Mediation model Multigroup mediation model
All Boys, years 4&6 Girls, years 4&6 Boys, year 8 Girls, year 8
Controlling for disability
Teacher support −0.13** −0.17 −0.15 −0.05 −0.21***
Number of close friends −0.19*** −0.154* −0.15* −0.26*** −0.27***
Closeness to best friend −0.01 −0.02 −0.11 0.123* 0.12*
Family cohesion −0.05 0.05 −0.03 −0.22** −0.17**
With disability – total effect 0.19*** 0.13 0.25*** 0.17*** 0.23***
With disability – direct effect 0.167*** 0.12 0.21** 0.12** 0.15**
With disability – indirect effect 0.03** 0.01 0.04 0.04** 0.08***
(of which)
Via teacher support 0.01** 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04**
Via number of close friends 0.01 −0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03**
Via closeness to best friend 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 −0.02
Via family cohesion 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02* 0.04*
Note. Path coefficients represent the predicted probability of a one unit change in the dependent variable, given a one unit
change in the independent variable.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Fit statistics for multigroup mediation model: χ2 (304)
=1026.02, p < .001; RMSEA 0.05; CFI 0.96; TLI 0.96.
624 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Total effect Indirect effect

0.30

predicted probabilities
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
Boys, Girls, Boys, Girls,
Years Years Year 8 Year 8
4&6 4&6

Figure 3. Total effect and indirect effect of social support on bullying for students with disability.
Note: Error bars show 95% CIs. Model fit statistics are shown in Table Two.

covert bullying experienced by students, and especially girls, with disability suggests that school is
a location where students with disability engaging in routine activities are highly vulnerable to victimiz-
ing behavior (Peguero et al., 2013; Popp & Peguero, 2011). The lack of social support as a mechanism for
protecting students with disability from victimisation (in contrast to its relative abundance for students
without disability) suggests target vulnerability as a causal factor, where students with disability are
socially isolated from peers and not afforded adequate support by teachers (Cho et al., 2017; Peguero,
2009), high teacher-student ratios notwithstanding.
The work of Humphrey and colleagues (Hebron & Humphrey, 2013; Humphrey & Hebron, 2015) has
found bullying of children with Autism Spectrum Conditions to be inversely related to positive peer
relationships. This mirrors the broader literature on the association between social support and bullying
(Chu et al., 2010). The present study also suggests that for students with disability low levels of peer and
teacher support are associated with covert bullying victimization. This highlights the need for further
research on the role of social support and teacher-student ratios as protective factors for young people with
disability. How the routine activities that make up the school day influence risk of bullying may depend on
characteristics associated with particular disabilities. For example, characteristics of some disabilities such
as intellectual disability associated with Autism Spectrum Conditions may signal target vulnerability that
makes bullying behavior more likely, particularly in the absence of friends or oversight by teachers (Turner
et al., 2011). These vulnerabilities may also contribute to a reduced friendship group (Humphrey &
Hebron, 2015; Turner et al., 2011). Appearance of difference may provoke target antagonism and
contribute to reduced social support, further increasing vulnerability (Hanish et al., 2013).
The issue of age is also important. Cross et al. (2009) show that in Australian schools, the prevalence of
covert bullying peaks in the upper primary years (years 5 and 6), and generally declines in secondary
school. This pattern is evident in the students without disability in this study. Among boys with disability
however, the prevalence of covert bullying does not decline at all between primary and secondary school.
Among girls with disability, prevalence is lower among secondary than among primary students, but the
difference is not statistically significant. While this finding is not fully consistent with evidence that
bullying of children with Autism Spectrum Conditions intensifies as they grow older (Hebron &
Humphrey, 2013; Kasari et al., 2011), neither does it suggest that bullying declines at the same rate as
is witnessed among non-disabled students. It is possible that a combination of social isolation and
a change in routine activities between primary and secondary schools that leave students subject to less
intensive supervision (for example, when transferring between classrooms, as well as during recreation
time) increases the target vulnerability of many students with disability, especially those in mainstream
classes. This is an important issue for future research.
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 625

