Different Tools, Different Results: Comparing Methods for Bullying Assessment in Autistic and ADHD Youth.

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Hannah E Morton, Summer B Bottini, Alana J McVey, Jennifer M Gillis, Raymond G Romanczyk
{"title":"Different Tools, Different Results: Comparing Methods for Bullying Assessment in Autistic and ADHD Youth.","authors":"Hannah E Morton, Summer B Bottini, Alana J McVey, Jennifer M Gillis, Raymond G Romanczyk","doi":"10.1007/s10803-025-06938-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Autistic and ADHD youth face heightened risk of peer victimization and subsequent poor educational and mental health outcomes. Yet, bullying interventions have had limited success in these groups, potentially due to variability in bullying assessment methods across studies. Additionally, general tools validated for community samples may fail to capture the unique victimization experiences of these youth. This study evaluated the agreement and sensitivity of three bullying assessment methods-a single-item assessment, the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ), and the disability-specific Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)-and examined group differences in victimization risk. Caregivers of 516 autistic, ADHD, and community youth completed all three bullying assessments. Agreement across measures was examined overall and within groups using percent agreement, Cohen's kappa and McNemar's tests. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate group differences in bullying classification within each measure. Agreement between the OBQ and ABE was moderate overall, but weaker in each of the autism and ADHD groups. The single-item assessment underestimated bullying prevalence compared to multi-item questionnaires and also failed to detect any between-group differences. Youth with ADHD were nearly three times more likely to be bulled compared to community youth when measured by both the ABE (OR = 2.81; 95% CI [1.34, 5.92]) and the OBQ (OR = 2.76; 95% CI [1.37, 5.57]) whereas increased vulnerability for autistic youth with co-occurring ADHD was only identified by the ABE (OR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.42, 3.85]). Findings highlight the limitations of single-item assessments and general measures in capturing disability-specific bullying. By including disability-specific behaviors, the ABE provides greater sensitivity for assessing bullying in autistic and ADHD youth. Integrating theory-driven frameworks may further improve assessment and intervention approaches for understanding and addressing bullying risk in autistic and ADHD youth.</p>","PeriodicalId":15148,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-06938-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autistic and ADHD youth face heightened risk of peer victimization and subsequent poor educational and mental health outcomes. Yet, bullying interventions have had limited success in these groups, potentially due to variability in bullying assessment methods across studies. Additionally, general tools validated for community samples may fail to capture the unique victimization experiences of these youth. This study evaluated the agreement and sensitivity of three bullying assessment methods-a single-item assessment, the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ), and the disability-specific Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)-and examined group differences in victimization risk. Caregivers of 516 autistic, ADHD, and community youth completed all three bullying assessments. Agreement across measures was examined overall and within groups using percent agreement, Cohen's kappa and McNemar's tests. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate group differences in bullying classification within each measure. Agreement between the OBQ and ABE was moderate overall, but weaker in each of the autism and ADHD groups. The single-item assessment underestimated bullying prevalence compared to multi-item questionnaires and also failed to detect any between-group differences. Youth with ADHD were nearly three times more likely to be bulled compared to community youth when measured by both the ABE (OR = 2.81; 95% CI [1.34, 5.92]) and the OBQ (OR = 2.76; 95% CI [1.37, 5.57]) whereas increased vulnerability for autistic youth with co-occurring ADHD was only identified by the ABE (OR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.42, 3.85]). Findings highlight the limitations of single-item assessments and general measures in capturing disability-specific bullying. By including disability-specific behaviors, the ABE provides greater sensitivity for assessing bullying in autistic and ADHD youth. Integrating theory-driven frameworks may further improve assessment and intervention approaches for understanding and addressing bullying risk in autistic and ADHD youth.

不同的工具,不同的结果:自闭症和多动症青少年欺凌评估方法的比较。
自闭症和多动症青少年面临同伴受害的风险更高,随之而来的是不良的教育和心理健康结果。然而,欺凌干预措施在这些群体中取得的成功有限,可能是由于不同研究中欺凌评估方法的差异。此外,针对社区样本验证的一般工具可能无法捕捉到这些年轻人独特的受害经历。本研究评估了三种欺凌评估方法——单项评估、Olweus欺凌问卷(OBQ)和残疾欺凌经历评估(ABE)的一致性和敏感性,并考察了群体在受害风险方面的差异。516名自闭症、多动症和社区青少年的照顾者完成了所有三项欺凌评估。使用百分比一致性、科恩的卡帕和麦克尼马尔的测试,对不同措施之间的一致性进行了总体和组内的检查。采用Logistic回归模型评估各组在欺凌分类上的差异。OBQ和ABE之间的一致性总体上是中等的,但在每个自闭症和多动症组中都较弱。与多项目问卷相比,单项目评估低估了欺凌发生率,也未能发现任何组间差异。与社区青少年相比,患有多动症的青少年被欺凌的可能性几乎是社区青少年的三倍。95% CI[1.34, 5.92])和OBQ (OR = 2.76;95% CI[1.37, 5.57]),而自闭症青少年合并ADHD的易感性增加仅由ABE确定(OR = 2.34;95% ci[1.42, 3.85])。调查结果强调了单项目评估和一般措施在捕捉针对残疾的欺凌行为方面的局限性。通过包括残疾特定行为,ABE为评估自闭症和多动症青少年的欺凌行为提供了更高的敏感性。整合理论驱动的框架可以进一步改善评估和干预方法,以理解和解决自闭症和多动症青少年的欺凌风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
10.30%
发文量
433
期刊介绍: The Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders seeks to advance theoretical and applied research as well as examine and evaluate clinical diagnoses and treatments for autism and related disabilities. JADD encourages research submissions on the causes of ASDs and related disorders, including genetic, immunological, and environmental factors; diagnosis and assessment tools (e.g., for early detection as well as behavioral and communications characteristics); and prevention and treatment options. Sample topics include: Social responsiveness in young children with autism Advances in diagnosing and reporting autism Omega-3 fatty acids to treat autism symptoms Parental and child adherence to behavioral and medical treatments for autism Increasing independent task completion by students with autism spectrum disorder Does laughter differ in children with autism? Predicting ASD diagnosis and social impairment in younger siblings of children with autism The effects of psychotropic and nonpsychotropic medication with adolescents and adults with ASD Increasing independence for individuals with ASDs Group interventions to promote social skills in school-aged children with ASDs Standard diagnostic measures for ASDs Substance abuse in adults with autism Differentiating between ADHD and autism symptoms Social competence and social skills training and interventions for children with ASDs Therapeutic horseback riding and social functioning in children with autism Authors and readers of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders include sch olars, researchers, professionals, policy makers, and graduate students from a broad range of cross-disciplines, including developmental, clinical child, and school psychology; pediatrics; psychiatry; education; social work and counseling; speech, communication, and physical therapy; medicine and neuroscience; and public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信