bullying risk in children with learning difficulties in inclusive educational settings

http://cjs.sagepub.com/School PsychologyCanadian Journal of

http://cjs.sagepub.com/content/22/1/14The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0829573507301039

2007 22: 14Canadian Journal of School PsychologySeverina Luciano and Robert S. Savage

Educational SettingsBullying Risk in Children With Learning Difficulties in Inclusive

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Canadian Association of School Psychologists

can be found at:Canadian Journal of School PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cjs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cjs.sagepub.com/content/22/1/14.refs.htmlCitations:

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on March 8, 2013cjs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cjs.sagepub.com/

http://cjs.sagepub.com/content/22/1/14

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cjs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://cjs.sagepub.com/content/22/1/14.refs.html


What is This?

- Jun 15, 2007Version of Record >>


http://cjs.sagepub.com/content/22/1/14.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


14

Canadian Journal ofSchool Psychology

Volume 22 Number 1June 2007 14-31

© 2007 Sage Publications10.1177/0829573507301039

http://cjsp.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Bullying Risk in Children With Learning Difficulties inInclusive Educational SettingsSeverina LucianoRobert S. SavageMcGill University

Abstract: This study investigated whether students with learning difficulties (LDs)attending inclusive schools that eschewed segregated “pull out” programs reportedmore incidents of being bullied than their peers without LDs. Cognitive and self-perception factors associated with reports of peer victimization were also explored.Participants were 13 Grade 5 students with LDs and 14 classmates without LDs,matched on gender. Results showed that students with LDs self-reported significantlymore incidents of being bullied than students without LDs. After statistical controls forgroup differences in receptive vocabulary, differences in bullying were no longer sig-nificant. Results suggest first that children with LDs in inclusive schools that eschewpull-out programs may still experience significant bullying. Second, the link betweenLDs, peer rejection, and victimization may reflect the social impact of language diffi-culties. Implications for reducing peer victimization in inclusive settings are discussed.

Résumé: Cette étude visait à déterminer si les élèves avec des troubles d’apprentissage(TA) inscrits dans des écoles intégratrices, soit des écoles qui évitent les programmesavec ségrégation et “isolement”, sont plus souvent victimes d’intimidation que leurspairs avec des aptitudes d’apprentissage typiques. Cette étude examine également lesfacteurs cognitifs et les facteurs d’autoperception associés aux incidents déclarés devictimisation par les pairs. Treize élèves de la cinquième année avec des TA et quatorzecondisciples sans TA, appariés en fonction du sexe, ont participé à cette étude. Lesrésultats font état d’une fréquence manifestement supérieure d’incidents autodéclarésd’intimidation parmi les élèves avec des TA que parmi les élèves sans TA. À la suite del’application de contrôles statistiques pour tenir compte des écarts entre les groupes auniveau du vocabulaire réceptif, les écarts au niveau de l’intimidation n’étaient plussignificatifs. Dans un premier temps, les résultats laissent supposer que les enfants avecdes troubles d’apprentissage dans des écoles qui évitent les programmes “d’isolement”peuvent tout de même vivre d’importants problèmes d’intimidation. Dans un deuxièmetemps, les résultats laissent supposer que le lien entre les troubles d’apprentissage, lerejet par les pairs et la victimisation peut témoigner des répercussions sociales des

Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Robert S. Savage, McGill University, Department ofEducational and Counselling Psychology, 3700 McTavish, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1Y2, Canada;[email protected].



Luciano, Savage / Bullying, Learning Difficulties, and Inclusion 15

difficultés linguistiques. Cette étude aborde également les implications de la réductionde la victimisation par les pairs dans les milieux intégrés.

Keywords: bullying; inclusion; language; learning difficulties; literacy; risk

Children with special learning needs have been shown to be at increased risk of beingbullied by their peers at school (Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Kaukiainen et al., 2002;

Martlew & Hodson, 1991; Mishna, 2003; Morrison & Furlong, 1994; Nabuzoka &Smith, 1993; Norwich & Kelly, 2004; Sveinsson, 2006; Whitney, Smith, & Thompson,1994). Studies have found that this increased risk of peer victimization is associated withdeficits in social competence (Bauminger, Edelsztein, & Morash, 2005; Kaukiainen et al., 2002), academic difficulties (Singer, 2005; Whitney et al. 1994), disruptive behav-iour (Roberts & Zubrick, 1992), language impairment (Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999;Knox & Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Savage, 2005), and low self-esteem (Kaukiainen et al.,2002). These problems have been linked to the internalizing problems associated withpeer rejection, which prevents students with learning difficulties (LDs) from formingfriendships that may protect them against being bullied (Chazan, Laing, & Davies, 1994;Coie & Cillessen, 1993; Geisthardt & Munsch, 1996; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999;Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993: Rigby, 2000; Roberts & Zubrick, 1992; Savage, 2005;Wenz-Gross & Siperstein, 1997; Whitney et al., 1994). It is important to tackle the prob-lem of bullying because of the serious long-term consequences that affect its victims.These include low self-esteem, loneliness, anxiety, and depression (Graham & Juvonen,1998; Harter, Whitesell, & Junkin, 1998; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Kaukiainen et al.,2002; Lopez & DuBois, 2005; Neary & Joseph, 1994; Piek, Barrett, Allen, Jones, &Louise, 2005; Rigby, 2000; Smith & Brain, 2000; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2005).

