Responding to Bullying Among Children with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities

Full text

1
Faculty of Education
For the:
Knowledge Phase: Part 2 – A comprehensive review of the
literature
Responding to Bullying among Children
with Special Educational Needs and/or
Disabilities
Colleen McLaughlin, Richard Byers and Rosie Peppin Vaughan
July 2010

2
Contents
Acknowledgements
1
Summary
2
Key policy implications
7
Purpose and scope of the literature review
8
Main review methods
14
Assessment of the evidence base
16
Are children and young people with SEN and/or disabilities
disproportionately vulnerable to experiencing bullying within
the school context?
18
What is particular about this group of children in respect of
their vulnerability to bullying, in the context of their
interactions with their peers?
22
What are the challenges that schools face in effectively
preventing and responding to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
30
What are the most effective approaches that schools can take
to prevent and respond to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
37
Conclusions and main messages
43
References
48
Appendix: Scoping strategy and results
68

3
Acknowledgements
The review authors would like to thank Neil Tippett at Goldsmiths, University of
London, for advice and support on searching for literature, Lyndsay Upex at the
Faculty of Education for research and administrative support, and Jayne Parkin at the
National Children’s Bureau for help and support in searching their database for
relevant materials.

4
Summary
This report presents the findings from a review of the literature on the bullying of
children with special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities. The review was
carried out between February and June 2010 by the research team at the Faculty of
Education, University of Cambridge, on behalf of the Anti-Bullying Alliance.
The primary purpose of this review is to analyse the content of the best available
literature in relation to the review areas.
Aims
This report reviews the literature for one key research question, (examined last in this
report), What does the evidence say are the most effective approaches that schools
can take to a) preventing and b) responding to the bullying of children with
SEN and/or disabilities?
and three supplementary questions:
What evidence is there that children and young people with SEN or
disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to experiencing bullying
and/or peer victimisation within the school context?
What is particular about this group of children in respect of their
vulnerability to bullying, in the context of their interactions with peers?
What does the evidence tell us about the challenges that schools face in
effectively preventing and responding to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
This section will go on to provide brief summaries of the ideas from the main report
relating to:
review methods and an assessment of the evidence base
the vulnerability of young people with SEN and/or disabilities to bullying
the characteristics of children with SEN and/or disabilities and social context
the challenges for schools
the most effective approaches for schools
and the report’s conclusions and main messages.

5
Summary of the main messages
Bullying and victimisation are key issues
Pupils with SEN and/or disabilities are disproportionately at risk.
Pupils with mild difficulties and/or hidden disabilities may be more at risk.
Marginalisation and isolation lead to victimisation and bullying.
Pupils affected are in mainstream and special contexts.
Pupils with SEN and/or disabilities can be both bullies and victims.
Types of bullying
Bullying of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities is more relational than direct
although both are present. Peer isolation and peer difficulties are more
common.
Pupils with SEN and/or disabilities may experience more ridicule, manipulation
and name-calling.
New forms of bullying – cyber, sexual and manipulation - also apply to pupils
with SEN and/or disabilities.
It is a continuum going from isolation and ostracism through to hate crime.
Particular aspects of bullying and pupils with SEN and/or disabilities
ALL pupils with SEN and/or disabilities may have characteristics that make
them more vulnerable to bullying. However, the key factors in reducing
vulnerability are social and so social skills and social opportunity are
important.
Social skills and communication emerge as key issues in the bullying of pupils
with SEN and/or disabilities.
- Social behaviours are crucially important with regard to peer
victimisation.
- Language and communication are key to social competence.
The context of the classroom and the school are also important.
- The social fabric of the classroom is important.
- Peer acceptance is a protective factor.
- Inclusion in mainstream settings does not automatically engage with
these issues.
The challenges that schools face vary.
- Some challenges are methodological: to do with detecting the existing
level and nature of bullying (for example, how children with SEN and/or
disabilities perceive bullying behaviour; teacher ratings as opposed to
self-reports).

6
- Some challenges are to do with the logistics of implementation (for
example, school management; implementing whole school policy;
teacher awareness and willingness to address issues).
- Some challenges are to do with how the issue is conceptualised (for
example, rather than as ‘problem children’, changing attitudes and
recognising the social context is crucial).
Effective approaches that schools can take to prevent and respond
• The research on interventions for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities has
developed over the last fifteen years but there is still a need for much more
research on school-based interventions and their efficacy.
• Accessing the views of young people with SEN and/or disabilities is a significant
methodological challenge.
• There is a need to conceptualise bullying as located with the social context of
the school and young people’s lives.
• There is a strong case for intervening both preventatively and reactively, as
well as monitoring the bullying of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities.
• Planned preventative interventions improve matters but, if there is no
intervention, bullying in mainstream settings can be worse than in special
settings. Peer support interventions show some success but need to be
assisted by the classroom and school climate.
• Interventions fall into two main categories: those that aim to engage the
empathy of peers through peer education and harness that in the support of
the student; and those that engage in direct peer support.
• Simple targeted interventions can have considerable impact but need to focus
on the particular needs of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities or the social
meaning of the behaviour and experiences.
Implications for policy and practice
Central role for communication and language
Language is a key aspect of social integration and so there is an important task
for schools to do more in the area of developing communication and language.
There is a need for a wider curriculum for communication.
The interventions and education should include a strong focus on expressive
communication skills and advocacy, as well as alternative and augmentative
modes.
Central role for social skills
Social competence with peers is a key protective factor and schools need to see
the development of this as a key task. There is a need to do more.
The curriculum for social education needs to be expanded.
Adults in schools need to pro-actively develop peer relationships.

7
Social as well as educational opportunities need to be offered in schools.
Implications for teachers
The literature consistently suggests that teachers tend to underestimate (or to
be unaware or ignore) teasing, bullying and victimisation of children with SEN
and/or disabilities.
A challenge is for teachers to become more aware and to access the views of
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities. The awareness of the particulars of bullying
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities and of the evidence on appropriate
interventions are important areas of training and development.
Another challenge is that of deciding when and how to intervene.
Implications for support
There is evidence that particular forms of support for pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities can increase vulnerability so the nature of the support and its
impact needs to be considered.
Support staff need to be better trained in the personal, social and emotional
aspect of learning; the social aspects of bullying; the evidence on effective
interventions and on the effects of marginalisation from the peer group.
Being in need of ‘help’ is a risk factor.
Isolation from teachers and peers is a risk factor.
Peers play a key role and peer support, appropriately introduced and
monitored, is a key area of development. Peers as buddies, mentors, active and
supportive bystanders are all areas that could be developed.
Implications for pupils and parents
Parents need to develop their capacity to listen to pupils and to become
advocates.
Pupils need to be helped to developing ‘voices’ and be able to engage in self
advocacy.
Pupils becoming involved in research and development is a new and important
area for development, as is pupils contributing to school improvement.
Implications for school structures
Forms of organisation in schools for engaging with SEN and/or disabilities can
make things worse. Separate grouping and teaching can be unhelpful.
Schools need to develop informed approaches to pupil grouping and extended
responsibility for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities during the ‘non-teaching’
parts of the school day

8
Inclusive schools need to do more to build empathy among the peer group and
active responsibility among peers for the well-being of pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities
Schools have responsibility for the whole school day and extended experiences,
these need monitoring and extending. Schools have and could take more
responsibility for non-teaching times and social opportunities.
Implications for inclusion
There is a need to manage and get more sophisticated in our responses to
difference. Building awareness and empathy can be a strong agent of change
and bring out the best qualities in peers.
Locational integration in mainstream settings is not enough.
All schools need to be alert and pro-active.
All schools can become more inclusive.
Implications for research
There is a need for further research into preventative and reactive
interventions in schools to reduce the bullying of pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities. There a big gap in the research on the level of whole school or large
approaches and interventions. Action research and rigorous evaluative studies
would make a useful contribution, especially if they were studies of evidence
informed interventions.
The research needs to include a wider range of research. Currently the
research is mainly made up of case studies, often of individuals or small groups,
and surveys. There is a need for research on whole school initiatives and on the
development of whole school strategies.
There are very useful accounts of practice in the literature but the warrant for
them is often unclear, so validated whole school practice studies would also be
useful as would the development of criteria for such studies.
Different modes of research such as pupil self-reporting and teacher awareness
studies would also be useful.

9
Summary of policy implications
National and local policy and practice need to respond more effectively to
bullying and victimisation among pupils with SEN and/or disabilities, since it is a
priority area and rates are very high.
Communication and language should have a central role in the curriculum for
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities as these help develop resilience and coping.
The social aspects of education should have a central role in the curriculum for
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities.
- Particular emphasis should be given to peer education, peer support
and the development of social competence.
Inclusive schools need to do more to build empathy among the peer group and
active responsibility among peers for the well-being of pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities
Teachers’ awareness of the bullying and victimisation of pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities needs to be raised.
Support staff need to be better trained in the personal, social and emotional
aspects of learning and they need to be deployed in ways that do not increase
the marginalisation of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities.
There should be improved support for advocacy among pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities and these young people should be more meaningfully and actively
involved in school review and development processes.
Parents should be enabled to support young people in becoming advocates.
Schools need to develop informed approaches to pupil grouping and extended
responsibility for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities during the ‘non-teaching’
parts of the school day.
There should be further research into bullying and victimisation among pupils
with SEN and/or disabilities, particularly research that involves young people
and that supports the development and evaluation of improved practices.

10
Purpose and scope of the literature review
This section outlines the purpose, focus and remit of the literature review.
History of the project
The Lamb Inquiry was established as part of the previous government’s response to
the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Report Special Educational
Needs: Assessment and Funding. In the final report (December 2009), one of the
recommendations was that Government should review the effectiveness of a range of
approaches to preventing and tackling bullying of children with SEN and/or disabilities
and invest further in those with the most impact1.
This project was therefore launched early in 2010, led by the Anti-Bullying Alliance
working with key organisations, to identify best practice in tackling SEN and/or
disabilities-related bullying and to explore how schools can be supported to address it.
The aim of this project is to understand and then exemplify the most effective
responses schools can make to preventing and responding to the bullying of children
and young people with SEN and/or disabilities. The key audience for this is the schools’
sector.
From this, the Department for Education (DfE) will also be able to consider how
schools should be best supported to invest in measures which have most impact.
The project is structured in two distinct but concurrent phases, a knowledge phase
and a products phase. The weighting of the project is towards knowledge, and this
literature review builds on an earlier scoping study (McLaughlin, Byers and Peppin
Vaughan, 2010). The scoping study assessed the nature and strength of the evidence
base and provided an initial overview of trends in the literature in relation to the
effectiveness of measures to prevent and respond to the bullying or victimisation of
children with SEN and/or disabilities.
This literature review aims to show what works best in preventing and responding to
the bullying of children and young people with SEN and/or disabilities in schools. It
also identifies gaps in the evidence currently available. Additionally, it will cross-
reference to any generic evidence on bullying that may be relevant. In the review we
set out an overarching assessment of the evidence base as whole before moving on to
analyse and report in detail on each of the review questions. The review ends with a
series of conclusions and practice recommendations.
The knowledge phase also includes a call for local practice in order to find examples of
evaluated local work that can be further interrogated alongside the literature review
and possibly developed into case studies. A separate products phase, including
publications and a space on the ABA website will follow.
1 Recommendation 9, Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence, (DCSF,2009)

11
Policy background
Since the 1990s, preventing and responding to bullying in schools has been
increasingly prioritised in education policy and official literature. There has been
acknowledgement that schools themselves can play an effective role in preventing and
tackling bullying, and in relation to this there have been increasing requirements for
schools to have explicit policies on bullying. Successive governments have produced
guidance for schools on how they can prevent and respond to bullying, including the
creation of a whole-school policy, local authority actions, and staff professional
development, including guidance on preventing and responding to bullying of children
with SEN/D (DCSF, 2008).
Since 2000, there has been an increasing concern about the relationship between
bullying and children with SEN and/or disabilities, especially in the light of
developments in relation to the inclusion of children with SEN and/or disabilities in
mainstream settings. Some commentators (for example, Warnock, 2005) have
suggested that these developments have resulted in children with SEN and/or
disabilities becoming more vulnerable to marginalisation and victimisation. As this is
an emergent field, however, relatively little research has been conducted so far on
whether and how children with SEN and/or disabilities might be particularly at risk
from bullying, particularly within school contexts. Recent publications, particularly
from advocacy groups, have looked at groups that are apparently particularly
vulnerable to bullying, pressing for more attention to issues of isolation, victimisation
and the mental health of people with disabilities. Publications so far include Count Us
In (Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, 2002); The Mental Health of
Children and Adolescents with Learning Disabilities in Britain (Emerson and Hatton,
2007); Don’t Stick It, Stop It (Mencap, 2007); and Getting Away with Murder (Scope,
2008). Wider-scale research is yet to be forthcoming, although publications such as
these represent more substantial approaches to the issues.
As detailed later in this study, most existing studies of bullying address specific
categories of SEN and/or disability, resulting in a ‘patchwork quilt’ of research findings
relating to different groups. Our research review therefore contributes to this
emergent field by providing an overview and meta-analysis of the issues.

12
Research questions
The review team primarily considered one key question:
What does the evidence say are the most effective approaches that schools can
take to a) preventing and b) responding to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
Additionally, the study addresses three key context questions:
What evidence is there that children and young people with SEN and/or
disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to experiencing bullying and/or
peer victimisation within the school context?
What is particular about this group of children in respect of their vulnerability
to bullying, in the context of their interactions with their peers?
What does the evidence tell us about the challenges that schools face in
effectively preventing and responding to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
An earlier scoping study conducted by the research team tested the integrity of the
key questions against an initial reading of the literature, with the result that a small
amendment was suggested to the phrasing of research questions 3, to include the
phrase ‘in the context of their interactions with their peers’. Much of the literature is
concerned directly with what are seen by researchers as characteristics that may make
children with exceptionalities vulnerable to bullying and/or victimisation. Other
papers, however, adopt arguably a more complex perspective and explore the
interactions that take place between bullies and victims that enable victimisation to
take place. In some of these papers, the differences between bullies and victims are
analysed, for example, in terms of social adjustment and/or social skills or in terms of
the effects, for both bullies and victims, of underlying psychopathologies. This may be
a more refined way in which to engage with the issue and it emerges that, in some
instances (for example, among children with ADHD), children with SEN may emerge as
both bullies and as victims. Understanding the dynamics of these interactions may
facilitate the development of a more sophisticated analysis of the origins of the
bullying and victimisation of children with SEN and/or disabilities.
The scoping study also reviewed the nature and strength of the evidence available,
and reported on trends in the literature. Following the findings of the scoping study
and for the preparation of this review, additional sources were also examined, as
described in the review methods section.