To address covert bullying in students with disabilities requires a multi-pronged approach. There
is limited research investigating the effectiveness of bullying interventions for students with dis-
abilities (Houchins, Oakes, & Johnson, 2016). Teaching social skills and competency to students with
disabilities and creating peer support networks are commonly identified as being effective in dealing
with bullying (Bourke & Burgman, 2010; Rose & Monda-Amaya, 2012; Vessey & O’Neill, 2011).
However, these interventions focus on how social supports can be used as strategies for coping with
and minimizing the effects of bullying among students with disabilities. Our work suggests that,
while building social supports around students with disability may reduce negative impacts asso-
ciated with bullying (Bourke & Burgman, 2010), classroom and schoolwide strategies that focus on
reducing social isolation of students with disability, and challenging tolerance of covert bullying
among all students (that is, reducing the population of potential aggressors) may be more successful
in reducing bullying of children with disability. Structured environments that reduce opportunities
for bullying in the context of the routine activities that make up the school day are also important.
Awareness training to create belonging for all students within the classroom has been shown to have
positive impact on bullying rates overall (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017) and may be particularly
valuable in reducing target vulnerability of girls with disability (Nadeau & Tessier, 2006; Nangle
et al., 2004; Pellegrini, 2002). It is important that any interventions implemented are evidence-based
and that school staff are sufficiently trained (Lund, Blake, Ewing, & Banks, 2012). Difficulties with
allocation of appropriate time and resources for effective schoolwide training are often cited as
reasons for not adopting these approaches (Juvonen & Graham, 2014), though evidence points to
their efficacy, for example, in reducing victimization of LBGT+ students, with concomitant gains
with respect to truancy, substance abuse and self-harm (Burdge, Snapp, Laub, Russell, & Moody,
2013; Hatzenbuehler, 2011).

Limitations
This study has a number of limitations. First, while survey respondents self-identified as living with
disability, they were not asked detailed questions about the type of disability, or how they perceived
it to impact on their engagement at school. Moreover, we did not obtain information regarding
whether bullying victimization experienced by students with disability involved other students with
disability as bullies, or whether bullying occurred within or across gender groups. Nor did our survey
did collect information on where, in the school context, bullying occurred. This kind of information
could be valuable in understanding how school policies and the routine activities of the school day
could be adjusted in order to reduce opportunities for bullying of students with disability.
Other limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design and consequent inability to
assess causality. This study did not assess other group characteristics such as cultural and linguistic
diversity, socio-economic status or sexual orientation. Previous work has shown that multiple
marginalized identities increase the odds of exposure to peer victimization (Kahle & Peguero,
2017; McGee, 2014). This suggests the need for further analysis that examines intersectionality in
bullying of, and social support for, students with disability (McGee, 2014). Further, while the sample
included schools with special classes that cater exclusively for children with disability, we were not
able to identify which students were in special classes (with relatively high teacher-student ratios)
and who were in mainstream classes. We therefore could not address associations between class type
and victimization of students with disability. Students in special classes in mainstream schools may
have different routine activities and environments to those in mainstream classes (or those in special
schools), which may influence peer and teacher support, and opportunities for victimization.

Human subjects approval statement

Jurisdictional educational authorities and university human research ethics committees approved the research.
Informed parental and student consent was obtained in all cases.
626 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to the Australian Child Wellbeing Project and those that provided funding to the ACWP: ARC Grant
LP120100543; Co-funded by the Australian Government Departments of Education and Training and Social
Services, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Survey data used in
this paper are available for analysis through the Australian Data Archive (https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?
persistentId=doi:10.26193/MGM2TM). We thank Vanessa Maurici for her assistance in editing the final drafts of the
manuscript and Philip Holmes-Smith for his statistical expertise and comments. We are also grateful for the
constructive comments of the Editors and two anonymous reviewers.

Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government; Australian
Research Council [LP120100543]; Australian Government Department of Social Services; Australian Bureau of
Statistics; Australian Government Department of Education and Training.