Students attending segregated educational settings, such as separate schools orresource rooms, have been found to report a higher incidence of being bullied thanstudents going to regular schools (Martlew & Hodson, 1991; Morrison & Furlong,1994; Norwich & Kelly, 2004). One of the rationales for promoting inclusion of allstudents in the regular classroom is that it provides better opportunities for socialization(Stainback, Stainback, & Ayres, 1996). There is evidence demonstrating that attendinggeneral education classrooms offers students with exceptionalities more opportunitiesfor forming relationships with regular students (Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, &Forgan, 1998; Vaughn & Klingner, 1998). This source of social support has been shownto protect against peer victimization (Boulton, Trueman, Chau, Whitehand, & Amatya,1999; Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Savage, 2005). Although it is a com-mon assumption, to date, there are no studies that clearly demonstrate whether attend-ing an inclusive educational setting actually leads to a decreased incidence of beingbullied for students with special learning needs. In the current investigation, our firstgoal is to determine whether students with LDs report being bullied more often thantheir peers without LDs when attending a regular classroom. Our second objective is toreport on factors that are associated with reports of peer victimization.



16 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Bullying and/or Peer Victimization

Definition and prevalence. Bullying or victimization is a form of aggression in whicha person is exposed repeatedly to negative actions. Three key characteristics of bullyingare (a) an imbalance of power, in which the victim feels helpless against the attacker;(b) an aggressive act, in which there is an intent to harm; and (c) repeated, long-termexposure to such attacks (Olweus, 1994; Smith & Brain, 2000). Approximately 10% ofschool children report being victims of bullying (Olweus, 1995; Perry, Kusel, & Perry,1988; Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001; Whitney & Smith, 1993) with an increased inci-dence of up to 83% in children with LDs (Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Kaukiainen etal., 2002; Martlew & Hodson, 1991; Morrison & Furlong, 1994; Nabuzoka & Smith,1993; Savage, 2005; Whitney et al., 1994).

Characteristics of victims and peer rejection. Research findings have been con-sistent in finding that victims of peer aggression typically display characteristics thatdenote internalizing problems and interpersonal attributes, which result in peerrejection (Egan & Perry, 1998; Hodges & Perry, 1999; Olweus, 1995; O’Moore &Kirkham, 2001; Solberg & Olweus, 2003). The interpersonal characteristics linkedto peer rejection in students with LDs are communication difficulties (Hugh-Jones& Smith, 1999; Savage, 2005), social skills deficits (Bauminger et al., 2005; Kavale& Forness, 1996), and poor academic performance (Kavale & Forness, 1996;Roberts & Zubrick, 1992; Singer, 2005). The internalizing problems that seem to putchildren at risk of peer victimization have been identified as anxious disposition,insecurity, low self-esteem, submissiveness, and passivity (Chazan et al., 1994).

Social skills deficits. Although up to 75% of children with LDs are known todemonstrate social skills deficits (Kavale & Forness, 1996), it is not clear whetherthe problems with socialization are a manifestation of an aspect of the LD or a resultof limited socialization opportunities with peers without LDs (Bauminger et al.,2005). Because children learn many socialization skills through experiences withtheir peers, limited possibilities for friendship building may reduce children’s oppor-tunities to learn social skills (Coie & Cillessen, 1993). Difficulties within this circu-lar relationship augment the risk of being bullied in students with LDs through thelack of protection from high-status peers (Hodges et al., 1999; Hugh-Jones & Smith,1999). In fact, several studies have shown that students with LDs report having fewerfriends (Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993; Roberts & Zubrick, 1992; Whitney et al., 1994)and name fewer friends as people they mobilize for social support (Geisthardt &Munsch, 1996). Savage (2005) reported on the protective effect of friendships onchildren with communication disorders attending a speech and language base. Theauthor found that students with language impairments who were more widelysocially accepted seemed to be protected from the risk of being bullied.



Internalizing problems. Students with LDs are likely to exhibit internalizing prob-lems because repeated academic failures may lead to low scholastic self-concept andlearned helplessness, which may erode their overall feelings of self-worth and result inpassive and submissive behaviour. In fact, several studies indicate a negative academicself-concept (Hall, Rouse, Bolen, & Mitchell, 1993; Stanovich, Jordan, & Perot, 1998)and a low sense of global self-worth (Harter et al., 1998; Kaukiainen et al., 2002;Rogers & Saklofske, 1985; Vaughn, Elbaum, Schumm, & Hughes, 1998) in studentswith LDs. In addition, Rogers and Saklofske (1985) found that these students reportedhaving a more externally oriented locus of control and lower performance expecta-tions. Similarly, Hall et al. (1993) found that students with LD expressed a greater ten-dency toward an external locus of control and perceived less control over academicsuccesses than peers without LDs. Rogers and Saklofske proposed that accumulatedfailure experiences lead to these negative affective characteristics, in a mutually rein-forcing manner. These internalizing problems make students with LDs especially vulnerable to peer aggression. Neary and Joseph (1994) found that victims of bullyingrated themselves as lower on self-perceptions of social acceptance, behaviouralconduct, and global self-worth as compared to nonvictimized students. Rudolph,Caldwell, and Conley (2005) reported that negative approval-based self-appraisalswere associated with more emotional distress, particularly in victimized children.Internalizing problems associated with peer victimization have also been reported inresearch conducted by Nishina, Juvonen, and Witkow (2005) and Troop-Gordon andLadd (2005).