13
Definitions
In approaching the research questions, we have used the following definitions,
decided on through consultation within the research team.
The phrase ‘special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities’ was taken from
existing Government guidance (2008), and understood to cover a broad range
of conditions (including, for example, autism spectrum disorders, physical
disabilities, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). The decision was
taken to exclude mental health conditions (such as depression, anxiety, OCD,
anorexia), other physical differences / medical conditions (such as obesity,
eczema, asthma, diabetes) and ‘gifted and talented’ children. This is discussed
further in the section on terminology below.
‘Children and young people’ were defined as children in primary or secondary
school. Studies relating to children of pre-school age, adults, or young adults
not in school were excluded, although there is also literature on aggression
towards toddlers and adults with SEN and/or disabilities. This decision was
made due to the need to focus on challenges faced in particular by schools, and
on the measures that can be taken by schools.
‘Bullying’ was defined as bullying between peers, rather than physical or
psychological abuse from adults towards children. The definition of bullying
was taken from the DCSF ‘Safe to Learn’ guidance (2007: 11), which defines
bullying as:
Behaviour by an individual or group, usually repeated over time, that
intentionally hurts another individual or group either physically or
emotionally.
Thus our definition did not include random or isolated incidences of aggression
or violence, instead paying attention to the particularly victimising nature of
targeted bullying behaviour.
We adopted a flexible interpretation of the phrase ‘most effective approaches’,
acknowledging, in the light of the literature, that effectiveness can be
identified across a variety of dimensions (e.g. reduced frequency of bullying
behaviour, improvements in reported emotional well-being, enhanced
resilience or social participation).

14
Terminology
Different terms have been used to refer to ‘special educational needs’ and ‘disabilities’
in different time periods and geographical locations. Using a variety of related or
alternative search terms enabled us to locate clusters of articles focusing on aspects of
bullying and/or victimisation and children with SEN and/or disabilities. It is worth
noting that much of this literature is relatively current so archaic terminologies
(‘educationally subnormal’ or ‘physically handicapped’) were less relevant.
However, the phrase ‘special educational needs (SEN)’ is still in use, sometimes
shortened to the more generic ‘special needs’. These terms are being replaced in some
contexts by phrases like ‘additional needs’ (for example, in Scotland) or
‘exceptionalities’ (for example, in Canada).
The term ‘disabilities’ is used widely to denote a range of impairments and disabilities.
Sometimes the term is qualified by adding an emphasis on ‘physical disabilities’ to
denote a subset of ‘disabilities’. Technically, some children have disabilities occurring
as a result of ‘cerebral palsy’. Some children are described simply as having ‘health
needs’.
The term ‘learning difficulties’ is currently used in England (in educationally-focused
literature) and in this scoping paper and is equivalent to ‘learning disabilities’ (in
health or social services-orientated literature). This term is sometimes subdivided into
categories such as, for example, ‘severe learning difficulties’ or ‘moderate learning
difficulties’. The same difficulties are described in other contexts as ‘intellectual
disabilities’ (in the Far East and Australasia) and as ‘mental retardation’ (in North
America) with subdivisions as in ‘mild retardation’ etc. The term ‘educational
difficulties’ is beginning to be used in some contexts. Some children will be diagnosed
specifically with ‘Down syndrome’.
A number of articles focus on children who are said to experience ‘attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder’ (ADHD) or ‘attention deficit disorder’ (ADD). These
difficulties may be associated with, or described as equivalent to, ‘hyperactivity’ or
‘inattention’. Other children may be described as displaying ‘disruptive behaviour’ or
as having ‘movement co-ordination problems’. Other children may be said to
experience ‘emotional problems’ or high levels of ‘arousal’. We have excluded from
our work reports concerning children who merely display difficult or challenging
behaviour without any other form of associated disability or special educational need.
The preferred contemporary term for disabilities on the autistic spectrum is ‘autistic
spectrum disorders’ or ‘autism spectrum disorders’ (ASD) but the term ‘autism’ is still
widely used. A specific group of people who may have some autistic characteristics but
who may achieve relatively high academic attainments are described as having
‘Asperger syndrome’.
Children who experience a range of difficulties in speaking are described as having
‘speech and language difficulties’ (commonly abbreviated to ‘SpLD’). Some articles
refer to children whose speech is marked by disfluency or ‘stammering’. Other
children may be diagnosed with ‘Tourette syndrome’.

15
Children who experience a range of hearing difficulties may be described as being
‘partially hearing’ or ‘deaf’.
Some children are described as experiencing ‘obesity’ or other physical differences
such as eczema, asthma, or diabetes; or they may be described as being ‘gifted’; or
they may suffer from mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, obsessive-
compulsive disorder, or anorexia; and suffer from bullying and/or victimisation as a
result. However, for the purpose of this review it was decided that these do not
routinely fall under the definition of special educational needs or disability, so studies
focusing on children with these characteristics were not included. It is acknowledged
that these medical and mental health conditions can lead to special educational needs
and or disabilities but they do not necessarily do so. Therefore studies that are
concerned only with medical and health conditions were excluded from this review.
This is not to deny the possibility that these young people may be victimised or bullied
nor to suggest that this should not be taken seriously. Indeed, some comments are
raised in relation to children experiencing these conditions where they help to shed
light on the main findings of the review or where children experience co-morbid
conditions or combinations of difficulties.
When offering direct quotations from original sources, this review uses the original
language which researchers and writers adopted. References are therefore made to
terms which may be considered dated or offensive. This is a function of history.

16
Main review methods
Selection of relevant material
Once the key questions had been set by the Anti-Bullying Alliance, in response to the
project commissioner’s brief, the parameters for the research were decided (see
Appendix). The methods used for this literature review built on those employed in the
scoping study, using a broad range of methods to identify relevant material:
searches of bibliographic databases;
searches of project and organisation websites;
contacting individuals working in relevant organisations;
recommendations from the National Children’s Bureau and ABA;
references gathered from the full text of relevant articles.
Three screening stages were undertaken to filter out the materials most relevant to
the research questions; for a full description of the criteria used at each stage please
see the Appendix.
Screening 1: was carried out using record titles and abstracts (where available) to
ensure the search results conformed to the search parameters and were relevant for
answering the scoping study questions.
Materials were excluded if:
they did not address the issue of bullying;
they were published before 1990 (although comments about some earlier
papers have been included in this report where the evidence provides a
foundation for later commentaries);
they did not relate to a study in an English-speaking country, or were not
published in English;
they did not relate to the scoping study questions;
they reported on the causal effect of bullying on mental health problems and
disorders;
a fuller report was published elsewhere;
they were duplicate records.
Screening 2: was conducted after consultation over the results of the first screening
among the research team, and further discussions about the remit of the study.
Further materials were excluded if:
they focused solely on ADHD-related ‘behavioural’ problems or disorders;
the bullying explored was between adults, or pre-school children;
they were investigating the effectiveness of medical treatments for aggressive
behaviour or ADHD;

17
the aggression and bullying investigated was occurring in non-school contexts
(for example, at home, between parents, children and siblings).
After the second screening, full text versions of the articles were collected where
possible and read for analysis, to assess the evidence base for each of the research
questions.
Screening 3: as there was some considerable discussions within the research team
about specifically which literature was to be included at this stage (see ‘Cause and
effect’, below), the literature review phase included a revisiting of the literature
excluded in the second screening, in order to confirm the criteria applied to this study.
After the decision to adopt a refined definition of SEN and/or disabilities, which did
not include mental health disorders, other physical differences or medical conditions
and ‘gifted’ children, the previously excluded literature was reviewed again alongside
included articles and additional literature which had been sourced from full text
articles and from further consultations with individuals. Young people who have
medical conditions only do not tend to be bullied any more than other young people.
In the section on Those who do not get bullied (page 21) there is further detail on this
point.
In this third screening, sources were sorted according to primary or secondary
importance, or excluded entirely from the study. The quality and nature of the
material was recorded on ‘report cards’, with summaries of the findings in relation to
each research question. Certain key findings from earlier research were noted at this
stage. These references were followed up and, where relevant, allusions to these
sources have been included in the review. The final selected sources are listed in the
References section. We used 278 references in this final stage and report.
The review process was monitored through a series of meetings held with ABA at the
National Children’s Bureau and through consultations with other interested parties
and key commentators.
Limitations
The following limitations should be noted.
In some cases, we were unable to locate full text versions of the articles
selected through the screening process, because they were available only in
libraries abroad.
The review largely concerns studies published since 1990, although few articles
were found from the period preceding this and the bulk of research is
understood to have been conducted in the 1990s and beyond. We suggest
that any significant research in the period immediately prior to this is likely to
have been referred to in the papers we reviewed and, where relevant, the
review alludes to these findings.
Many of the individuals and organisations we contacted did not reply in time
for inclusion in the review.
The review has been a time-limited exercise, enabling the team to explore the
available literature and analyse the cross-cutting characteristics of the evidence

18
base; however it was not possible to engage in the same depth with broader
literature on bullying.
The review was limited to English-language studies only.
The evidence base for school interventions, particularly in terms of high-quality
evaluations, was limited, which in turn restricted the conclusions for Research
Questions 1 and 4.

19
Assessment of the evidence base
Nature of the evidence base
The majority of papers were from studies in the UK or the US, with a small proportion
from other countries (including Australia, Canada, Israel, Jordan, the Netherlands,
Scandinavia and Hong Kong) and some interesting comparative studies from multiple
locations. The literature addressed bullying in a mixture of mainstream and special
school settings (sometimes with comparisons between settings). Research tended to
focus on the incidence of bullying in relation to specific disabilities, with less attention
to the experiences of the general population of children with SEN and/or disabilities
within mainstream schools. This review therefore attempts to bring together such
disparate case studies.
Different types of literature explore these issues; these include:
research articles in peer-reviewed journals;
reports produced by voluntary sector organisations (such as Mencap);
consciousness-raising and polemical literature from advocacy groups;
policy-related literature produced by government departments;
enquiries carried out by the voluntary sector;
speculative work identifying problems and hypothesising on possible
responses.
It was considered important to include all these types of literature despite there being
a lack of detail about methodology in some cases because some of the literature is
relatively immature. Papers which were opinion only , rhetorical or where no
evidence was made available were not included.
Gaps in the evidence base
Some anti-bullying approaches which have been developed for use in mainstream
schooling (for example, staff training, ‘Circle of Friends’ and peer mentoring) have
been applied to children with SEN and/or disabilities, but, as is indicated in later
sections of this review, there is little research so far on the effectiveness of these
strategies. Also, as is suggested above, most studies relate to particular forms of SEN
or categories of disability, and there has been hardly any ‘overview’ work on strategies
that might cover all children with SEN and/or disabilities. Further, there is very little
action research, or where this has been conducted, it has been on a small scale. In
this way, the existing literature is not specifically geared to resolving the problem. The
concluding section of this review outlines the need for further research in a number of
areas.

20
Cause and effect
The main subjects of this study, as defined by the research questions, are children with
SEN and/or disabilities who are bullied. However, a significant proportion of the
literature addresses the anti-social and aggressive behaviour of children with
particular forms of SEN and/or disabilities (e.g. autism, Asperger syndrome or ADHD)
towards their peers, and the challenges for schools in reducing this. There is some
discussion about whether over-aggressive behaviour should be classified in itself as a
disability but this review does not engage significantly with the literature on
challenging behaviour unless there is also some discussion of bullying and/or being
bullied being associated with these phenomena. Further, many studies examine the
significance of bullying in terms of causing mental health problems (especially anxiety
and depression) (e.g. Rigby, 2005). This literature was also excluded from this study as
it did not relate closely enough to the research questions, but these are clearly
significant problems that also affect young people with SEN and/or disabilities.
Some questions also need to be raised about the ways in which the literature sets up
the issue of bullying. Children with certain forms of SEN and/or disabilities are often
positioned within studies as having characteristics that make them inherently likely to
be bullies and/or bullied, meaning that the research avoids exploring the interactions
and relationships between bullies and victims and the significance of aspects of the
school context. Thus one characteristic of the evidence base is the tendency to employ
a ‘deficit model’, labelling children as ‘maladjusted’, ‘anti-social’ or ‘aggressive’, or as
having characteristics making them likely to be bullies or bullied in future. Other
research suggests that this view is too simplistic and some studies build on the
benefits of employing a ‘social model’ of disability and bullying which does not look
only at the characteristics of one individual but also considers the social and inter-
personal environment in which the bullying is occurring. This also relates to broader
debates in the school violence literature over whether some forms of behaviour
should be classified as ‘deviance’ when instead attention should be paid to the needs
and conditions of individuals (for example, Watts and Erevelles, 2004).

21
Are children and young people with SEN and/or disabilities
disproportionately vulnerable to experiencing bullying within
the school context?
The children with SEN and/or disabilities who are bullied or victimised
There is a great weight of evidence that confirms that children with SEN and/or
disabilities are significantly more likely to be bullied or victimised than their non-
disabled peers (see, for example, Salmon and West, 2000). This evidence comes from a
wide range of settings including the UK (see, for example, Thompson, Whitney and
Smith, 1994; Whitney, Smith and Thompson, 1994a); Ireland (see, for example,
O’Moore and Hillery, 1989); Scandinavia (see for example, Kaukiainen, Salmivalli,
Lagerspetz, Tamminen, Vauras, Maki and Poskiparta, 2002; Skär, 2003; Bejerot and
Mortberg, 2009); the USA (see, for example, Hemphill and Siperstein, 1990; Twyman,
Saylor, Saia, Macias, Taylor and Spratt, 2010); Hong Kong (see, for example, Yuen,
Westwood and Wong, 2007); and Canada (see for example, Kuhne and Wiener, 2000;
Savage, 2005; Luciano and Savage, 2007). The groups that include children who are
reported to be vulnerable to bullying include young people with:
severe, mild and moderate learning difficulties (see Gottlieb and Leyser, 1981;
Taylor, Asher and Williams, 1987; Martlew and Hodson, 1991; Nabuzoka and
Smith, 1993; Mishna, 2003; Norwich and Kelly, 2004; Twyman et al, 2010)
speech and language difficulties (including stammering, cleft lip and palate)
(see Mooney and Smith, 1995; Hugh-Jones and Smith, 1999; Sweeting and
West, 2001; Hunt, Burden, Hepper, Stevenson and Johnston, 2006)
physical disabilities and impairments (see Yude, Goodman and McConachie,
1998; Skär, 2003)
sensory impairments (including impairments of hearing and vision) (see Dixon,
Smith and Jenks, 2004)
autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) (see Bejerot and Mortberg, 2009;
Twyman et al, 2010)
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attention deficit disorder
(ADD) (see Twyman et al, 2010; Unnever and Cornell, 2003)
higher attainments (children who are described as being gifted and talented)
(see Morrison and Furlong, 1994; Peterson and Ray, 2006b)
specific learning difficulties (SpLD or dyslexia) (see Mishna, 2003; Savage, 2005;
Yuen, Westwood and Wong, 2007; Ingesson, 2007)
social, behavioural and emotional difficulties (Pope, Bierman and Mumma,
1991; Johnson, Thompson, Wilkinson, Walsh, Balding and Wright, 2002).