Competing interests
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Gerry Redmond http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6440-4416

References
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Profiles of disability, Australia, 2009. Canberra: Author.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? developmental trends
in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18(2), 117–127. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1992)
18:2<117::AID-AB2480180205>3.0.CO;2-3
Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., 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(6), 701–712. doi:10.1177/
0886260504272897
Bourke, S., & Burgman, I. (2010). Coping with bullying in Australian schools: How children with disabilities
experience support from friends, parents and teachers. Disability & Society, 25(3), 359–371. doi:10.1080/
09687591003701264
Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., & Genta, M. L. (2012). Predictors of victimisation across direct bullying,
indirect bullying and cyberbullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 375–388. doi:10.1080/
13632752.2012.704684
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136.
Burdge, H., Snapp, S., Laub, C., Russell, S., & Moody, R. (2013). Implementing lessons that matter: The impact of
LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum on student safety, well-being, and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Gay-Straight
Alliance Network and Tucson, AZ: Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families at the
University of Arizona.
Cappadocia, M. C., Weiss, J. A., & Pepler, D. (2012). Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism
spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(2), 266. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1241-x
Carlyle, K. E., & Steinman, K. J. (2007). Demographic differences in the prevalence, co-occurrence, and correlates of
adolescent bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 77, 623–629. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00242.x
Carter, B. B., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and students with disabilities. International Journal of
Special Education, 21(1), 11–23.
Chalk, H. (2016). Disability self-categorisation in emerging adults: Relationship with self-esteem, perceived esteem,
mindfulness and markers of adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 200–206. doi:10.1177/2167696815584540
Cho, S., Hong, J. S., Espelage, D. L., & Choi, K.-S. (2017). Applying the lifestyle routine activities theory to understand
physical and nonphysical peer victimization. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(3), 297–315.
doi:10.1080/10926771.2016.1264526
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 627

Chu, P. S., Saucier, D. A., & Hafner, E. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and
well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 624–645. doi:10.1521/
jscp.2010.29.6.624
Clark, T. C., Fleming, T., Bullen, P., Denny, S., Crengle, S., Dyson, B., … Utter, J. (2013). Youth’12 overview: The health
and wellbeing of New Zealand secondary school students in 2012. Auckland, New Zealand: The University of
Auckland.
Constantine, N., & Bernard, B. (2001). California Healthy kids survey resilience assessment module: Technical report.
Berkeley, CA: Public Health Institute.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Development, 66(3), 710–722. doi:10.2307/1131945
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009). Australian covert bullying
prevalence study (ACBPS). Perth: Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University.
Davidson, L. M., & Demaray, M. K. (2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and
internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 383–405.
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students
classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471–490.
Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O’Moore, M., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Pereira, B., & Smith, P. K. (2004). Friendship and
loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30(1), 71–83. doi:10.1002/
ab.20006
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement
of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 81–91. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100
Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology, 8(4),
389–406. doi:10.1007/bf01561001
Finkelhor, D. (2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children.
Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589–600.
Hanish, L. D., Bradshaw, C. P., Espelage, D. L., Rodkin, P. C., Swearer, S. M., & Horne, A. (2013). Looking toward the
future of bullying research: Recommendations for research and funding priorities. Journal of School Violence, 12(3),
283–295. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.788449
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Pediatrics, 127, 896–903. peds. 2010–3020. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3020
Hebron, J., & Humphrey, N. (2013). Exposure to bullying among students with autism spectrum conditions: A
multi-informant analysis of risk and protective factors. Autism, 18(6), 618–630. doi:10.1177/1362361313495965
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological
system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 311–322. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Houchins, D., Oakes, W. P., & Johnson, Z. (2016). Bullying and students with disabilities: A systematic literature
review of intervention studies. Remedial and Special Education, 37(5), 259–273. doi:10.1177/0741932516648678
Humphrey, N., & Hebron, J. (2015). Bullying of children and adolescents with autism spectrum conditions: A ‘state of
the field’review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(8), 845–862. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.981602
Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2010). Perceptions of social support and experience of bullying among pupils with
autistic spectrum disorders in mainstream secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1),
77–91. doi:10.1080/08856250903450855
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Bullying in schools: The power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 159–185. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030
Kahle, L., & Peguero, A. A. (2017). Bodies and bullying: The interaction of gender, race, ethnicity, weight, and
inequality with school victimization. Victims & Offenders, 12(2), 323–345. doi:10.1080/15564886.2015.1117551
Kasari, C., Locke, J., Gulsrud, A., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2011). Social networks and friendships at school: Comparing
children with and without ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(5), 533–544. doi:10.1007/
s10803-010-1076-x
Lietz, P., O’Grady, E., Tobin, M., Murphy, M., Macaskill, G., Redmond, G., … Thomson, S. (2015). Australian child
wellbeing project technical report. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia: Flinders University, University of NSW and
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Lund, E. M., Blake, J. J., Ewing, H. K., & Banks, C. S. (2012). School counselors’ and school psychologists’ bullying
prevention and intervention strategies: A look into real-world practices. Journal of School Violence, 11(3), 246–265.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.682005
May, I. (2019). Personal communication, South Australian department for education.
McGee, M. G. (2014). Lost in the margins? Intersections between disability and other nondominant statuses with
regard to peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 13(4), 396–421. doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.894914
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253. doi:10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740
628 A. K. MOFFAT ET AL.