Inclusion and Students With Special Learning Needs

The research described above has demonstrated some of the within-child charac-teristics that may be associated with elevated risk of bullying. However, it is quitepossible that these within-child characteristics are modified or possibly even deter-mined by characteristics of the school context in which children operate. For exactlythis reason, proponents of inclusion maintain that inclusive educational settings pro-vide greater socialization opportunities for students with special learning needs, inaddition to reducing stigmatization and promoting self-determination (Stainbacket al., 1996). Only a few empirical studies have looked at the influence of educationalplacement on the risk of peer victimization in students with LDs. Knox and Conti-Ramsden (2003) found no significant difference in regards to educational placementon the frequency of key bullying items ticked between students with LDs in main-stream versus special education settings. The data in their analysis were compressedinto two sets, in which mainstream groups included participants that received part oftheir education in a resource room, possibly leading to a perception of being differentand fewer opportunities for friendship building with their peers without LDs in thegeneral classroom. Martlew and Hodson (1991) also compared the social status andreports of teasing of students with LDs in an integrated setting versus a special school





and found that the students with LDs in the integrated setting did not socialize withthe mainstream peers and reported being teased and bullied more often. In the currentstudy, students with LDs were mainstreamed only for meals, playtime, and artclasses. Similarly, Norwich and Kelly (2004) reported a high incidence of bullying instudents with LDs irrespective of school placement. As with the previously mentionedstudies, here too, some students in inclusive settings spent part of the day in resourceunits. Thus, none of the above-mentioned findings can answer questions about theeffects of full inclusion programs on bullying.

In the current study, we seek to determine whether students with LDs attendinginclusive educational settings do indeed report being bullied at a greater frequencythan students without learning problems. Because links have been found betweenpeer rejection and peer victimization, we look for correlations between self-reportedvictimization and attributes that might isolate students with LDs. These include fac-tors associated with internalizing problems, such as negative self-perceptions andexternally oriented locus of control.

Method

Participants

The participants were 27 fifth-grade students (14 boys and 13 girls), with a meanage of 130.81 months (range 125 to 137 months). No formal data on ethnicity wascollected; however, all but four students from the total sample were first-languageEnglish speakers. Participants were recruited from two Grade 5 classes in two sepa-rate multicultural elementary schools, from English-language school boards inMontreal, Canada, area suburbs. Both schools had put into action antibullying initia-tives. The school boards involved in the current study espoused the philosophy ofinclusion, whereby all students are educated within the regular classroom. Thus,students with LDs spent all of their instructional time in the general classroom withtheir peers without LDs.

Of the total sample, 13 students (7 boys and 6 girls) were identified as having LDS;9 children from School A, and 4 from School B. Of the 9 students from School A,4 had received official codes as being at risk for LDs. The rest of the sample of studentswith LDs were identified by their teachers via criterion-referenced tests. None of thestudents with LDs had received resource support services during the current academicyear. The control group consisted of 14 children without LDs (7 boys and 7 girls)recruited from the same classes as the students with LDs.

Procedure

Teachers who were interested in participating in the project distributed consentforms to all the students in their classrooms. Parental and student consent was




obtained for all participants. Participants met with the researcher individually for asingle 1-hour session. The assessment tools included measures of self-concept, locusof control, self-reports of being bullied, receptive vocabulary and/or verbal ability,and reading ability. Each data-collecting session began with a brief rapport-buildingconversation that was followed by a questionnaire obtaining personal informationsuch as language spoken at home that was followed by the administration of thePeabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). This assessment tool wasalways given first because it is believed to promote feelings of success. The adminis-tration order of the remainder of the assessment tools was counterbalanced using aLatin-square design. To avoid confounding effects related to varying reading and cog-nitive abilities, all questions and responses were read by the researcher to all partici-pants, experimental and control groups alike. Teachers were asked to complete a briefchecklist that looked at their use of a variety of classroom strategies to determine ifthe teaching styles of the four teachers varied significantly. Specifically, strategiesthat promote self-determination and self-efficacy, such as goal setting, self-regulation,and choice making (Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001), were interspersed among othertypical teaching methods.

Assessment Tools

Self-concept. Harter’s (1985) Self-Perception Profile for Children was used toassess children’s domain-specific judgments of their competence and feelings ofself-adequacy and a global perception of their worth or esteem as a person. Thedomain-specific self-perceptions include scholastic competence, social acceptance,athletic competence, physical appearance, and behavioural conduct, and global self-worth. High scores indicate positive self-perceptions, whereas low scores suggestnegative self-judgments.

Locus of control. The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children(Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) is a measure of generalized locus of control forchildren and adolescents. The task consists of 40 questions describing reinforcementsituations across interpersonal and motivational areas such as relationships, achieve-ment, and dependency. For the age group studied in the current project, an abbrevi-ated version was used that consisted of 19 questions. The resulting score is based onthe number of items answered in an external direction, whereby the higher the score,the more external the individual’s orientation. There is no cut-off point that desig-nates a person’s locus of control as internal or external. Rather, the scores can beused to compare individuals in their tendency to be more or less internally or exter-nally oriented than others (Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001).

Self-reports of being bullied. The My Life in School checklist (Sharp & Smith,1994) is designed to identify students that are bullied at school. It consists of 39 state-ments of incidents that typically happen at school. The checklist refers to events that




occurred during the previous week in school. The authors maintain that askingstudents to report on incidents that occurred recently helps to avoid impreciseresponses because of inaccurate recollections. The authors recommend that any keyitems ticked as “more than once” indicate that the child is at risk of being bullied. Ina recent study on prevalence estimates of bullying, Solberg and Olweus (2003) foundthat a cut-off point of 2 to 3 times per month effectively distinguished students thatwere involved versus those that were not involved in bullying. Therefore in the cur-rent study, key items that were ticked as “once” or “more than once per week” werecombined to identify self-reported victims of bullying.