22
Rates of vulnerability
The rates of vulnerability to bullying for children with SEN and/or disabilities are very
significant. Various reports suggest, for example, that bullying may have been
experienced by:
83% of children with learning difficulties (or eight out of ten) (Luciano and
Savage, 2007; Mencap, 2007)
82% of children who are disfluent (those with a stammer), 59% of them at least
once a week, and 91% for name calling (Mooney and Smith, 1995)
70% of children with autistic spectrum disorders combined with other
characteristics (for example, OCD) (Bejerot and Mortberg, 2009)
39% of children with speech and language difficulties (Sweeting and West,
2001) (Savage, 2005, argues that children with speech difficulties are three
times more likely to be bullied)
30% of children with reading difficulties (Sweeting and West, 2001).
Some researchers argue that these problems may get worse as young people grow
older and move into secondary schools. Mooney and Smith (1995) report the greatest
prevalence of bullying at age 11 to 13. Savage (2005) argues that bullying and isolation
get worse as young people get older and this is borne out by Martlew and Hodson’s
results (1991). Kuhne and Wiener’s research (2000) found that children with learning
difficulties were seen by their peers as becoming more dependent and less liked over
time, resulting in them being more neglected and rejected.
Comorbidity
Children with co-morbid conditions (for example, autism with obsessive-compulsive
disorder (OCD) or SpLD with ADHD or anxiety etc) report higher levels of peer
victimisation. Humphrey, Storch and Geffken (2007) assert that children with ADHD
and a comorbid psychiatric condition (particularly a condition with externalising
features) were found to be more likely to be victimised by their peers. Bejerot and
Mortberg (2009) looked at differences in rates of bullying among children with OCD
alone and OCD combined with ‘autistic traits’ and found that both groups were bullied
but that 70% of the children with comorbid conditions were bullied compared with
50% of the children with OCD alone. In their study, Baumeister, Storch and Geffken
(2008) found that children with SpLD who also experienced comorbid psychiatric
diagnoses reported higher levels of peer victimisation. The research carried out by
Montes and Halterman (2007) indicates that children with autism and ADHD or ADD
experienced a greater risk of being bullied than children with autism alone. Sweeting
and West (2001) note that teasing and bullying are additive, meaning that the chances
of being bullied are compounded for children with combinations of difficulties or
characteristics of ‘difference’ (see, for example, Sveinsson, 2006)

23
Those who do not get bullied
Young people who have medical conditions only do not tend to be bullied any more
than other young people. For example, children with cystic fibrosis do not report being
bullied or ostracized – nor do children with mental health problems like depression or
anxiety (Twyman et al, 2010). Yude and Goodman (1999) report that ‘peer problems’
for children with hemiplegia were not predicted by the visibility of their physical
difficulties; ‘family adversity’; or ‘degree of neurological involvement’ (page 7).
Sweeting and West (2001) suggest that children who have medical problems (asthma,
allergies etc) are, in general, well-liked and accepted by their peers.
The kinds of bullying and victimisation that are reported
The literature has evidence of both direct and relational bullying against children with
SEN and/or disabilities. Mooney and Smith (1995) report that 59% of the people with
speech difficulties they interviewed had been physically bullied as children, for
example, and that 56% of respondents had experienced the spreading of rumours.
However, there is some evidence that children with SEN and/or disabilities may, in
some instances, be affected by a different kind of bullying involving ridicule,
manipulation and name-calling (see Moore, 2009). 91% of Mooney and Smith’s
subjects had experienced name calling at school, for example. There are also
suggestions (see Sweeting and West, 2001, for example) that ‘teasing’ and ‘bullying’
are related and are experienced by the same children.
Peer isolation and friendship difficulties
Pupils with SEN and/or disabilities tend to be ‘less accepted and more rejected’ by
their peers than other children (Gresham and MacMillan, 1997; Nakken and Pijl, 2002)
and poor acceptance is known to lead to greater risk of victimisation and bullying
(Carter and Spencer, 2006; de Monchy, Pijl and Zandberg, 2004). Frederickson (2010)
argues that ‘poor social status’ within the peer group is one of the key factors leading
to increased vulnerability to bullying. Kuhne and Wiener (2000) report that their
research suggested that children with learning difficulties were more likely to be
socially rejected by their peers. The children with hemiplegia in Yude et al’s (1998)
report were found to have ‘an excess of peer relationship problems’ (page 539)
despite having been schooled with a stable peer group for more than five years. They
were found to be less liked (receiving fewer positive nominations than peers and more
negative ones); to be twice as likely to be rejected; to have fewer friends; to be twice
as likely to have no friends; and to be three times more likely to be victimised. They
tended not to be bullies themselves. In Twyman et al’s work (2010), children with ASD,
learning disabilities and ADHD all reported themselves as experiencing ‘more clinically
significant bullying and/or victimization experiences’ (page 6) while children with ASD
reported being both ostracised and victimised.

24
The nature of the data and lack of awareness among teachers
In the research that has produced these findings, there are roughly twice as many
examples of pupil or ex-pupil self reporting (or reporting from peers) as there are
examples of assessments based on teacher, parent or researcher reports (although
some of the pupil self report data is triangulated against data from adults).
Significantly, the research also indicates that teachers tend to underestimate,
undervalue or discount reports of bullying from pupils with SEN and/or disabilities.
The literature consistently suggests that teachers tend to underestimate (or to be
unaware of or to ignore) teasing, bullying and victimization of children with SEN
and/or disabilities (see, for example, Olweus, 1978; Besag, 1989; Martlew and Hodson,
1991). The respondents in Mooney and Smith’s (1995) research said that teachers
were either unaware of bullying or did nothing about it; only 20% of teachers were
reported to have intervened to help children being bullied. This is supported by Atlas,
Rona and Pepler (1998) who argue that ‘(a) bullying is pervasive in the classroom, (b)
teachers are generally unaware of bullying, and (c) the peer group is reluctant to
intervene to stop bullying’ (page 93).

25
What is particular about this group of children in respect of
their vulnerability to bullying, in the context of their
interactions with their peers?
Characteristics in children
The literature suggests that children with SEN and/or disabilities may have certain
characteristics that make them more vulnerable to bullying. These characteristics
include:
academic difficulties and performing less well at school (for example, poor
readers or those with a low IQ) (see Siperstein and Gottlieb, 1977; Olweus,
1978; Gottlieb, Semmel and Veldman, 1978; Elam and Sigelman, 1983;
Whitney, Smith and Thompson, 1994a&b; Yude and Goodman, 1999; Singer,
2005)
low self esteem and anxiety with tendencies to internalise problems (see
Chazan, Laing and Davies, 1994; Dockrell and Lyndsay, 2000; Kaukiainen et al,
2002; Moore, 2009)
differences in physical attributes (for example, clumsiness, deafness, a visible
disability or an impairment) (see Siperstein and Gottlieb, 1977; Henderson and
Hall, 1982; Besag, 1989; Nabuzoka and Smith, 1993; Gilmour and Skuse, 1996;
Stinson, Whitmire and Kluwin, 1996; King, Specht, Schultz, Warr-Leeper,
Redekop and Riseborough, 1997; Hurre and Aro, 1998; Leff, 1999; Dixon et al,
2004)
shyness, submissiveness, passivity and an external locus of control (including
being over-protected by parents) (see Olweus, 1978 and Moore, 2009)
uncooperative, disruptive behaviour and aggression (see Roberts and Zubrick,
1992; Erhardt and Hinshaw, 1994; Yude and Goodman, 1999)
language and communication difficulties (more marked for receptive language
and complex language impairments) (see Mooney and Smith, 1995; Hugh-
Jones and Smith, 1999; Knox and Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Savage, 2005; Luciano
and Savage, 2007)
inappropriate social behaviour or deficits in social competence (see Gottlieb,
Semmel and Veldman, 1978; Siperstein and Bak, 1985; Kavale and Forness,
1996; Kaukiainen et al, 2002; Bauminger, Edelsztein and Morash, 2005; Fox and
Boulton, 2005)
low social status (Dockrell and Lyndsay, 2000).
Moore (2009) also argues that children with disabilities are at increased risk of bullying
because they are absent from school more often (negatively impacting upon their
friendships; they spend a lot of time with staff (also negatively impacting upon their
friendships); and they may be less able to defend themselves and to report bullying (if
they have fewer friends to support them; if they experience communication
difficulties; and if they histories of over-protection by adults meaning that they have
little experience of standing up for themselves or defending themselves within the
peer group).

26
Children who are both bullies and victims
Some children become involved in teasing and bullying others but also get bullied
themselves. Nabuzoka and Smith (1993) argue that children who are aggressive or
disruptive are less socially accepted than those who are non-aggressive and may be
bullied because they are seen as ‘provocative victims’. Children who were identified
by peers as ‘being disruptive’, ‘starting fights’, ‘seeking help’, ‘being a bully’ and ‘being
a victim’ were more likely to be rejected and ‘not liked’ (Nabuzoka and Smith, 1993).
Whitney, Nabuzoka and Smith (1992) suggest that some children with SEN and/or
disabilities can be seen as ‘provocative victims’, becoming involved in teasing and
bullying as well as being bullied, because they are less socially competent. These are
often children with learning disabilities or ADHD (Holmberg and Hjern, 2008; Unnever
and Cornell, 2003; Twyman et al, 2010). Social factors seem to be key here. These
children may be unaware that they are causing harm and upset and may misread
social cues that prevent ‘teasing’ becoming more hurtful. They may have difficulty
monitoring and controlling their behaviour in social situations (Unnever and Cornell,
2003). There is also some evidence that children who are rejected may be more likely
to respond by adopting bullying behaviours.
The importance of social skills
Frederickson (2010) argues that social behaviours are crucially important with regard
to peer victimisation. Children with ‘low social ability’ are more at risk than those with
‘high social intelligence’ (Bejerot and Mortberg, 2009). Nabuzoka and Smith (1993)
suggest that low levels of ‘competence in handling social situations’ (page 1445), lack
of knowledge of social rules or ‘deficits in decoding social situations’ (page 1446) can
lead to peer rejection and victimisation among children with learning difficulties. Yude
and Goodman (1999) argue that peer group difficulties are often associated with
‘constitutional difficulties in social skills and understanding’ (page 7). Twyman et al
(2010) agree, noting that the prime causative factor that renders children with
learning difficulties more likely to be bullied is ‘reduced social competence’ (page 6).
Discussing children with learning difficulties, these authors argue that ‘social skills
deficits that make it less likely for them to be accepted by their peers or to be chosen
as a friend’ (page 6) and that children with learning difficulties may have ‘difficulty in
interpreting nonverbal cues, communication messages, and feelings associated with
those messages’ (page 6) (see also Kavale and Forness, 1996).
Twyman et al (2010) propose that children with ADHD tend to be ‘less well liked by
peers and have fewer friends, because they have difficulty monitoring their behaviour
in social situations’ (page 6, and see also Law, Sinclair and Fraser, 1988). In Erhardt and
Hinshaw’s research (1994), children with ADHD were ‘overwhelmingly rejected’ by
their peers as a result of what was interpreted as their aggressive or noncompliant
social behaviour. Yuen, Westwood and Wong (2007) report that social adjustment
factors (including anger control, compliance with rules, meeting social expectations
and interpersonal skills) were found to be significantly associated with bullying among
children with SpLD. Johnson et al (2002) assert that the children in their research (and
boys in particular) were at greatest risk of being bullied when they had poor prosocial

27
skills, difficulties with social interaction, hyperactivity and emotional problems. For
children with moderate learning difficulties, low scores on positive social behaviours
(for example, co-operation) are said to lead to rejection even if negative social
behaviour scores (for example, aggression) are moderate, while lower rates of
negative behaviour can improve acceptance (Frederickson and Furnham, 2004;
Nabozoka and Smith, 1993; Roberts and Zubrick, 1992; Taylor, Asher and Williams,
1987). Other research (Kuhne and Wiener, 2000) has indicated that children with
learning difficulties are less likely to be regarded as cooperative or as leaders than
their non-disabled peers and are therefore more likely to be neglected or rejected.
Children with autism are reported to be at particularly high risk of peer victimisation
because of their ‘deficits in social communication’ (Bejerot and Mortberg, 2009, page
171 and see Little, 2002). Even people with ‘subtle autistic traits’ seem to be at risk as
Bejerot and Mortberg (2009) suggest that their ‘poor social skills rather than social
anxiety are intuitively detected by peers, and result in exclusion and bullying’ (page
174). Baumeister, Storch and Geffken (2008) report that, because children with SpLD
have ‘impaired social tendencies’, they tend to have a lower social status than peers
(see also Kavale and Forness, 1996) and therefore to be rejected and victimised.
Hemphill and Siperstein (1990) propose that ‘because conversation is so often the
medium through which children initiate contact, exchange information, and negotiate
shared roles, deficits in this particular social area can signal a broader kind of social
incompetence’ (page 132).
The importance of language and communication
In their study, Hemphill and Siperstein (1990) looked at the social aspects of bullying
and especially at conversational skills. These authors argue that children who lack
these skills may be seen by their peers as ‘socially incompetent’, adding that children
with learning difficulties tend to experience delays in language development, including
difficulties in questioning strategies and topic-relevant responding; poor conversation
initiation; and trouble maintaining and extending conversations.
In the Hemphill and Siperstein study (1990), language is seen as having a ‘central
place’. The elementary school pupils in Hemphill and Siperstein’s sample ‘responded
more positively’ when the child with mild learning difficulties in the video they
watched appeared to have ‘competent’ conversational skills. These children perceived
a peer with mild learning difficulties and poor conversation skills as socially isolated or
‘lonely’ – ‘on the periphery of classroom social structure’ (page 133). This finding
applied whether or not the mainstream children knew that the pupils on the video
tape had been identified as having learning difficulties and applied equally to boys and
girls. The mainstream children had good ‘discourse awareness’ and were good at
detecting strengths and weaknesses in conversation and identifying specific problems
(especially long pauses and lack of active initiation).
This suggests that social competence is defined by linguistic competence. 84% of the
people Mooney and Smith (1995) interviewed said that they had experienced
difficulties, as children who were disfluent, in making friends, explaining that they had
not felt that they had ‘fitted in’ among their peers in school. Mooney and Smith (1995)