Mrug, S., Hoza, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (2004). Choosing or being chosen by aggressive–Disruptive peers: Do they
contribute to children’s externalizing and internalizing problems? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(1), 53–65.
Nadeau, L., & Tessier, R. (2006). Social adjustment of children with cerebral palsy in mainstream classes: Peer
perception. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(5), 331–336.
Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Zeff, K. R., Stanchfield, L. L., & Gold, J. A. (2004). Opposites do not attract: Social status
and behavioral-style concordances and discordances among children and the peers who like or dislike them. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4), 425–434.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among
us youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094–2100. doi:10.1001/
jama.285.16.2094
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 9(1), 751–780. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516
Peguero, A. A. (2009). Opportunity, involvement, and student exposure to school violence. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 7(4), 299–312. doi:10.1177/1541204008330634
Peguero, A. A., Portillos, E. L., Hong, J. S., González, J. C., Kahle, L. L., & Shekarkhar, Z. (2013). Victimization,
urbanicity, and the relevance of context: School routines, race and ethnicity, and adolescent violence. Journal of
Criminology, 2013, 14. doi:10.1155/2013/240637
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school.
Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 151–163. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2
Pernice-Duca, F., Taiariol, J., & Yoon, J. (2010). Perceptions of school and family climates and experiences of relational
aggression. Journal of School Violence, 9(3), 303–319. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.483724
Popp, A. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The significance of gender.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2413–2436. doi:10.1177/0886260510383021
Raghavendra, P., Olsson, C., Sampson, J., Mcinerney, R., & Connell, T. (2012). School participation and social
networks of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities, and typically developing peers.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(1), 33–43. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.653604
Redmond, G., Skattebol, J., Saunders, P., Lietz, P., Zizzo, G., O’Grady, E., … Roberts, K. (2016). Are the kids alright?
Young Australians in their middle years: Final report of the Australian child wellbeing project. South Australia,
Australia: Flinders University, University of New South Wales and Australian Council for Educational Research.
Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being.
Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 57–68. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0289
Rose, C. A., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2012). Bullying and victimization among students with disabilities: Effective
strategies for classroom teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(2), 99–107. doi:10.1177/1053451211430119
Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse
outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents
at secondary schools in East London. Journal of Adolescence, 34(3), 579–588. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.007
Sentenac, M., Arnaud, C., Gavin, A., Molcho, M., Gabhainn, S. N., & Godeau, E. (2012). Peer victimization among
school-aged children with chronic conditions. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34(1), 120–128. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxr024
Sentenac, M., Gavin, A., Gabhainn, S. N., Molcho, M., Due, P., Ravens-Sieberer, U., … Godeau, E. (2013). Peer
victimization and subjective health among students reporting disability or chronic illness in 11 Western countries.
The European Journal of Public Health, 23(3), 421–426. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cks073
Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). The nature of school bullying and the effectiveness of school-based
interventions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(2), 189–209. doi:10.1023/A:1022991804210
Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Young children’s perceptions of their relationships with family members:
Links with family setting, friendships, and adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6),
521–529. doi:10.1080/01650250042000500
Turner, H. A., Vanderminden, J., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Disability and victimization in
a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16(4), 275–286. doi:10.1177/1077559511427178
Van Cleave, J., & Davis, M. M. (2006). Bullying and peer victimization among children with special health care needs.
Pediatrics, 118(4), e1212–e1219. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-3034
Vessey, J., & O’Neill, K. (2011). Helping students with disabilities better address teasing and bullying situations:
A MASNRN study. The Journal of School Nursing, 21(2), 139–148. doi:10.1177/1059840510386490
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., Luk, J. W., & Nansel, T. R. (2010). Co-occurrence of victimization from five subtypes of
bullying: Physical, verbal, social exclusion, spreading rumors, and cyber. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(10),
1103–1112. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq048
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical,
verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Woolley, M. E., Kol, K. L., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). The social context of school success for latino middle school
students: Directand indirect influences of teachers, family, and friends. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1),
43–70. doi:10.1177/0272431608324478
 JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 629