Receptive vocabulary and English language ability. The Peabody Picture VocabularyTest—III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was used to assess receptive vocabulary achieve-ment in the English language. It is a norm-referenced test that is designed to mea-sure receptive vocabulary attainment for standard English and screen for verbalability and language development.

Reading ability. The Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJIII) Woodcock,McGrew, & Mather, 2001) is a norm-referenced assessment tool designed to measurethe cognitive abilities, skills, and academic knowledge customarily found in school.Four tests within the WJIII were used to assess reading ability: Letter-WordIdentification, Reading Fluency, Passage Comprehension, and Word Attack.

Results

Four sets of statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship betweenlearning difficulties, self-reports of bullying, and cognitive and self-perception vari-ables. The first results presented describe the mean values and standard deviations of the receptive vocabulary, reading, and self-perception variables for the two groupsof students, those with and without LD, as well as the differences between thesegroups. Next, these factors were reanalyzed, controlling separately for receptivevocabulary and reading ability, and presented as above. Finally, correlations betweenreports of being bullied and receptive vocabulary, reading ability, and self-perceptionsare presented.

Prior to comparing group differences, descriptive statistics were calculated toensure normal distribution of performance on all assessment tasks. Results from theReading Fluency task of the WJIII demonstrated a skewed distribution (positive kur-tosis, k = 6.27). This measure was transformed using the log 10 function recom-mended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). This improved the data distributionsubstantially. Analysis of gender differences were also computed prior to comparingstudents with and without LD. Although girls ticked fewer items indicative of bully-ing experiences, with mean scores for girls being 1.77 (SD = 2.74) and 2.71 (SD =2.16) for boys, the difference was not significant, F(1, 25) = 1.00, ns. In addition to




these analyses, the two classrooms were compared in relation to teaching approachesthat empower students, to control for this possible confound. The data obtained fromthe checklists on classroom strategies that were completed by the teachers involvedin the study showed that they did not differ significantly, F(1, 4) = 3.87, ns. Thus, itwas possible to combine the results of all students from both classrooms to form twogroups, students with LDs and students without LDs, for all statistical analyses.

Simple Group Differences

Data for all children were submitted to a series of ANOVAs with reader type (LDsvs. non-LDs) as the between-participants variable, and the literacy and cognitivemeasures as the respective dependent variables. These showed that students withLDs significantly differed from their peers in cognitive measures regarding vocabu-lary and reading ability. Differences in measures of receptive vocabulary werestatistically significant, F(1, 25) = 14.33, p = .001. There were also significantdifferences in all of the measures of reading ability: letter-word identification,F(1, 25) = 18.04, p < .001; reading fluency, F(1, 25) = 10.55, p = .003; passage com-prehension, F(1, 25) = 10.87, p = .003, and word attack, F(1, 25) = 41.06, p < .001.In addition, performance on the modified Passage Comprehension task also showedsignificant statistical differences between the two groups, F(1, 24) = 13.97, p = .001.This task had been adapted to ensure that deficits in reading comprehension instudents with LDs were related to comprehension difficulties rather than decodingproblems. These results suggest that we have indeed identified two groups ofchildren, one with broadly average reading abilities and another with broadly below-average reading abilities. These analyses also show, however, the presence of abroader language problem in the sample of children with LDs.

The first goal of the current project was to determine if when attending inclusiveschools that eschewed “pull-out” approaches, children with LDs report more inci-dents of being bullied than students without LDs. The figures in Table 1 demonstratethat in the current sample of students, those with LDs do indeed report being bulliedmore than their peers without LDs. The group main effect reached significance forbullying, F(1, 25) = 10.38, p < .01.

Although the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III could also be used as a screen-ing test for verbal abilities, the results in the current study could not confirm thisbecause 4 of the participants are not first-language English speakers, and the lan-guage spoken at home is other than English. The authors of the Peabody PictureVocabulary Test-III specified that their test could be used as a screen for verbal abil-ity only when English was the language of the examinees’ home, community, andschool (Dunn & Dunn, 1997). When the scores of the 4 nonnative English speakingstudents were excluded from the data set, analysis still demonstrated that thestudents with LDs differed significantly on verbal ability, F(1, 21) = 14.19, p = .001.

Data for all children were submitted to a series of univariate ANOVA with readertype (LDs vs. non-LDs) as the between-participants variable, and the self-perception




measures that include locus of control and Harter’s self-concept scores as the respectivedependent variables. Students with LDs reported significantly higher locus-of-controlscores than their peers without LDs, F(1, 25) = 7.58, p = .011, demonstrating a moreexternal sense of control over their lives. Only one of Harter’s self-perception measuresresulted in a significant statistical difference between the two groups. More studentswith LDs reported that not having very many friends was really true for them on theSelf-Perception Profile for Children, F(1, 25) = 7.77, p = .010.