28
suggest that speech difficulties mean children are less capable of ‘asserting and
verbally defending themselves’ (page 25). Rourke (1989) notes that poor language
skills are a predictor of peer rejection. Savage (2005) argues that children with ‘poorer
social skills and language difficulties’ are more at risk of bullying than their socially and
conversationally more competent peers. Savage (2005) also states that children with
‘learning disabilities’ in Canada (equivalent to SpLD in the UK) lack ‘communicative
competence’ and have ‘reduced empathy’; they become socially rejected as a result
and are thus at risk of bullying (see also Mishna, 2003).
It may be possible to be more precise about the language difficulties that lead to peer
victimisation. Botting and Conti-Ramsden’s work (2000) among children with language
impairment indicates that children with expressive language difficulties only have
fewer social or behavioural problems. Those with mixed expressive and receptive
difficulties tend to experience more behavioural problems while these authors report
that those with complex language impairments have more marked social difficulties
with their peers because of their ‘significant difficulties in understanding the
interactions of others’ (page 116).
Language and communication linked to other factors
In Luciano and Savage’s study (2007), children with learning difficulties were more
likely to be bullied than their peers. The factors associated by these researchers with
an increased risk of bullying included difficulties with receptive language (‘this variable
plays a key role’, Luciano and Savage, 2007, page 27) and external locus of control. The
children in Lucinano and Savage’s study perceived themselves as not being socially
accepted, despite that fact that they were being educated in a fully inclusive setting
(with no separate teaching) and were not openly ‘labelled’ as having SEN.
Luciano and Savage (2007) maintain that communication problems and
‘misinterpretation of social situations’ (page 27) may be key elements leading to
increased risk of bullying for young people with SEN and/or disabilities. These authors
also argue that internalising problems (anxiety, low self esteem) linked to external
locus of control (unassertiveness, passivity, submissiveness) mean that children with
SEN are ‘potential targets for bullies because they are perceived as weak and unlikely
to retaliate’ (page 27). In a similar way, children with speech and language difficulties
are also seen as having low self-esteem and as being socially rejected and thus also at
risk (Dockrell and Lyndsay, 2000).
Social isolation and bullying
Being bullied in itself can also lead to further bullying. Baumeister et al (2008) argue
that peer victimization leads to withdrawal, anxiety, depressive symptoms, social
problems, thought problems, attention problems and disruptive behaviour and that all
these symptoms are themselves characteristics that are likely to render young people
more likely to be victims of further bullying. Further, these authors propose that
children may internalise negative comments from peers and incorporate these into
their own negative self-views, becoming, in turn, more depressed and anxious. Given

29
the circular nature of some of these causes and effects, Baumeister et al (2008)
acknowledge that they do not know what comes first – the bullying or the anxiety and
depression that leads to more bullying. Storch, Masia-Warner and Brassard (2003)
confirm this ongoing cycle of bullying and social isolation. Thus rejection by the peer
group is closely associated with peer victimisation. As has been suggested above, this
rejection seems to be caused most significantly by problems in communication
between children with SEN and/or disabilities and their peers and a lack of
understanding of social situations. Language is central.
Developing ideas about causality – within-child and contextual factors
These problems are sometimes conceptualised as due to ‘communication difficulties’
located in the children with SEN and/or disabilities. More recent literature may
present these issues as at least partially the responsibility of schools for failing to
promote friendship opportunities; failing to teach social skills; failing to take
responsibility for the ‘non-teaching’ parts of the school day. Nabuzoka and Smith
(1993) suggest that the difficulties that children with SEN and/or disabilities
experience are particularly significant in ‘unstructured situations such as free-play and
in the school corridors’ (page 1446). These authors argue that children with learning
difficulties may more easily be able to decode the social context of the classroom
where roles are defined, rules are explicit, and codes of behaviour are reinforced by
teachers. The non-teaching parts of the school day, and the socially unstructured
environments outside teaching spaces, have also been reported to generate
difficulties for pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities in other
research (Byers, Davies, Fergusson and Marvin, 2008).
Much of the research presents a view of deficits located within young people with SEN
and/or disabilities that render them liable to be victimized. However, it is important
also to look at contextual issues. As Luciano and Savage (2007) note, ‘within-child
characteristics are modified or even determined by characteristics of the school
context in which children operate’ (page 17). There is evidence, for example, that the
ways in which schooling for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities operates can
exacerbate the problems young people face by:
requiring them to be passive and compliant and failing to teach them to be
more assertive
over-protecting them (also exacerbated by over-protective parents – see
Olweus, 1978)
providing young people with SEN and/or disabilities with inappropriate forms
of staff support (through the use of learning support assistants (LSAs) for
example) and so isolating them from their peer group
teaching them outside their peer group for all or part of the day (in ‘remedial’
or ‘special’ classes) (see, for example, Baumeister, Storch and Geffken, 2008)
failing to ensure equality of physical access to environments and activities so
young people with physical disabilities and sensory impairments are unable to
join in with activities with their peers

30
requiring them to seek help because the work has not been adjusted in order
to be accessible to them (Sweeting and West, 2001, suggest that ‘seeking help’
is seen by peers as a key characteristic of children with SEN and/or disabilities
and as a key reason for their being rejected and victimised).
Contextual features, including staff support, poorly differentiated teaching and
separate teaching, may mean that children with SEN and/or disabilities do not have
the right opportunities to forge protective links with their peers. In Nabuzoka and
Smith’s work (1993), children with learning difficulties were identified by their peers as
being ‘shy’ and as ‘seeking help’ more often than their peers and therefore as ‘not
being liked’. In this work, children with learning difficulties were seen as being
characterised by ‘vulnerability or inadequacy’ (page 1444) and ‘seeking help’ was
strongly correlated with becoming ‘victims of bullying’. Provision of staff support can
be seen as reinforcing the characteristic of ‘constantly seeking help’ (Lynas, 1986).
Children who are not effectively integrated and who rely on staff support may
therefore become victims of bullying and teasing. O’Moore and Hillery (1989) found,
for example, that children in ‘remedial’ or ‘special’ classes experienced twice as much
bullying as mainstream pupils. Martlew and Hodson’s results (1991) indicate that
mainstream students in secondary schools expand their circles of friends while young
people with moderate learning difficulties report that they are ‘subjected to increased
amounts of teasing’ (page 363) and have fewer friends, both in school and out of
school. The research also indicates that other factors, for example, frequent absences
from school for medical issues or difficulties in reporting problems because of
communication problems (Moore, 2009), can work against children with SEN and/or
disabilities finding ways to ‘fit in’ with their peer group.
If the key factors in reducing vulnerability to victimisation and bullying are social then
social opportunity is an important issue. The young people interviewed by Skär (2003)
felt that their disability ‘restricted them in making social relations with their peers’
(page 640). They said they felt excluded from their peer group and had few
experiences of contact outside school hours. These young people said, as a result, that
the attitudes of their peers were negative – and they reported getting teased or
taunted with name calling. The implication in that schools should take responsibility
for promoting access for young people to social situations as well as to educational
opportunities.
Classroom settings where there is less bullying
The social fabric of the classroom is also important. The research suggests that
classrooms with ‘cohesion’, an emphasis on peer friendships and ‘caring’ staff
attitudes are less likely to have bullying behaviour (Roland and Galloway, 2002). In his
research, for example, Savage (2005) found that, while children with speech and
language difficulties do report three times more bullying than mainstream peers, this
varies according to which class they are in. This suggests that these children are not
necessarily more prone to bullying but that their experiences depend, to some extent,
on where they are taught. Classrooms in which children are encouraged to be willing
to play and ‘hang out’ (i.e. not ‘work with’ and not necessarily ‘be best friends with’)

31
children with speech and language difficulties are reported by Savage (2005) to be less
likely to have bullying. Frederickson and Furnham (2004) found similar results for
pupils with moderate learning difficulties. Luciano and Savage (2007) argue that,
where there are limited opportunities for friendship, there are reduced opportunities
to learn social skills – and that the risk of bullying is increased. This suggests that peer
acceptance (particularly in non-classroom and playground settings) by large numbers
of peers (numerous ‘bystanders’ rather than a few good friends) is a ‘protective
factor’. It is clear that this is a professional responsibility rather than a deficit in young
people with SEN and/or disabilities.
Protective factors
The research suggests that peer acceptance is a protective factor in relation to
victimisation and that peer rejection increases the likelihood of children being
victimised (Perry, Kusel and Perry, 1988). Moore (2009) suggests that secure
friendships (which can bolster self-esteem and offer direct support to vulnerable
young people), self-confidence and peer acceptance (which can be enhanced through
‘buddying’ and peer support arrangements, although Moore notes that the evidence
for the efficacy of these is ‘mixed’) can all be factors that help to protect young people
from bullying and victimisation. Nabuzoka and Smith’s work (1993) indicates that
being seen as ‘cooperative’ is a protective factor (their research suggests that this is
true even where pupils with learning difficulties are also seen as being ‘shy’ and
‘seeking help’). Bejerot and Mortberg (2009) suggest that social anxiety coupled with
good social skills may also provide some protection against peer victimisation.
Friendship and inclusion
Whitney, Nabuzoka and Smith (1992) argue that children with SEN and/or disabilities
are more likely to be bullied because they tend to have fewer friends and therefore
lack the protection that a peer group can offer. Luciano and Savage (2007) also argue
that students with SEN may not form friendships that can protect them against being
bullied (see also Hugh-Jones and Smith, 1999; Chazan, Laing and Davies, 1994; Coie
and Cillessen, 1993; Geisthardt and Munsch, 1996; Nabuzoka and Smith, 1993; Rigby,
2000; Roberts and Zubrick, 1992; Savage, 2005; Wenz-Gross and Siperstein, 1997; and
Whitney, Smith and Thompson, 1994 a&b). Peer rejection, according to Luciano and
Savage (2007), is associated with peer victimisation. These authors suggest that there
is some evidence that attending inclusive schools can help by providing opportunities
for peer group association. Savage (2005) notes that social support can protect against
victimisation and that the most effective factor protecting young people against
bullying is acknowledged to be social support, provided through friendship or even
acquaintance with peers.
Inclusion – a necessary but not sufficient condition?
However, Cavallaro and Porter (1980), Guralnick (1986) and Martlew and Cooksey
(1989) all note that pupils with mild or moderate learning difficulties interact less with
their peers in integrated settings than other children. Interactions for pupils with

32
severe learning difficulties are reported to be ‘minimal’ (Guralnick, 1986). Luciano and
Savage (2007) concede that there is also evidence that children with SEN and/or
disabilities are bullied more often in mainstream settings. They suggest that inclusive
settings (and even schools with ‘thoughtful anti-bullying policies’, page 27) do not, in
themselves, confer protection. Children with SEN and/or disabilities may still have ‘low
social status’ (Luciano and Savage, 2007, page 26), have few friends, and be socially
rejected.
It is clear, then, that schools have a responsibility to focus on social issues and to teach
social and communication skills. There is also some evidence that actively teaching
disability awareness and helping children to understand and empathise with their
peers with SEN and/or disabilities can be productive. For example, it is known that the
behaviours of pupils with ADHD are likely to lead to rejection by peers (Law, Sinclair
and Fraser, 1988). But Frederickson (2010) suggests that the provision of relevant
information and ‘clearly acknowledging differences’ to classmates through a sensitive
process of identification and ‘labelling’ can have ‘protective’ effects (Bromfield, Weisz
and Messer, 1988) and enhance inclusion.
This position is supported by evidence (Newberry and Parish, 1987) that indicates that
peers tend to be more accepting and to make ‘allowances’ for children with more
‘visible’ disabilities (for example, physical disabilities, visual impairments and hearing
impairments). There is also some evidence that children with ‘less severe special
needs’ in mainstream (that is, children with mild or ‘hidden’ difficulties) experience
greater levels of rejection than ‘former special school pupils’ (Lewis and Lewis, 1988;
Sale and Carey, 1995) and that they are more likely themselves to engage in bullying
behaviour (Frederickson, Simmonds, Evans and Soulsby, 2007).
Managing the relationships between ‘whole school’ practices and children’s ‘special’
or ‘additional’ needs, and the support that may be provided in order to meet them, is
one of the challenges that are discussed in the next section.

33
What are the challenges that schools face in effectively
preventing and responding to the bullying of children with SEN
or disabilities?
The review of the literature relevant to this question has shown that:
some challenges are methodological: to do with detecting the existing level
and nature of bullying (for example, how children with SEN and/or disabilities
perceive bullying behaviour; teacher ratings as opposed to self-reports);
some challenges are to do with the logistics of implementation (for example,
school management; implementing whole school policy; teacher awareness
and willingness to address issues);
some challenges are to do with how the issue is conceptualised (for example,
rather than as ‘problem children’, changing attitudes and recognising the social
context is crucial).
The nature of the literature
Some of the studies relevant to this question examine interventions that have been
implemented in schools, and which can therefore offer practice-based perspective on
the challenges which schools face. Interventions broadly fall into two groups. On one
hand, preventative interventions are aimed at engendering a non-violent, inclusive
school atmosphere, and for students to develop generic core competencies that can
be employed to deal with a wide range of issues including non-aggressive behaviour.
On the other hand, in responsive interventions, the teacher uses a range of strategies
to establish and maintain a group norm regarding aggressive behaviour such as
improving the ability of children to report incidents, support group work (such as
Murphy and Heyman, 2007), and peer mediation training (such as Warne, 2003).
However, the literature assessing actual interventions is limited. While the last decade
has seen a great increase in schools (particularly in the UK) introducing anti-bullying
measures of various kinds, very few of these have been evaluated. One reason for this
is that there often simply is not the funding for such assessments2; and also that
academic studies of bullying are often more interested in the dynamics of student
behaviour rather than testing the efficacy of a particular strategy. Many of the studies
used for this section therefore do not address practical strategies at all, instead being
straightforward studies of the existence and nature of bullying and victimising
behaviours of children. Nonetheless, the authors of this review have attempted to
infer from such studies what challenges for schools would be in trying to prevent or
respond to bullying behaviours.
2 In the USA where anti-violence / anti-harassment school materials are more market oriented, different
organisations compete to prove which are the most effective strategies; see, for example,
http://www.endingviolence.net/pdf/ending-violence.curriculum-comparisons.pdf.