Appendix

Table A1. Comparison of Unstandardized-weighted Means and Standard Errors Related to Social Support Networks and Bullying
Years 4&6 Year 8
Without disability
Without disability (n = 1,212) With disability (n = 140) (n = 3,051) With disability (n = 350)
Mean SE 95% CI Mean SE 95% CI Mean SE 95% CI Mean SE 95% CI
Teacher support scale score
Boys 6.64 0.15 [6.36,6.93] 6.20 0.41 [5.39,7.00] 5.75 0.08 [5.60,5.90] 5.45 0.15 [5.03,5.86]
Girls 6.98 0.11 [6.77,7.19] 6.17 0.32 [5.55,6.80] 5.88 0.10 [5.68,6.08] 4.54 0.30 [3.94,5.14]
Number of close friends
Boys 4.30 0.07 [4.17,4.43] 4.46 0.18 [4.10,4.82] 4.23 0.05 [4.13,4.33] 3.97 0.12 [3.75,4.20]
Girls 3.96 0.08 [3.81,4.11] 3.71 0.26 [3.20,4.21] 4.02 0.08 [3.87,4.17] 3.52 0.18 [3.16,3.89]
Closeness to best friend scale score
Boys 10.50 0.31 [9.88,11.11] 10.24 0.85 [8.56,11.92] 10.89 0.14 [10.61,11.18] 11.27 0.33 [10.62,11.91]
Girls 11.95 0.19 [11.58,12.31] 11.29 0.78 [9.76,12.82] 13.16 0.13 [12.90,13.42] 11.13 0.56 [10.03,12.23]
Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–2
Boys 6.50 0.15 [6.20,6.80] 7.18 0.51 [6.17,8.19] 5.81 0.12 [5.58,6.04] 5.39 0.22 [4.96,5.82]
Girls 6.51 0.18 [6.16,6.85] 5.48 0.42 [4.66,6.30] 5.63 0.09 [5.46,5.80] 4.68 0.25 [4.19,5.17]
Number of persons in ME! Rings 1–5
Boys 7.96 0.19 [7.59,8.32] 8.87 0.30 [8.28,9.47] 7.25 0.11 [7.04,7.46] 7.24 0.36 [6.53,7.96]
Girls 8.32 0.18 [7.98,8.67] 8.65 1.00 [6.69,10.62] 7.59 0.10 [7.38,7.79] 7.77 0.31 [7.17,8.37]
Family cohesion scale score
Boys 6.14 0.13 [5.88,6.41] 6.27 0.31 [5.66,6.87] 5.90 0.07 [5.75,6.04] 5.40 0.20 [4.99,5.80]
Girls 6.33 0.10 [6.14,6.52] 5.48 0.36 [4.77,6.20] 5.92 0.10 [5.73,6.11] 4.56 0.20 [4.17,4.96]
Experienced covert bullying at least weekly (proportion)
Boys 0.24 0.03 [0.19,0.29] 0.39 0.08 [0.24,0.54] 0.19 0.01 [0.17,0.22] 0.37 0.04 [0.30,0.44]
Girls 0.28 0.02 [0.23,0.32] 0.57 0.07 [0.44,0.70] 0.20 0.02 [0.16,0.23] 0.47 0.05 [0.36,0.58]
Note.Ns are unweighted. Means are weighted.