Group Differences When Controlling for Receptive Vocabulary Scores

The second phase of analysis considered the occurrence of group differences whenreceptive vocabulary was statistically controlled using ANCOVA to identify thesource of the effects. Data for all children were submitted to a series of univariate

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of Cognitive and Self-Perception

Variables per Group, With Difference and Significance Between Groups

NLDa LDb Difference

Measure M SD M SD F p

PPVT—Receptive vocabulary (ss) 103.00 10.25 87.46 11.08 14.33 .001**Woodcock Johnson III Tests of

AchievementLetter-word identification (ae) 12.58 2.30 9.36 1.55 18.04 .000**Reading fluency (log 10 transformed) 1.06 0.10 0.96 0.05 10.55 .003**Passage comprehension (ae) 9.34 1.19 8.16 0.54 10.87 .003**Passage comprehension (rtrs) 29.64 2.24 25.92 2.84 13.97 .001**Word attack (ae) 12.06 1.83 8.43 0.93 41.06 .000**Locus of control 5.43 2.44 8.15 2.70 7.58 .011*Self-report of being bullied 1.00 1.41 3.62 2.66 10.38 .004**

Self-Perception Profile for ChildrenScholastic competence 3.00 0.68 2.77 1.09 0.44 .512Social acceptance 3.64 0.63 2.54 1.33 7.77 .010**Physical appearance 3.21 0.70 3.00 1.22 0.32 .578Athletic competence 2.79 1.19 2.46 1.20 0.50 .487Behavioural conduct 3.14 0.66 3.46 0.78 1.32 .050*Global self-worth 3.36 0.93 3.15 0.99 0.30 .586

Note: PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III; NLD = children without learning difficulties;LDs = children with learning difficulties; ss = standard score; ae = age equivalent; passage comprehension(rtrs) = passage comprehension when read to, using raw score.a. n = 14b. n = 13.*p < .05. **p < .01.




ANCOVAs with reader type (LDs vs. non-LDs) as the between-participants variable,and the literacy and cognitive measures as the respective dependent variables, andwith receptive vocabulary as the covariate. Table 2 shows mean scores and group dif-ferences in the reading-ability variables, self-reports of bullying, locus of control, andself-perception variables when controlling for receptive vocabulary scores.

Between-group differences are significantly reduced for all measured variables.When controlling for receptive vocabulary skill, students in the two groups do notdiffer in their self-reports of being bullied. The only measures that show any signif-icant difference between groups even when controlled for receptive vocabulary arethe reading dimensions: Letter-Word Identification task, F(1, 24) = 8.77, p = .007,and the Word Attack task, F(1, 24) = 18.18, p < .001, of the WJIII. Regardless oftheir lower vocabulary scores, the current sample of students with LDs differs sig-nificantly from their peers without LDs in decoding and word recognition skills. Itis important to note that the lack of significant differences between the two groupsin regards to self-reports of being bullied, when receptive vocabulary attainment iscontrolled for, suggests that the language problems experienced by the students withLDs is a major contributing factor to their reports of peer victimization and a moreexternal locus of control.

Group Differences When Controlling for Reading Scores

A third set of analysis looked at the occurrence of group differences when read-ing ability was covaried with the presence of LDs. Data for all children were sub-mitted to a series of univariate ANCOVAs with reader type (LDs vs. non-LDs) as thebetween-participants variable, and the literacy and cognitive measures as the respec-tive dependent variables, and with the letter-word identification reading ability scoreas the covariate. The differences between students with LDs and learners withoutLDs on several measures, when controlling for reading ability, are similar to thosefollowing the straightforward analyses. Students with LDs still reported significantlyhigher rates of being bullied, F(1, 24) = 4.57, p = .043. They also scored significantlyhigher on the locus-of-control measure, F(1, 24) = 7.68, p = .011, and lower on socialacceptance self-perceptions, F(1, 24) = 7.39, p = .012.

Receptive vocabulary scores are still significantly lower for students with LDs,F(1, 24) = 5.91, p = .023. The related reading measure of decoding skills, the Word-Attack task of the WJIII, also results in significantly lower scores for students withLDs, F(1, 24) = 12.96, p = .001. In addition, the adapted passage comprehension taskin which passages were read to participants demonstrated significantly lower rawscores for the group with LDs, F(1, 23) = 5.71, p = .025. Although these analysesshow that when controlling for reading ability there are still major discrepanciesbetween the two groups of students, the differences are somewhat reduced. This sug-gests that though verbal ability is strongly related to group differences in regards toself-reports of bullying, locus of control and social acceptance self-perceptions instudents with LDs are somewhat independent of reading ability.




Correlational Analysis

The second objective of the current study was to report on factors that are associ-ated with increased reports of being bullied. In the last phase of data analysis, Pearsoncorrelation coefficients were computed to identify relationships between self-reports ofbeing bullied and cognitive and self-perception variables. Table 3 summarizes thesecorrelations. Self-reports of being bullied are negatively correlated with receptivevocabulary attainment, r = –.481, p = .011. This value was recalculated excluding theresults from the four participants who are not first-language English speakers to assesswhether a similar relationship could be found for verbal ability. There is a significantrelationship between verbal ability and self-reports of being bullied, r = –.548, p =.007, suggesting that students with lower verbal abilities report more peer victimiza-tion than students with better language skills. The social acceptance dimension ofHarter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children demonstrated a negative correlation withself-reports of being bullied, r = .077, p = .044. Children who perceived themselves as

Table 2Adjusted Means and Standard Errors of Cognitive and Self-Perception

Variables per Group, When Covarying Receptive Vocabulary,With Difference and Significance Between Groups