34
Another feature of the literature is that most of the studies focus on children with a
particular type of special educational need or disability; conditions which are
particularly frequent are ASD and children with hearing impairments. This means that
we have less information relating to children with other disabilities and special
educational needs, which is important because the literature suggests that the ‘causal
mechanisms’ of bullying can be quite specific according to the characteristics of the
disability [c.f. research questions 2 and 3]. Moreover, it may be unwise to draw
general conclusions from such a variety of different studies.
Studies have also been conducted both on inclusive mainstream schools, and on
special schools, which will each face different challenges.
In the literature overall, there are generally more quantitative than qualitative studies.
Quantitative studies often use sociometric measurements to determine children’s
relative social position and isolation, by asking respondents questions about who they
would like to play with, work with etc, and run correlations with reference to the
disability status of children. In order to interact with children who had communication
difficulties (for example, because of age, hearing impairment, etc) these measurement
methods are often adapted, e.g. through the use of cards with smiling faces.
Qualitative studies use observations and interviews to explore the perspectives of
children and teachers in more depth and interpreting experiences from the
participant’s own point of view; Torrance (2000: 16) refers to the importance of
qualitative studies, to understand the social context of bullying.
Studies tend to originate from either the fields of psychology, education, and in some
cases medicine, although there is a good amount of cross-referencing between studies
from different disciplines.
Methodological challenges
Some challenges to addressing the bullying of children with SEN and/or disabilities are
methodological, because they relate to the ability to detect the existence of bullying
within schools.
One difficulty is the ability of children with SEN and/or disabilities to recognise or
interpret a situation as being one of bullying, even if victimisation is clearly occurring.
This is reported to be the case in children with autism spectrum disorders (Van Roekel
et al, 2010). The authors in this case conclude that interventions which are targeted at
children with ASD should focus as much on improving children’s perception of bullying
and victimisation, as addressing its occurrence (2010: 71). This is because it was
posited that children with ASD have particular difficulties in recognising bullying
behaviour; the study suggested that children with ASD who scored highly on teacher-
and self-reported victimisation were more likely to misinterpret non-bullying
situations as bullying; on the other hand, the more often adolescents with ASD bullied
other children, the more the misinterpreted bullying situations as non-bullying. This
therefore presents a challenge to schools, as it will interfere with accurate reporting of

35
bullying and schools will need to help children to have a realistic understanding of
social situations.
In a similar study, Khemka et al (2009) revealed that children with intellectual
disabilities are not well prepared to recognise and handle situations on their own that
involve coercion, especially coercion with a threat; and explored strategies through
which such children could be encouraged to seek help from a responsible adult under
certain circumstances. Although the studies address different disabilities, the overall
implication is that even more than with typically developing children, it can be difficult
to detect when bullying involves children with special educational needs or disabilities.
Even with a general school population, bullying is a sensitive topic and problematic to
research. Pupils, fearing recrimination from their peers, may withhold information and
offer a false picture of the nature of bullying within the school, making qualitative
studies in particular perhaps too threatening or inaccurate a method to use (Whitney
and Smith, 1993; Dixon, 2006: 14-15). This bolsters the case for using teacher ratings
to determine levels of bullying, although as discussed further on there is another set of
problems relating to this (Nabuzoka, 2003: 308). There is also the possibility that by
asking children about social relations, this may either positively or negatively affect the
existing relationships and therefore give inaccurate research results about the impact
of interventions.
If studies have revealed the difficulties in getting reports from children about levels of
bullying, it might be expected that teachers and other support staff would be the first
to notice if a child is being bullied, and that they would act accordingly. However,
research suggests that it is also problematic to rely on teacher reports as well.
Teachers in mainstream schools have been shown to overrate the social inclusion of
the special needs children in their classes (de Monchy et al, 2004) and to
underestimate the degree of bullying (Whitney et al, 1994b).
Some studies have directly compared peer and teacher perceptions of bullying, and
show that while teachers are good at knowing the numbers of friends children with
SEN/D have, they are often very unaware of the frequency with which pupils are being
bullied and the frequency with which they are bullying other pupils (Nabuzoka, 2003;
de Monchy et al, 2004; Torrance, 2000; Holzbauer, 2008; Martlew and Hodson, 1991).
This has been explained by referring to ‘cognitive dissonance theory’; teachers may
have invested a significant amount of time and energy in creating an inclusive
classroom environment, want to make it a success and then find it too difficult to
acknowledge that this is not working out for all children (de Monchy et al, 2003: 319)3.
It is also possible that teachers may be purposively under-reporting levels of bullying,
perhaps due to feelings of guilt if they feel (overly) responsible that such bullying is
occurring under their watch. Teachers may therefore be less likely to admit that
3 This may also depend on the type of disability which children have; in one study of children with
Autism Spectrum Disorder by van Roekel (2010: 70), teachers report higher levels of bullying than the
students themselves. Most other studies, however, report the opposite.

36
bullying is occurring, because it may look worse if they are aware but doing nothing to
address it.
This is a challenge for schools first in that it suggests that the staff themselves may not
be able to notice when a situation needs addressing; but also a challenge in involving
teachers in any solution. Indeed, teachers may feel anger at what seems to be unfair
criticism, if it has already been a difficult task balancing the different children’s needs,
and if they have not been given the time, resources or training to deal with it
effectively.
In mainstream schools in particular, teachers have a key role in monitoring the social
position of all their pupils, and should be even more alert in evaluating the position of
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities in particular in their classroom, especially those
who have been ignored and rejected for many years and are in danger of developing
social-emotional difficulties. Pavri and Monda-Amaya (2001) argue that teachers also
play a critical role in assisting pupils in acquiring social skills and in fostering social
relationships by facilitating peer interactions and friendships in the classroom.
However, teachers have to be aware of the need to take action, before they take on
this critical role.
In special schools, some studies have shown that there can be significant levels of
bullying, despite their claims to provide a better level of educational wellbeing than if
children with SEN and/or disabilities were in mainstream schooling (for example,
Alderson and Goodey, 1999). This may be a controversial position for teachers to
encounter; Torrance suggests that this might be perceived as tantamount to
challenging an entire profession (2000: 19).
The challenge for schools, therefore, is to put in place mechanisms which make it
easier for children with SEN and/or disabilities to recognise and report bullying
behaviour; and also to support teachers in recognising and addressing such behaviour
if and when it occurs. Interventions or focus groups with teachers could encourage
them to think about how confident they are about their assessments of victimisation
in their classes; to explore how responsible they feel (and why) if bullying occurs, and
whether they think they have had adequate training to deal with the situation
appropriately, especially if children with SEN and/or disabilities are involved. In doing
such focus work, it might also be possible to involve teachers in the collection of data,
which might make them feel part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Institutional challenges
If schools are to implement interventions to prevent and respond to bullying of
children with SEN and/or disabilities, this will require additional time and resources.
This will be needed for teacher training; space in the curriculum for special workshops
or sessions to address bullying behaviour (such as introducing peer mediation
schemes), and altering existing curricula and learning materials to incorporate
inclusive or anti-bullying techniques. To some extent this is part of the challenge of
creating inclusive schools and classrooms.

37
In addition to the overarching need for more time and resources, two further
institutional challenges can be identified: the challenge of providing specific solutions
simultaneously; and the challenge of implementing a whole-school strategy.
Specific solutions for specific problems
While one recommendation is to engender an inclusive school ethos and atmosphere,
in which diversity is normal, in practice, special interventions are also needed to
accommodate the needs of children with SEN and/or disabilities. In either a
mainstream school or a special school, simultaneously employing a number of
different strategies may be difficult.
As the evidence for research questions 2 and 3 has suggested, there appear to be
different ‘causal mechanisms’ for bullying according to different types of SEN and/or
disabilities, even many of these mechanisms do ultimately stem from social and
communication problems. So, for example, children with ADHD or autism spectrum
disorder may be more likely to be perceived as aggressive or anti-social by teachers
and other children; or the difficulty may be more to do with literal communication
with deaf children. This suggests the need for particular strategies required to prevent
the marginalisation or victimisation of different children with different sorts of SEN
and/or disabilities; the need for ‘specific solutions for specific problems’. For example,
one study by the National Deaf Children’s Society (2006) has shown that deaf children
may find it particularly hard to communicate about bullying, so teachers must be
aware of this and make the time to listen.
In the first instance, this means that only so much can be said about challenges for
schools at a general level, as different problems will appear for strategies relating to
different SEN and/or disabilities. However, it also means that schools attempting to
prevent and respond to bullying for all of its pupils will face a potential challenge in
trying to simultaneously implement different strategies which can address the diverse
needs of all students, particularly for inclusive mainstream schools with children with a
variety of special educational needs or disabilities, or mixed special schools.
For instance, Dixon (2006: 17, 21) lists the particular dilemmas facing schools
implementing school interventions, with reference in this case to deaf children. Her
study found tensions between balancing academic input with pastoral care; allowing
deaf children to integrate with majority groups but not forcing them to do so; signing
for all classes or not signing for all classes. Many dilemmas revolve around the extent
to which deaf children can be fully integrated (for example, ‘children’s relationships
can and should be improved’ vs. ‘there are some children who just can’t be helped to
make friends’; ‘improve communication between deaf and hearing children’ vs.
‘communication will always be a problem for either the deaf children or the hearing
children’). These are some of the choices that schools have to make at both a policy
level and in day-to-day practice. Warne (2003: 32) on the other hand, lists challenges
facing schools implementing interventions with moderate learning difficulties, with
challenges relating to maintaining interest and ownership amongst the participants.

38
Different measures may also be required to address isolation and marginalisation, as
opposed to actual victimisation or bullying. The two are not the same, although the
former is likely to increase vulnerability to the latter. Nordmann (2001) observes that
the real challenge for schools is hearing student voices and increasing institutional
marginalisation, rather than simply reducing marginalisation.
Moreover, although levels of bullying of and by children with SEN and/or disabilities in
mainstream and special schools is comparable, research suggests that different sorts
of strategies may be required for each type of school4. Because mainstreaming has
become an increasingly popular strategy over the last 15 years, the children who still
attend special schools are likely to be the ones with more severe special educational
needs and disabilities, which may require very specific and different types of
interventions. For mainstream schools, the dilemma of difference also appears:
although designed to bring integration and equality in social relations, can special
interventions exacerbate perceptions of difference, and even victimisation due to
‘special treatment’.
Holistic approaches: getting support for and coordinating a whole school strategy
This is also a challenge for more general efforts to tackle bullying; a whole-school
approach of any kind requires resources, coordination and commitment. But it is an
important strategy, particularly for children with SEN and/or disabilities; Roberts
(1999) recounts the disastrous consequences for her son with physical and mental
disabilities when there was no coordinated approach from the school in how her son
was treated, particularly in terms of the bullying he was suffering from; when some
teachers treated Tom differently to others, the situation became confused. In addition
to including the whole school in strategies, it is important to involve parents as well (of
the bullies as well as the bullied children).
For mainstream schools, to some extent this should be seen as part of providing a truly
inclusive school; rather than children with SEN and/or disabilities ‘just being there’,
children may need support in making contacts and sustaining relationships; physical
inclusion only is a very basic condition and extra support may be needed to become
part of the group (de Monchy et al, 2004: 328). Alderson and Goodey (1999: 257-258)
gives an example of a mainstream school in which a good inclusive ethos and
framework has enabled children with autism spectrum disorder to be socially
integrated.
As covered under research questions 2 and 3, being part of a social group has been
shown to reduce vulnerability to bullying – although this calls into question a school
culture where a child is vulnerable if they are not attached to a particular group.
4 A study by Knox and Conti-Ramsden (2003) revealed no difference in levels of bullying in mainstream
and special schools, possibly because there are more likely to be children with more severe emotional
and behavioural disorders in special schools.

39
Achieving consistent results from whole-school interventions can be problematic
(Dixon, 2006: 14-15), as much will depend on the level of support available to the
school, and as intervention programmes typically involved several different types of
intervention (e.g. improved supervision, curriculum work and the development of a
befriending system) which may have varying levels of efficacy. Indeed Smith et al
(2004) argue that we are some way off from knowing which are the most effective
strategies in tackling bullying, even amongst the general school population.
Raising awareness and understanding
A final set of challenges are more concerned with how bullying is conceptualised by
pupils, teachers and parents, and the need for all groups to understand the social
context in which bullying is occurring. While this has been noted in relation to general
studies of bullying, this is particularly pertinent in the case of children with SEN or
disabilities, as studies reveal that as well as being disproportionately vulnerable to
being bullied, they are often also perceived as being bullies [c.f. research questions 2
and 3]. For example, Kaplan et al (2005) note that if the ‘threat assessment’
intervention is used, which takes into account the social context of threats and
assesses the real level of danger they present, then fewer children with special
educational needs are excluded from school. In particular, it is important to raise
teachers’ understanding of the impact on families so that they do not blame the
parents (Mishna, 2003: 343).
But this is also important for preventing the bullying of children with SEN and/or
disabilities. Mishna (2003: 340-344) also states that the social context of bullying must
be considered and argues that one of the challenges for whole-school approaches is
increasing community awareness and changing attitudes. Schools should be
encouraged to examine how they define conditions and what expectations or
prejudices they have about children with particular types of SEN and/or disability, as
these might be misguiding school policies to make them (unintentionally) socially
exclusionary to such children. For example, Alderson’s study (1999) shows how
different understandings of autism by school staff has a significant impact on their
level of social integration. The following section goes on to consider strategies that
might more effectively prevent or reduce the victimisation of children with SEN and/or
disabilities.