NLDa LDb Differences

Measure M SE M SE F p

Woodcock Johnson III—Tests ofAchievementLetter-word identification (ae) 12.41 0.602 9.55 0.630 8.77 .007**Reading fluency (log 10 transformed) 1.04 0.023 0.98 0.024 2.66 .116Passage comprehension (ae) 9.03 0.253 8.50 0.264 1.71 .204Passage comprehension (rtrs) 28.60 0.585 27.14 0.642 2.36 .138Word attack (ae) 11.72 0.426 8.81 0.446 18.18 .000**

Locus of control 6.13 0.730 7.40 0.764 1.18 .288Life at school—victim of bullying 1.34 0.632 3.25 0.661 3.57 .071Self-Perception Profile for Children

Scholastic competence 2.99 0.278 2.79 0.291 0.21 .655Social acceptance 3.40 0.299 2.80 0.312 1.59 .220Physical appearance 3.20 0.304 3.02 0.318 0.13 .131Athletic competence 2.87 0.366 2.37 0.383 0.71 .409Behavioural conduct 3.02 0.215 3.60 0.225 2.82 .106Global self-worth 3.39 0.295 3.12 0.308 0.34 .566

Note: NLD = children without learning difficulties; LDs = children with learning difficulties; ss = stan-dard score; ae = age equivalent; passage comprehension (rtrs) = passage comprehension when read to,using raw score.a. n = 14b. n = 13.*p < .05. **p < .01.



25

Tabl

e 3

Cor

rela

tion

s B

etw

een

Self

-Per

cept

ion,

Rea

ding

,and

Voc

abul

ary

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1.B

ullie

d–.

481*

2.V

ocab

ular

y–.

548*

*a

3.LW

I–.

406*

.469

*4.

RF

–.40

6*.5

55**

.702

**5.

PC–.

515*

*.6

55**

.596

**.7

48**

6.PC

(re

ad to

)–.

491*

.772

**.4

80*

.617

**.8

08**

7.W

A–.

442*

.639

**.8

46**

.800

**.6

68**

.678

**8.

LO

C.5

54**

–.56

2**

–.17

4–.

267

–.22

0–.

415*

–.35

09.

SC-s

chol

astic

–.02

1.0

97.0

03.0

35.0

49–.

002

.048

–.14

710

. SC

-soc

ial

–.39

0*.5

27**

.192

.175

.278

.303

.270

–.57

0**

.311

11. S

C-p

hysi

cal

–.07

7.0

89–.

244

–.43

6*–.

224

–.11

6–.

180

–.18

1.1

03.4

67*

12. S

C-a

thle

tic–.

019

.008

.201

.054

–.14

3–.

051

.106

–.06

3.3

25.1

44–.

097

13. S

C-c

ondu

ct–.

390*

.056

–.49

4**

–.24

6.0

29–.

007

–.35

5–.

146

.232

.051

.170

–.22

614

. SC

-glo

bal

.086

.026

–.05

7–.

106

–.37

1–.

223

.065

–.27

2.0

26.2

19.5

53**

–.04

9–.

117

Not

e:LW

I =

lette

r-w

ord

iden

tific

atio

n; R

F =

read

ing

flue

ncy;

PC

=pa

ssag

e co

mpr

ehen

sion

; WA

=w

ord

atta

ck; L

OC

=lo

cus

of c

ontr

ol; S

C =

self

-con

cept

.a.

Thi

s co

rrel

atio

nal v

alue

exc

lude

s pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho a

re n

ot f

irst

-lan

guag

e E

nglis

h sp

eake

rs.

*p<

.05,

two-

taile

d. *

*p<

.01,

two-

taile

d.




having fewer friends reported being bullied more often than children who felt they hadmany friends. Locus-of-control scores are positively correlated with self-reports ofbeing bullied, r = .554, p = .003. This indicates that the more children are externallyoriented, the greater the degree or frequency they report being bullied. Finally, all ofthe reading-ability measures from the WJIII are negatively correlated with self-reportsof being bullied: Letter-Word Identification, r = −.406, p = .035; Reading Fluency, r =–.406, p = .036; Passage Comprehension, r = –.515, p = .006; Passage Comprehension(when read to), r = –.491, p = .011; and Word Attack, r = –.442, p = .003. This sug-gests that students with widespread reading difficulties report being bullied to a greaterextent than students with age-appropriate reading abilities.

Discussion

The primary aim of the current study was to determine whether children with LDsreported being bullied at a greater frequency than their peers without LDs when attend-ing inclusive educational settings characterized by the absence of pull-out classes. Asecondary goal was to report on the cognitive and self-perceptual factors that are asso-ciated with reports of peer victimization. The major findings of the current researchproject demonstrate that in general classrooms children with LDs reported more inci-dents of being bullied than students without LDs and that receptive vocabulary attain-ment and (to a lesser degree) reading skills, locus of control, and self-perceptions ofsocial acceptance were associated with self-reported victimization scores.

Proponents of inclusion maintain that integrated educational settings providestudents with LDs opportunities for socialization that they would otherwise lack insegregated settings (Stainback et al., 1996). Because the participants in the currentstudy did not spend any class time separated from their peers without LDs, it wouldbe expected that their educational environment would not limit their opportunitiesfor socialization. Also, because the students are not openly categorized as havingLDs, they do not carry labels that are believed to stigmatize and result in peer rejec-tion (Stainback et al., 1996). Thus, considering that there is a significant differencein self-reports of being bullied between the two groups of students, these global fea-tures of the educational placement clearly do not of themselves guarantee thatchildren with LDs will not report bullying.

It is known that one of the most influential factors related to peer victimization ispeer rejection (Perry et al., 1988). Socially isolated children are more likely to reportbeing victims of peer aggression because low social status does not afford vulnerablestudents with the protective function of friendships (Hodges et al., 1999). Although thesocial acceptance variable in Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children is not ameasure of peer acceptance or popularity, its score depicts students’ perceptions oftheir social acceptance. In the current investigation, students with LDs reported feel-ing that they did not have very many friends. In addition, this self-perception measure




correlated negatively with self-reports of being bullied. Thus, it is feasible to surmisethat the bullied students in the current sample had been rejected by their peers.

The following factors have been identified in prior research as leading to peerrejection: low academic performance, communication and/or language difficulties,and poor social skills (Coie & Cillessen, 1993; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Roberts& Zubrick, 1992). Data regarding social skills were not collected in the current pro-ject. However, poor academic performance and communication difficulties can beinferred from the low scores on the reading-ability measures and test of verbal abil-ity. These two correlates of victimization may have resulted in social isolation thatmade students with LDs vulnerable to peer aggression.

Receptive vocabulary attainment was the variable that was consistently negativelycorrelated with increased self-reported incidents of being bullied. This relationshipwas evident across all statistical analyses. The fact that the group differences in vic-timization scores disappeared when controlling for receptive vocabulary attainmentindicates that this variable plays a key role in the reports of bullying in the currentsample of students. The receptive vocabulary measure is reported by the authors ofthe Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III to be a good screen for verbal ability. Theadapted passage comprehension test of the WJIII, which is believed to be related toverbal abilities, also showed lower scores for students with LDs. In addition, theseresults were negatively correlated with self-reports of being bullied.

It is possible that students with language problems are targeted for bullyingbecause this deficit may lead to peer rejection through affected students’ misinterpre-tation of social situations (Bauminger et al., 2005; Kaukiainen et al., 2002; Nabuzoka& Smith, 1993). Communication difficulties may also contribute to decreased socialacceptance and subsequent peer aggression because these problems make studentsstand out from their peers (Owens, Shute, & Slee, 2000). Furthermore, decreased ver-bal abilities may interfere with children’s ability to respond to verbal assaults effec-tively (Savage, 2005).

Previous research has also suggested that a major characteristic of victims of peeraggression consists of internalizing problems, such as anxiety, low self-esteem, andunassertiveness (Hodges & Perry, 1999). Individuals with an external locus of con-trol are likely to exhibit passive and submissive behaviours that would make themvulnerable to peer aggression. These internalizing behaviours may be related tolearned helplessness and external locus of control secondary to repeated failures andcommunication difficulties (Hall et al., 1993; Rogers & Saklofske, 1985). Childrenwho are passive, submissive, and exhibit low self-esteem are potential targets forbullies because they are perceived as weak and unlikely to retaliate.

In summary, the findings of the current investigation demonstrate that attendanceat inclusive educational placements alone does not protect students with speciallearning needs from being bullied. Our data suggest that even in contexts wherechildren with LDs are never segregated from their peers, and where schools imple-mented thoughtful antibullying policies, children with LDs display characteristics




that make them vulnerable to peer rejection and subsequently to peer victimization.Low academic performance, language difficulties, and unassertiveness make thesechildren less liked by their peers without LDs. Thus, the issue seems to lie in how topromote friendships that would provide at-risk students with the protection thatwould dissuade aggressors from victimizing them.

This investigation has several limitations that should be noted. First, this was aconvenience sample so the small number of participants may make the findings lessgeneralizable. Nonetheless, the results were robust statistically speaking and didreplicate several existing works in regards to characteristics of victims of bullying.Still, the effect would need to be reproduced in a larger sample for greater confidenceto be attached to the findings. Second, although a matched control group was used tocompare differences between students with and without LDs, various educational set-tings were not compared. Finally, the validity of self-reports of peer victimization hasoften been questioned because it has been found to be inconsistent with peer reports(Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Perry et al., 1988).

Future directions could entail conducting similar investigations with a larger sam-ple of students. It would be advantageous to compare a variety of settings or learningsituations, such as special schools, resource rooms, or resource services within thegeneral education classroom. Measures of social acceptance would contribute greatlyto understanding the social dynamics of students with special learning needs in inclu-sive settings. Also, peer reports and observational data would validate self-reporteddata. Related to social dynamics are the social skills of students with LDs. It wouldbe valuable to learn if inclusive settings enhance the acquisition of social skills viagreater exposure to peers without LDs.

References

Bauminger, N., Edelsztein, H. S., & Morash, J. (2005). Social information processing and emotionalunderstanding in children with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 45-61.

Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whitehand, C., & Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent and longitudi-nal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriending interventions.Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461-466.

Chazan, M., Laing, A. F., & Davies, D. (1994). Bullies and victims. In Emotional and behavioural diffi-culties in middle childhood (pp. 154-171). London: The Falmer Press.

Coie, J. D., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1993). Peer rejection: Origins and effects on children’s development.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 89-92.

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN:American Guidance Service.

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology,34(2), 299-309.

Geisthardt, C., & Munsch, J. (1996). Coping with school stress: A comparison of adolescents with andwithout learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 287-296.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributionalanalysis. Developmental Psychology, 34(3), 587-599.