40
What are the most effective approaches that schools can take
to prevent and respond to the bullying of children with SEN and
disabilities?
This section will examine the general state of the research on interventions and then
examine the methodological and philosophical issues that arise. The studies of
prevention and response are then explored ending with the agenda for future
research and practice.
The literature
The research on the topic of bullying interventions has developed considerably over
the last fifteen years. The particular focus on interventions for pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities began with studies such as those by Thompson, Whitney and Smith (1994)
in their Sheffield studies. These authors were among the first to identify the need to
pay particular attention to the needs of young people with SEN and/or disabilities.
Since then there has been greater research activity and there have been many reviews
of research internationally (e.g. Frederickson et al, 2007; Farmer, 1993; Gresham and
MacMillan, 1997; Kavale and Fomess, 1996; Frederickson, 2010). These reviews of
research clearly highlight that many students with SEN and/or disabilities have social
difficulties and are not well accepted by their peers. The consequences of this, which
have been studied in students who do not have such difficulties, indicate that peer
rejection and social skill deficits are associated with later adjustment problems
(Farmer, 1993; Kamps and Tankersley, 1996; Kauffman, 1999). The focus of the studies
has been largely on peer relations and how they can be developed. This will be
explored in later sections. The research includes a mix of detailed qualitative studies,
including accounts of practice by psychologists, advisory teachers, classroom teachers
and support staff, as well as substantial reviews of research and inquiries by
researchers in higher education. There is a useful literature which examines the views
of young people and is largely situated in accounts by non governmental organization
or specialist advocacy groups.
Methodological issues
Guidance on dealing with bullying in schools promotes the accessing of students’
views (DCSF 2008) and this is also raised by others (Hodson et al, 2005). A Mencap
study (2007) highlights this as an important methodological issue. How do we access
the experiences of young people with SEN and/or disabilities in relation to bullying in
ways that are economical of effort and pragmatic in school situations? Marino et al
(2001) write about the importance of this activity since we need to accurately assess
bullying of young people with SEN and/or disabilities in schools and we know that
there is tendency to under estimate it. Byers et al (2008) provide one example of
school-based, participatory research that highlights and tackles the issues of bullying
and social isolation for young people with SEN and/or disabilities in mainstream
schools. Lewis and Lindsay (2000) and Porter and Lacey (2005) provide important

41
guidance on conducting research that effectively includes young people with SEN
and/or disabilities.
Philosophical issues
Many writers (Frederickson, 2010; Rose and Howley 2003; Watts and Erevelles, 2004)
draw our attention to matters of conceptualisation and the impact on intervention.
They show that the way in which we conceptualise bullying (or school violence in their
terminology) and disability leads to notions of blame, responsibility and dictates the
locus of intervention. If we locate the problem in the student, then our response to
this will be to intervene in this domain and focus on individuals. The significant
movement in the literature is the acceptance of the need to conceptualise bullying as
located within the social context of schools and young people’s lives and so the focus
has been on peer relations in both preventing and responding to bullying for young
people with SEN and/or disabilities.
Prevention
This shift in research from a concentration on the cognitive aspects of SEN and/or
disabilities to the psychosocial, and in particular peer relations, has highlighted
difficulties of social competence, peer status and peer acceptance, and social cognition
(Greenham, 1999). There have been many research studies that have focused upon
the inclusion of young people with SEN and/or disabilities in mainstream settings and
researchers have studied the different elements of peer relations (Frederickson 2007;
Mishna, 2003; Marini et al, 2001; Farmer, 1993; Greenham, 1999; and Whitney et al,
1992). When the young people with physical disabilities that Skär (2003) interviewed
were teased, taunted or were called names, for example, they felt they could respond
either by becoming a joker and using the abusive terms themselves – or by avoiding
contact with peers. These young people sought friendships outside their age group
(with both younger and older friends) and outside their gender (disabled boys found
girls to be ‘kinder’). They also liked socialising on the Internet where they did not have
to reveal their disability.
Some studies, and there are less of them, have researched the impact of certain
preventative interventions which will be explored in detail in this section. What is clear
is that there is a strong case for intervening both preventatively and reactively. There
is also a case for monitoring the bullying of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities since
this has been significantly under estimated (Frederickson et al, 2007; Hanish and
Guerra, 2000; Pepler et al, 1994; Sharp, 1996).
Planned interventions
Much of the research and the discussion have centred upon the social consequences
for young people with SEN and/or disabilities of being included in mainstream settings.
These studies are important because they have much to tell us about social interaction
and social rejection so central to bullying. Frederickson (2010) concludes that reviews

42
comparing inclusive settings with separate special schools or classes have reported
small positive benefits of inclusion (Baker, Wang and Walberg, 1994–5; Lindsay, 2007),
while reviews comparing social outcomes within inclusive settings have found that
pupils with special educational needs are generally less accepted and more rejected
than their typically developing classmates (Gresham and MacMillan, 1997; Nakken and
Pijl, 2002). However, the research also shows that planned preventative interventions
make a difference and improve matters and that if there is not intervention then
bullying can be worse in mainstream settings. Inclusive settings may lead to lower
levels of bullying for children with SEN and/or disabilities because they may allow
these children to develop social skills though behavioural modelling and generally
enhance acceptance and participation (Rose, 2009). ‘However, if students are not fully
integrated into peer groups, inclusion may maintain or exacerbate victimisation’
(Martlew and Hodson, 1991). This isolation then limits opportunities to learn, practice,
and receive validation for social skills (Mishna, 2003). Ineffective integrative practices
may also ‘hinder the ability to develop a protective peer base...’ (Rose, 2009: 764). So
what is apparent is that there is a need for planned interventions. These interventions
also need to be targeted and sophisticated in their response to particular socially
contextualized needs and in response to the different challenges presented by
particular disabilities.
Farmer (1993) summarises how research in the 1980s and 1990s focused upon social
skills training and peer support strategies. Yude and Goodman (1999), for example,
suggest treating ‘externalising problems’ with behaviour management or medication;
or helping children to develop better social skills and understandings. Yude et al (1998)
recommend (speculatively) a ‘whole school approach that fosters inclusive attitudes
and increases disability awareness’; ‘coaching in social skills’; and ‘training in
mentalising techniques’ (page 540). These strategies were found to be useful but the
outcomes were modest because they did not take into account the social context or
the contextual factors that maintain the aggressive behaviour, which is often related
to peer status and role. The effectiveness of individual and peer support interventions
depends in part on whether they are supported by the general classroom and school
social climate.
‘While assisting aggressive students to develop stronger social competencies
and friendships, educators must also be aware of the ways in which the social
context can support problem behaviour and should develop strategies to
inhibit the emergence of interchanges that maintain antisocial behaviour. This
does not mean ignoring the focus on peer rejection and social skills training.
Rather, the framework of interventions should be broadened to include a more
direct focus on social structures, including students’ peer affiliations and social
roles in the classroom and school, and providing students with opportunities to
develop positive roles and associations outside the instructional setting.’
(Farmer, 1993, page 206)
Mishna (2003) has shown the need for adult support, both to help the group
proactively in order to prevent rejection or victimization and to help the group accept

43
the child who has already been victimised. Adults are also essential to changing the
social contexts of and interactions in the school and the classroom. Dixon (2006) in a
study of bullying of deaf or hearing impaired children noted that when using a
framework of interventions which target emotional change, cognitive change and
behavioural change most of the interventions adopted by teachers was in the
cognitive category and she argues that not enough attention is given to helping adults
to work with the emotional aspects of bullying pupils with SEN and/or disabilities. The
framework of emotional cognitive and behavioural change is a useful overall
framework for shaping interventions in general. However most of the work focuses on
changing the nature of the peer interactions or using the peer group as a support.
The nature of the peer interventions
Interventions fall into two main categories: those that aim to engage the empathy of
peers through peer education and harness that in the support of the students (Young,
1998; Greenham, 1999; Etherington, 2007; Frederickson, 2010) or those that engage in
direct peer support. Frederickson (2010) argues that the risks associated with the
‘labelling’ of children with special educational needs have been overstated. Instead
there is evidence that including the peer group in open communication about special
needs and responses to these needs is an important foundation in many cases for
building positive classroom relationships. Peer education aims to provide information
by a range of means and thinking about the context. A framework for thinking about
the communication is to think of ‘the who, the what, the how and the to whom’
(Frederickson, 2010 citing Campbell, 2006). Campbell (2006) identified four
components of persuasive communication: the source (‘who’), message (‘what’),
channel/ medium (‘how’) and receiver/target/audience (‘to whom’) and argues that
these should be investigated in developing the knowledge base about how most
effectively to present initial information to classmates. It is important to provide
explanatory information not just descriptive information (Campbell, 2007). The
strategies used to educate peers include telling pupils about the special need of the
young person. Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davies and Goetz (1996) and Turnbull (2006)
describe using multi media presentations, along with active learning tasks, to classes in
which a young person with SEN and/or disabilities was present or about to enter.
These presentations informed the classmates about pupils with special needs and the
nature of the difficulty. This seemed to signal to peers ‘that these pupils are deserving
of special attention’ (Frederickson, 2010, page 6). These studies provide evidence of
the effectiveness of this intervention in increasing positive interaction between the
children with special educational needs and their peers and securing levels of
acceptance equivalent to their peers. The activation of empathy and understanding for
pupils with SEN and/or disabilities is seen as the mechanism operating here. Reward is
gained and feelings of high self-esteem from helping someone (Frederickson, 2010).
There is a strong argument made in these studies for raising awareness of the
disability. But there is also a need to harness peer support and to intervene in the
social context.
Saylor and Leach (2009) describe the Peer EXPRESS (Experiences to Promote
Recreation, Exposure, and Social Skills) programme ‘whose mission was to bring peers

44
with and without disabilities together for shared arts, sports, camps, service, and
leisure activities in school and in the community‘ (pages 79–80). The authors
concluded that this resulted in increased empathy and ability to relate and a
significant decrease in bullying behaviour. Other strategies to engage peers directly in
support include buddy systems (Frederickson, 2010), Circle of Friends (Etherington,
2007) and peer mediation (Warne, 2003). Moore (2009) recommends helping to foster
friendships, peer-support or ‘buddying’ in addition to involving young disabled people
in developing school policy on bullying. There is a body of evidence building for the
strength and efficacy of peer education but it is in the early stages as a research field
and there is a need to evaluate programmes rigorously.
Out of school
Bullying out of school, and in particular cyber bullying, are also forms of bullying that
need to be paid attention to in considering peer approaches. Didden et al (2009) have
shown that cyber bullying is common amongst young people with SEN and/or
disabilities and that it is very prominent for young people who may withdraw due to
their disability and depend more on the Internet for social engagement. These young
people are more vulnerable to bullying since they spend more time using the Internet.
Mishna (2003) has also argued that education must include developing community
awareness about bullying and the vulnerability of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities.
Interventions in the classroom
A number of authors emphasise that direct teaching to support language and
communication skills among pupils with SEN and/or disabilities can be effective in
reducing levels of isolation, victimisation and bullying. Hemphill and Siperstein (1990),
for example, speculate that focused work on language skills for pupils with moderate
learning difficulties might enhance their social acceptance and inclusion. Goldman
(1987) proposes that support for children with language needs should focus on social
aspects and Vetter (1982) argues that teachers should be better equipped to
differentiate by precise area of language need. The work carried out by Botting and
Conti-Ramsden (2000) indicates that support should focus on receptive language skills
and social understanding.
Other interventions that have been found useful in the classroom relate directly to
interactions around teaching and learning and involve teaching young people how to
interact in groups and within learning activities. They also involve teachers in
structuring the learning tasks so that they necessarily involve genuine collaboration
and interaction. Rose and Howley (2003), for example, used jigsawing and structured
teaching.

45
Responding to bullying
Focusing on the wider peer group
Some action that is recommended in relation to moderating bullying and victimisation
focuses on the wider peer group. Woods and White (2005), for example, identify two
kinds of bullying behaviour: ‘direct bullying’ (such as hitting, kicking or taking
belongings) and ‘relational bullying’ (which is more common and causes harm through
the manipulation of social relations by name calling, spreading rumours and social
exclusion). Woods and White (2005) then identify four kinds of children: ‘pure bullies’;
‘pure victims’; ‘bully-victims’; and ‘neutral’ (bystanders or defenders of the victim).
These authors propose that children with a bully/victim profile who are involved in
direct and relational bullying experience the highest levels of arousal (for example,
feeling both anxious and provocative); they note that victim status (involving shy,
anxious and avoidant mental states) and behaviour problems are also associated with
high levels of arousal. The children with the lowest levels of arousal (those who are
‘cool’ – but seeking stimulation) tend to be direct ‘pure’ bullies. Woods and White
(2005) propose that schools need to understand and manage the links between
arousal levels and pupil behaviour. They argue that school strategies designed to
reduce arousal levels (including calm environments; the presence of authority figures;
the use of relaxation techniques; the use of self talk techniques; the direct teaching of
problem solving; and teaching children to cope with failure) can reduce bullying. These
authors also suggest that schools can work to raise arousal levels and reduce
aggression (for example, for potential direct bullies) by offering alternative forms of
excitement and challenge (for example, in sports activity).
Targeting interventions
Other studies have focused upon the particular needs of pupils, for example, those
with Tourette syndrome (Murphy and Heyman, 2007), those who are deaf (Dixon,
2006), those who have Asperger syndrome (Attwood, 2004) and children who
stammer (Turnbull, 2006). The authors argue that there are particular facets of the
bullying in its interaction with a particular disability that may need focusing upon.
Attwood (2004) for example shows that the lack of a theory of mind and the social
difficulties of young people with Asperger syndrome should inform the nature of the
response. In Attwood’s work (2004) a range of strategies were used with students with
Asperger syndrome. These included using a team approach with many professionals;
establishing a code of conduct; making a map of child’s world; using buddy stems and
giving bystanders strategies. Other general approaches to bullying such as the support
group or ‘No Blame’ approach have also been used with pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities (Young, 1998).
These studies suggest that simple interventions can have quite a considerable impact
(Frederickson, 2010) and that when intervening it is necessary to think about the social
experience within school and the social meaning of the behaviours. This will help to
shape interventions, which if they are not targeted will not make a difference. Peer

46
education approaches and intervening in the peer dynamic of the classroom seem to
be powerful avenues to pursue in developing interventions

47
Conclusions and main messages
The research questions
The main purpose of this review of the knowledge base on bullying and children and
young people with SEN and/or disabilities is to establish what evidence there is to
inform approaches that schools might take to a) preventing and b) responding to this
issue. This purpose is the focus of research question 1, which is the prime question.
Research question 1. What does the evidence say are the most effective approaches
that schools can take to a) preventing and b) responding to the bullying of children
with SEN and/or disabilities?
The other three context questions are:
2. What evidence is there that children and young people with SEN and/or
disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to experiencing bullying and/or
peer victimisation within the school context?
3. What is particular about this group of children in respect of their vulnerability
to bullying in the context of their interactions with their peers?
4. What does the evidence tell us about the challenges that schools face in
effectively preventing and responding to the bullying of children with SEN
and/or disabilities?
Conclusions
In relation to these four questions, we offer the following conclusions:
There is a great weight of evidence that confirms that children with SEN and/or
disabilities are significantly more likely to be bullied or victimised than their non-
disabled peers. Further, the rates of vulnerability to bullying for children with SEN
and/or disabilities are very significant. Reports suggest that teachers tend to
underestimate, undervalue or discount reports of bullying from pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities.
Pupils with SEN and/or disabilities tend to be less accepted and more rejected by their
peers than other children, even when they have studied within a stable peer group for
a number of years. Poor peer acceptance is known to lead to greater risk of
victimisation and bullying. Some reports indicate that these problems get worse as
young people grow older and move into secondary schools. Further, children with co-
morbid conditions or combinations of difficulties report higher levels of peer
victimisation. Teasing and bullying are reported to be additive, meaning that the
chances of being bullied are compounded for children with combinations of difficulties
or characteristics of ‘difference’.