Hall, C. W., Rouse, B. D., Bolen, L. M., & Mitchell, C. C. (1993, April). Social-emotional factors instudents with and without learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual convention of theNational Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Junkin, L. J. (1998). Similarities and differences in domain-specific and

global self-evaluations of learning-disabled, behaviorally disordered, and normally achieving adoles-cents. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 653-680.

Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protectionagainst an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 94-101.

Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of vic-timization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 677-685.

Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on childrenwho stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 141-158.

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

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 226-237.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out:Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 148-158.

Knox, E., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Bullying risks of 11-year-old children with specific languageimpairment (SLI): Does school placement matter? International Journal of Language and CommunicationDisorders, 38(1), 1-12.

Lopez, C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Peer victimization and rejection: Investigation of an integrative modelof effects on emotional behavioural, and academic adjustment in early adolescence. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 25-36.

Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., & Case, L. P. (2001). A methodological analysis of research on locus of control andlearning disabilities: Rethinking a common assumption. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 214-225.

Martlew, M., & Hodson, J. (1991). Children with mild learning difficulties in an integrated and in aspecial school: Comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teachers’ attitudes. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 61, 355-372.

Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities,36(4), 336-347.

Morrison, G. M., & Furlong, M. J. (1994). Factors associated with the experience of school violenceamong general education, leadership class, opportunity class, and special day class pupils. Educationand Treatment of Children, 17(3), 356-370.

Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social behaviour of children with and with-out learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(8), 1435-1448.

Neary, A., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-concept and depressionamong schoolgirls. Personal and Individual Differences, 16(1), 183-186.

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names willmake me feel sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment.Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 37-48.

Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difficulties and bullyingin mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 43-65.

Nowicki, S., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 148-154.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based interventionprogram. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171-1190.

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: Facts and intervention. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 4(6), 196-200.




O’Moore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour. AggressiveBehavior, 27, 269-283.

Owens, L., Shute, R., & Slee, P. (2000). Guess what I just heard?: Indirect aggression among teenage girlsin Australia. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 67-83.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology,24(6), 807-814.

Piek, J. P., Barrett, N. C., Allen, L. S. R., Jones, A., & Louise, M. (2005). The relationship betweenbullying and self-worth in children with movement coordination problems. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 75, 453-463.

Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescentwell-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68.

Roberts, C., & Zubrick, S. (1992). Factors influencing the social status of children with mild academicdisabilities in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 192-202.

Rogers, H., & Saklofske, D. H. (1985). Self-concepts, locus of control and performance expectations oflearning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(5), 273-278.

Rudolf, K. D., Caldwell, M. S., & Conley, C. S. (2005). Need for approval and children’s well-being.Child Development, 76(2), 309-323.

Savage, R. S. (2005). Friendship and bullying patterns in children attending a language base in a mainstreamschool. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21(1), 23-36.

Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Understanding bullying. In S. Sharp & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Tacklingbullying in your school: A practical handbook for teachers (pp. 1-5). London: Routledge.

Singer, E. (2005). The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self-esteemwhen teased at school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 411-423.

Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. AggressiveBehavior, 26, 1-9.

Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmentalchanges in coping strategies. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plightof the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 332-351). New York: Guilford.

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

Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Ayres, B. (1996). Schools as inclusive communities. In W. Stainback &S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nded., pp. 31-43). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stanovich, P. J., Jordan, A., & Perot, J. (1998). Relative differences in academic self-concept and peeracceptance among students in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 120-126.

Sveinsson, A. V. (2006). School bullying and disability in Hispanic youth: Are special education studentsat greater risk of victimization by school bullies than non-special education students? DissertationAbstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66(9A), 3214.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self

and schoolmates: Precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76(5),1072-1091.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., Schumm, J. S., & Hughes, M. T. (1998). Social outcomes for students with andwithout learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(5), 428-436.

Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1998). Students’ perceptions of inclusion and resource room settings.Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 79-88.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications forspecial education services and supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(8), 1-17.

Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1997). Importance of social support in the adjustment of childrenwith learning problems. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 183-193.



Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle andsecondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3-25.

Whitney, I., Smith, P. K., & Thompson, D. (1994). Bullying and children with special educational needs.In P. K. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 213-240). London:Routledge.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement.Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Severina Luciano is a resource teacher with a master’s degree in inclusive education from McGillUniversity. She obtained her BA from Concordia University, and BEd from the University of Ottawa. Sheworks at an inner-city high school where she provides remedial reading instruction to students with learn-ing disabilities, as well as second language learners. She also works within a multidisciplinary team asthe coordinator of individual education plans. Prior to becoming a teacher, she worked as a respiratorytherapist at the McGill University Health Centre. There she was involved in numerous research projectsregarding pediatric and adult sleep apnea.

Robert S. Savage is an experienced schoolteacher and educational psychologist having worked closelywith school staff on individual and wider project work as a researcher-practitioner. He is an associate pro-fessor at McGill University. He obtained his degrees from Oxford and Cambridge Universities and hisPhD from the University of London in 1998. He has published 36 research papers in international jour-nals on children’s early reading and spelling strategies in normal development. He has published recentlyon school-based assessment and preventative early intervention projects for reading and spelling prob-lems. He also has an interest in the nature and locus of cognitive difficulties in developmental reading andspelling disability, specifically the relationship between phonological awareness, and possible perceptualand motor fluency deficits.




bullying risk in children with learning difficulties in inclusive educational settings

Documents