48
The research implies that young people with SEN and/or disabilities have many
characteristics that make them vulnerable to bullying, including lower academic
attainment, physical differences, shyness and passivity, low self-esteem and anxiety,
and behaviour that challenges other people. Some children with SEN and/or
disabilities (often children with learning disabilities or ADHD) can be seen as
‘provocative victims’, becoming involved in teasing and bullying as well as being
bullied, arguably because they have difficulty monitoring and controlling their
behaviour in social situations. There is also some evidence that children who are
rejected may be more likely to respond by adopting bullying behaviours. However, the
research strongly suggests that the key determinants of vulnerability to bullying are
associated with language and communication and social skills and status.
Social behaviours are crucially important with regard to peer victimisation. Young
people with SEN and/or disabilities are often described in the research as being at risk
of being bullied because of their ‘low social ability’, ‘deficits in decoding social
situations’, ‘reduced social competence’, or ‘impaired social tendencies’. There is wide
agreement that social issues, related to peer rejection, are key factors in the bullying
of children with SEN and/or disabilities. Some authors, however, relate this also to
language and communication issues and to the difficulty that some children may have
in interpreting nonverbal cues, communication messages and the feelings associated
with those messages.
The research suggests that language and communication have central places in the
bullying and victimisation of children with SEN and/or disabilities – because dialogue is
generally the medium through which children initiate contact, exchange information,
and negotiate shared roles and children with SEN and/or disabilities frequently
experience delays in language development. Mainstream children have good
‘discourse awareness’ and are good at detecting strengths and weaknesses in
conversation. They may define social competence according to linguistic competence
and respond accordingly so that poor language skills (and particularly receptive
language skills) become a predictor of peer rejection.
Communication problems and the misinterpretation of social situations may be key
elements leading to increased risk of bullying for young people with SEN and/or
disabilities. Social isolation and victimisation can lead to further exacerbated
victimisation in an ongoing cycle of bullying and rejection.
Aspects of service design and provision and the strategies adopted by professionals
can also render young people more liable to be bullied. The research indicates that
isolation and victimisation these issues are at least partially the responsibility of
schools for failing to promote friendship opportunities; failing to teach social skills; and
failing to take responsibility for the ‘non-teaching’ parts of the school day. The
difficulties that children with SEN and/or disabilities experience are particularly
significant in unstructured situations such as free-play and in the school corridors.
There is also evidence that the ways in which schooling for pupils with SEN and/or
disabilities operates can exacerbate the problems young people face by requiring
them to be passive and compliant; over-protecting them; providing them with

49
inappropriate staff support; teaching them outside their peer group; failing to ensure
equality of physical access to environments and activities; and requiring them to seek
help because the work has not been adjusted in order to be accessible to them.
Contextual features, including staff support, poorly differentiated teaching and
separate teaching, may mean that children with SEN and/or disabilities do not have
the right opportunities to forge protective links with their peers. Children who are not
effectively integrated and who rely on staff support may become victims of bullying
and teasing
Building on these findings, studies suggest a number of challenges that face both
mainstream and special schools in preventing and responding to bullying. One primary
challenge for schools is knowing the extent of bullying. Relying solely on teacher or
pupil reports can be problematic since studies have shown that teachers often
underestimate or have unrealistic picture of levels of bullying and students with SEN
and/or disabilities may not recognise bullying situations, either as perpetrators or
victims. Linked to this is the issue of defining bullying: it is important for schools to
have a commonly agreed definition shared by both teachers and pupils.
It is crucial for schools to know the extent of bullying in order to address the situation;
for example, to know whether preventative programmes are enough or whether
targeted interventions are required (and if so, towards which children in particular). A
particular challenge for schools is finding a way to work with teachers on this issue in a
way that is sensitive to the pressures which their responsibilities entail; to find an
appropriate and effective way of developing awareness and reporting of incidents of
bullying in their classes. This is crucial as teachers are the adults most directly in
contact with the students.
Other challenges, such as finding the time, space and resources for teacher training
and preventative or anti-bullying curricula, are institutional. Research suggests that
particular strategies may be most effective for children with different types of SEN
and/or disabilities who are vulnerable to bullying, but identifying such strategies,
adapting them if necessary and incorporating them into mainstream curricula may be
time-consuming and require additional expertise and resources. It is here that external
support may be particularly effective in helping schools to address this kind of bullying.
At the same time, while such targeted interventions are effective, whole-school
strategies also form an important foundation for these practices and schools may find
it problematic to introduce such changes comprehensively.
Main messages
Arising from these conclusions, we offer the following main messages:
If the key factors in reducing vulnerability to victimisation and bullying are social, then
social opportunity is an important issue. The implication is that schools should take
responsibility for promoting access for young people to social situations outside the
classroom as well as to educational opportunities. However, the social fabric of the
classroom is also important since, where there are limited opportunities for

50
cooperative learning and friendship, there are reduced opportunities to learn social
skills – and the risk of bullying is therefore increased.
There is some evidence that attending inclusive schools can help by providing
opportunities for peer group association. The best factor protecting against bullying is
acknowledged to be social support, provided through friendship or even acquaintance
with peers. Peer acceptance (particularly in non-classroom and playground settings) by
large numbers of peers (numerous ‘bystanders’ rather than a few good friends) tends
to protect young people with SEN and/or disabilities from bullying and victimisation.
However, inclusive settings (and even schools with thoughtful anti-bullying policies) do
not, in themselves, confer protection. Children with SEN and/or disabilities may still
have low social status, have few friends and be socially rejected within them. There is
also some evidence that children with less severe special needs in mainstream (for
example, children with mild or ‘hidden’ difficulties) experience greater levels of
rejection than those who have more visible forms of SEN and/or disabilities.
It is clear, then, that schools have a responsibility to focus on social issues and to teach
social and communication skills. Preventative interventions are important and can
make a difference, especially in mainstream settings. Studies suggest that effective
inclusion practices, and inclusive pedagogies in particular, can lead to lower levels of
bullying, particularly through enabling students to model behaviour, and providing a
means for acceptance and the development of social skills. However, interventions
need to be targeted and respond to the different challenges presented by particular
disabilities. The focus should not only be on the development of language,
communication and social skills but also on social structures, including peer affiliations
and social roles. Adult roles are crucial in this and support in the classroom needs to
be carefully planned so that it does not increase isolation from peers for pupils with
SEN and/or disabilities. There is also some evidence that actively teaching disability
awareness and helping children to understand and empathise with their peers with
SEN and/or disabilities can be productive.
In addition to planning and implementing interventions, it is important to encourage
all involved (teachers, school staff, pupils, and parents) to think through how bullying
is understood and defined, particularly in terms of the bully/victim roles and the social
context in which bullying occurs; especially how communication difficulties and
(initially unintended) social exclusion can be underlying factors contributing to the
emergence of bullying and victim behaviours. This kind of awareness raising is less
straightforward than more typical punishment or anti-bullying reporting strategies,
and therefore may be more challenging for schools to engender, but ultimately will be
more effective for bringing about a school atmosphere in which victimisation is less
likely to occur.
Interventions which are targeted on the particular needs of children with different
disabilities can have a considerable impact but there is a need for more research
studies that conduct systematic evaluations and follow-ups of such interventions to
determine better the challenges facing schools. Given the current absence of such
studies, in-depth work with teachers is recommended as they are uniquely placed to
understand the challenges addressing bullying and the research suggests that they

51
currently underestimate the extent and severity of bullying as it involves children with
SEN and/or disabilities. Any further consultation or research with teachers should take
account of the evidence discussed earlier in this section that this may well be a
sensitive topic for them to work on.
An important aspect of schools’ approaches to bullying revolves around where the
problem is located. If bullying is seen as a problem emanating from the student and
their behaviour, then interventions will be deployed in the individual domain.
However, the literature suggests the importance of social context in the incidence of
bullying and it therefore follows that prevention and responses need to focus on peer
relations as opposed to changing individual behaviours.
Interventions can work in two main ways: through engaging the empathy of peers, and
through engaging direct peer support. In peer groups, it is particularly effective to
have open communication about special needs and appropriate responses, providing
explanatory and not just descriptive information; this has been shown to increase
positive interactions between children with SEN and/or disabilities and their peers.
Buddy systems and peer mediation have also been shown to be effective and further
research is needed to secure the role that participative pedagogies and peer support
can play.
Research on bullying has begun to focus more specifically on children with SEN and/or
disabilities in the last fifteen years. Most of the studies relating to interventions
suggest that, as bullying tends to occur because of peer rejection and social skills
deficits, the most effective interventions focus on the psychosocial aspects of SEN
and/or disabilities (as opposed to cognitive), and on how peer relations can be
developed, for example, though enhancing language and communication skills among
young people with SEN and/or disabilities or by actively promoting collaborative and
participatory pedagogies. Accessing student views is an important first step in taking
action and further research that directly involves young people with SEN and/or
disabilities would be effective.

52
References
Alderson, P. and Goodey, C. (1999) ‘Autism in special and inclusive schools: 'there has
to be a point to their being there'’, Disability and Society, Vol. 14, No. 2, 249-261.
Atlas, R.S., Rona, S. and Pepler, D.J. (1998) ‘Observations of bullying in the classroom’,
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 92, 86-99.
Attwood, T. (2004) ‘Strategies to reduce the bullying of young children with Asperger
syndrome’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 29, No. 3, 15-23.
Bak, J.J. and Siperstein, G.N. (1986) ‘Protective effects of the label “mentally retarded”
on children’s attitudes towards mentally retarded peers’, American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, Vol. 91, 95-97.
Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C. and Walberg, H.J. (1994-5) ‘The effects of inclusion on
learning’, Educational Leadership, Vol. 52, No. 4, 33-5.
Barrow, G. and Hrekow, P. (1993) ‘Developing a system of inclusive education for
pupils with behavioural difficulties’, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, 6-13.
Baumeister, A.L., Storch, E.A. and Geffken, G.R. (2008) ‘Peer victimization in children
with learning disabilities’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, 11-
23.
Bauminger, N., Edelstein, H.S. and Morash, J. (2005) ‘Social information processing and
emotional understanding among children with LD’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.
38, No. 1, 45-61.
Bauminger, N. and Kasari, C. (2000) ‘Loneliness and friendship in high-functioning
children with autism’, Child Development, Vol. 71, 447-456.
Bejerot, S. and Mortberg, E. (2009) ‘Do autistic traits play a role in the bullying of
Obsessive-Compulsive disorder and Social Phobia sufferers?’, Psychopathology, Vol.
42, No. 3, 170-176.
Berry, P. (2003) ‘Psychodynamic therapy and intellectual disabilities: dealing with
challenging behaviour’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
Vol. 50, No. 1, 39-51.
Besag, V. (1989) Bullies and Victims in Schools: a guide to understanding and
management. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Bodtker, A. (2001) ‘Conflict education and special-needs students, part two: improving
conflict competence and emotional competence’, Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 4,
377-395.

53
Botting, N. and Conti-Ramsden, G. (2000) ‘Social and behavioural difficulties in
children with language impairment’, Child Language Teaching and Therapy, Vol. 16,
No. 2, 105-120.
Bradshaw, S. (2005) ‘Facing the Issues’, Special! National Association for Special
Educational Needs (Summer 2005).
Bromfield, R., Weisz, J.R. and Messer, T. (1986) ‘Children’s judgments and attributions
in response to the “mentally retarded” label: a developmental approach’, Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 1, 81-87.
Byers, R., Davies, J., Fergusson, A. and Marvin, C. (2008) What About Us?: Promoting
emotional well-being and inclusion by working with young people with learning
difficulties in schools and colleges. London/Cambridge: Foundation for People with
Learning Disabilities/University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Byrne, A. and Hennessy, E. (2009) ‘Understanding challenging behaviour: perspectives
of children and adolescents with a moderate intellectual disability’, Journal of Applied
Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 22, No. 4, 316-325.
Campbell, J.M. (2006) ‘Changing children’s attitudes toward autism: a process of
persuasive communication’, Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, Vol. 18,
251-272.
Campbell, J.M. (2007) ‘Middle school students’ response to the self-introduction of a
student with autism: effects of perceived similarity, prior awareness, and educational
message’, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 28, 163-173.
Carr, A. (2002) Prevention – What Works with Children and Adolescents?: A critical
review of psychological prevention programmes for children, adolescents and their
families, Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
Carter, B.B. and Spencer, V.G. (2006) ‘The fear factor: bullying and students with
disabilities’, International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 21, No. 1, 11-23.
Cavallaro, S.A. and Porter, R.H. (1980) ‘Peer preferences of at-risk and normally
developing children in preschool mainstream classrooms’, American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, Vol. 84, 357-366.
Chazan, M., Laing, A.F. and Davies, D. (1994) ‘Bullies and victims’, in (eds) Emotional
and Behavioural Difficulties in Middle Childhood. London: Falmer Press
Children in Scotland (2007) Access All Areas: what children and young people think
about accessibility, inclusion and additional support at school. Edinburgh: Children in
Scotland.

54
Clark, M.S. and Mills, J. (1993) ‘The difference between communal and exchange
relationships’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19, 684-691.
Coie, J.D. and Cillessen, A.H.N. (1993) ‘Peer rejection: origins and effects on children’s
development’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 2, No. 3, 89-92.
Cornwall, A. and Bawden, H.N. (1992) ‘Reading disabilities and aggression: a critical
review’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 25, No. 5, 281-288.
Cummings, J.G. (2006) ‘Bullying and victimization among students with
exceptionalities’, Exceptionality Education Canada, Vol. 16, No’s. 2-3, 193-222.
Davis, S., Howell, P. and Cooke, F. (2002) ‘Sociodynamic relationships between
children who stutter and their non-stuttering classmates’, Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, Vol. 43, 939-947.
Dawkins, J.L. (1996) ‘Bullying, physical disability and the paediatric patient’,
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, Vol. 38, 603-612.
DCSF (2008) Bullying Involving Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities:
safe to learn – embedding anti-bullying work in schools. London: Great Britain.
de Monchy, M., Pijl, S.J. and Zandberg, T. (2004) ‘Discrepancies in judging social
inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems’, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, 317-330.
Didden, R., Scholte, R.H., Korzilius, H. and de Moor, J.M. (2009) ‘Cyberbullying among
students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings’,
Developmental Neurorehabilitation, Vol. 12, No. 3, 146-151.
Dixon, R. (2006) ‘A framework for managing bullying that involves students who are
deaf or hearing impaired’, Deafness and Education International, Vol. 8, No. 1, 11-32.
Dixon, R., Smith, P. and Jenks, C. (2004) ‘Bullying and difference: a case study of peer
group dynamics in one school’, Journal of School Violence, Vol. 3, No. 4, 41-58.
Dockrell, J. and Lyndsay, G. (2000) ‘Meeting the needs of children with specific speech
and language difficulties’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 15, No. 1,
24-41.
Doren, B. (1996) ‘Predictors of victimization experiences of adolescents with
disabilities in transition’, Exceptional Children, Vol. 63, No. 1, 7-18.
Dubin, N. (2006) Being Bullied: strategies and solutions for people with Aspergers
syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.

55
Dubin, N. (2007) Asperger Syndrome and Bullying: strategies and solutions. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Education and Skills Committee (2007) ‘Bullying’, Special Children, No. 177,
(March/April).
Elam, J.J. and Sigelman, C.K. (1983) ‘Developmental differences in reactions to children
labeled mentally retarded’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 4, 303-
315.
Emerson, E. and Hatton, C. (2007) The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents with
Learning Disabilities in Britain. Lancaster: Institute for Heath Research, Lancaster
University.
Eniola, M.S. (2007) ‘The influence of emotional intelligence and self-regulation
strategies on remediation of aggressive behaviours in adolescent with visual
impairment’, Studies on Ethno-Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 1, 71-77.
Erhardt, D. and Hinshaw, S.P. (1994) ‘Initial sociometric impressions of attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder and comparison boys: predictions from social behaviors
and from nonbehavioral variables’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol.
62, No. 4, 833-842.
Estell, D.B., Farmer, T.W., Irvin, M.J., Crowther, A. and Akos, P. (2007) ‘Students with
exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying and victimization in late
elementary school’, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2, 136-150.
Etherington, A. (2007), ‘Bullying and teasing and helping children with ADS: what can
we do?’, Good Autism Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, 37-44.
Evans, I.M., Goldberg-Arnold, J.S. and Dickson, J.K. (1998) ‘Children’s perceptions of
equity in peer interactions’, in L.H. Meyer, H.S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I.S. Schwartz
and B. Harry (eds) Making Friends: the influences of culture and development.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Evans, D., Myhill, M. and Izard, J. (eds) (1993) Student Behaviour Problems: positive
initiatives and new frontiers. Hawthorn Vic: Australian Council for Educational
Research (ACER).
Farmer, T.W. (1993) ‘Misconceptions of peer rejection and problem behaviour:
understanding aggression in students with mild disabilities’, Remedial and Special
Education, Vol. 21, Vol. 4, 194-208.
Ferraro, G. and Tucker, J. (1993) ‘Groupwork with siblings of children with special
needs: a pilot study’, Groupwork, Vol. 6, No. 1, 43-50.
Flynt, S.W. and Morton, R.C. (2004) ‘Bullying and children with disabilities’, Journal of
Instructional Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 4, 331-333.

56
Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities (2002) Count Us In – the report of the
committee of inquiry into meeting the mental health needs of young people with
learning disabilities. London: FPLD.
Fox, C.L. and Bolton, M.J. (2005) ‘The social skills problems of victims of bullying: self,
peer and teacher perceptions’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 75, No.
2, 313-328.
Foxx, R.M. and Meindl, J. (2007) ‘The long term successful treatment of the
aggressive/destructive behaviors of a preadolescent with autism’, Behavioral
Interventions, Vol. 22, No. 1, 83-97.
Frances, J. (2004) Educating Children with Facial Disfigurement: creating inclusive
school communities. London: Routledge Falmer.
Frederickson, N. (2010) ‘Bullying or befriending? Children’s responses to classmates
with special needs’, British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 37, No. 1, 4-12.
Frederickson, N. and Furnham, A. (2004) ‘The relationship between socio-metric status
and peer assessed behavioural characteristics of included pupils who have moderate
learning difficulties and their classroom peers’, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2, 391-410.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L. and Soulsby, C. (2007) ‘Assessing the social
and affective outcomes of inclusion’, British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 34, No.
2, 105-115.
Friedman-Weieneth, J.L., Harvey, E.A., Youngwirth, S.D. and Goldstein, L.H. (2007) ‘The
relation between 3-year-old children's skills and their hyperactivity, inattention, and
aggression’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 3, 671-681.
Geisthardt, C. and Munsch, D.G. (1996) ‘Coping with school stress: a comparison of
adolescents with and without learning disabilities’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.
29, No. 3, 287-296.
Gillen, S. (1995) ‘Targets of hate crime’, Community Care, No. 1692, 28-29.
Gilmour, J. and Skuse, D. (1996) ‘Short stature – the role of intelligence in psychosocial
adjustment’, Archives of Diseases in Childhood, Vol. 75, 25-31.
Goldman, L.G. (1987) ‘Social implications of language disorder’, Journal of Reading,
Writing and Learning Disabilities International, Vol. 3, 119-130.
Gottlieb, J. and Leyser, Y. (1981) ‘Friendships between mentally retarded and non-
retarded children’, in S.R. Asher and J.M. Gottman (eds) The Development of Children’s
Friendships. New York: Cambridge University Press.

57
Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M. and Veldman, D.J. (1978) ‘Correlates of social status among
mainstreamed mentally retarded children’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 70,
396-405.
Graetz, B. and Shute, R. (1995) ‘Assessment of peer relationships in children with
asthma’, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 20, 205-216.
Greenham, S. (1999) ‘Learning disabilities and psychosocial adjustment: a critical
review’, Child Neuropsychology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 171-196.
Gresham, F.M. and MacMillan, D.L. (1997) Social competence and affective
characteristics of students with mild disabilities, Review of Educational Research, Vol.
67, 377-415.
Griffiths, L.J., Wolke, D., Page, A.S. and Horwood, J.P. (2004) ‘Obesity and bullying:
different effects for boys and girls’, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol. 91, 121-125.
Guralnick, M.J. (1986) ‘The peer relations of younger handicapped and non-
handicapped children’, in P.S. Strain, M. J. Guralnick and H.M. Walker (eds) Children’s
Social Behaviour: development, assessment and modification. Orlando, Flor: Academic
Press.
Guralnick, M.J., Connor, R.T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J.M. and Kinnish, K. (1995)
‘Immediate effects of mainstreamed settings on social interactions and social
integration of preschool children’, American Journal on Mental Retardation, Vol. 100,
359-377.
Hadcroft, W. (2005) The Feeling's Unmutual: growing up with Asperger syndrome
(undiagnosed). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hames, A. (1990) ‘To be on the safe side’, Community Care, February, 22-23.
Hanish, L.D. and Guerra, N.G. (2000) Children who get victimized at school: what is
known? What can be done? Professional School Counseling, Vol. 4, 113-119.
Harrington, R. and Bailey, S. (2003) The Scope for Preventing Antisocial Personality
Disorder by Intervening in Adolescence. Liverpool: NHS National Programme on
Forensic Mental Health Research and Development.
Hemphill, L. and Siperstein, G.N. (1990) ‘Conversational competence and peer
response to mildly retarded children’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 82, No.
1, 128-134.
Henderson, S.E. and Hall, D. (1982) ‘Concomitants of clumsiness in young school
children’, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, Vol. 24, 448-460.

58
Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M.E. and Horowitz, D. (2007) ‘Victimization of children with
disabilities’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 77, No. 4, 629-635.
Hinshaw, S.P. and Melnick, S.M. (1995) ‘Peer relationships in boys with attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder with and without comorbid aggression’, Development
and Psychopathology, Vol. 7, No. 4, 627-647.
Hodson, P., Baddeley, A. and Laycock, S. (2005) ‘Helping secondary schools to be more
inclusive of Year 7 pupils with SEN’, Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1,
53-67.
Holmberg, K. and Hjern, A. (2008) ‘Bullying and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder
in 10-year-olds in a Swedish community’, Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, Vol. 50, No. 2, 134-138.
Holzbauer, J.J. (2008) ‘Disability harassment observed by teachers in special
education’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, 162-171.
Hougaard, M. (2007) ‘The changing paradigm: from inclusion to belonging’, Journal of
Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 19, No. 2, iii-v.
Howley, M. and Rose, R. (2003) ‘Structured approaches to the inclusion of pupils with
Autistic Spectrum disorder in group work’, paper presented at the European
Conference on Educational Research, University of Hamburg, 17-20 September.
Hugh-Jones, S. and Smith, P.K. (1999) ‘Self-reports of short and long term effects of
bullying on children who stammer’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 69,
No. 2, 141-158.
Humphrey, N. and Lewis, S. (2008) ‘What does 'inclusion' mean for pupils on the
autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools?’, Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, Vol. 8, No. 3, 132-140.
Humphrey, J.L., Storch, E.A. and Geffken, G.R. (2007) ‘Peer victimization in children
with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’, Journal of Child Health Care, Vol. 11, No.
3, 248-260.
Hunt, P., Alwell, N., Farron-Davies, F. and Goetz, L. (1996) ‘Creating social supportive
environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities’, Journal
of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Vol. 21, No. 2, 53-71.
Hunt, O., Burden, D., Hepper, P., Stevenson, M. and Johnston, C. (2006) ‘Self-reports of
psychosocial functioning among children and young adults with cleft lip and palate’,
Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, 598-605.
Hurre, T. and Aro, H. (1998) ‘Psychosocial development among adolescents with visual
impairment’, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 7, 73-78.

59
Ingesson, S.G. (2007) ‘Growing up with dyslexia: interviews with teenagers and young
adults’, School Psychology International, Vol. 28, No. 5, 574-591.
Janssen, I., Craig, W.M., Boyce, W.F. and Pickett, W. (2004) ‘Associations between
overweight and obesity with bullying behaviours in school-aged children’, Pediatrics,
Vol. 113, No. 5, 1187-1194.
Johnson, H.R., Thompson, M.J.J., Wilkinson, S., Walsh, L., Balding, J. and Wright, V.
(2002) ‘Vulnerability to bullying: teacher-reported conduct and emotional problems,
hyperactivity, peer relationship difficulties, and prosocial behaviours in primary school
children’, Educational Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 5, 553-556.
Jull, S.K. (2008) ‘Emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD): the special educational
need justifying exclusion’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Vol. 8, No.
1, 13-18.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P. and Rimpela, A. (2000) ‘Bullying at school:
an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders’, Journal of Adolescence, Vol.
23, No. 6, 661-74.
Kamps, D. and Tankersley, M. (1996) Prevention of behavioral and conduct disorders:
trends and research issues, Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 22, 41-248.
Kaplan, S.G. and Cornell, D.G. (2005) ‘Threats of violence by students in special
education’, Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 31, No. 1, 107-119.
Kauffman, J.M. (1999) How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioral
disorders, Exceptional Children, Vol. 65, 448-468.
Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vauras, M., Maki, H. and
Poskiparta, E. (2002) ‘Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept:
connections to bully-victim problems’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43, No.
3, 269-278.
Kavale, K.A. and Forness, S.R. (1996) ‘Social skills deficits and learning disabilities: a
meta-analysis’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 29, No. 3, 226-237.
Kellner, M.H., Bry, B.H. and Salvador, D.S. (2008) ‘Anger management effects on
middle school students with emotional/behavioral disorders: anger log use, aggressive
and prosocial behavior’, Child and Family Behavior Therapy, Vol. 30, No. 3, 215-230.
Kelly, N. and Norwich, B. (2004) ‘Pupils' views on inclusion: moderate learning
difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools’, British Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 43-65.

60
Kent, B.A. (2003) ‘Identity issues for hard-of-hearing adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15
in mainstream settings’, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, 315-
324.
Khemka, I., Hickson, L., Casella, M., Accetturi, N. and Rooney, M.E. (2009) ‘Impact of
coercive tactics on the decision-making of adolescents with intellectual disabilities’,
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, 353-362.
King, G., Specht, J., Schultz, I., Warr-Leeper, G., Redekop, W. and Risebrough, N. (1997)
‘Social skills training for withdrawn, unpopular children with physical disabilities: a
preliminary evaluation’, Rehabilitation Psychology, Vol. 42, 47-60.
Knight, A., Petrie, P., Zuurmond, M. and Potts, P. (2009) ‘Mingling together': promoting
the social inclusion of disabled children and young people during the school holidays’,
Child and Family Social Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, 15-24.
Knox, E. and Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003) ‘Bullying risks of 11-year-old children with
specific language impairment (SLI): does school placement matter?’, International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1-12.
Koburg Brosen, S. (2006) Do You Understand Me?: My life, my thoughts, my Autism
Spectrum Disorder. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Kokkinos, C.M. and Panayiotou, G. (2004) ‘Predicting bullying and victimization among
early adolescents: associations with disruptive behavior disorders’, Aggressive
Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 6, 520-533.
Kuhne, M. and Wiener, J. (2000) ‘Stability of social status of children with and without
learning disabilities’, Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, 64-75.
Lam, L.T. (2005) ‘Attention deficit disorder and hospitalization owing to intra and
interpersonal violence among children and young adolescents’, Journal of Adolescent
Health, Vol. 36, No. 1, 19-24.
Lamb, B. (2000) ‘New rights for disabled children in education’, Childright, No. 167, 5-
7.
Landy, S. and Menna, R. (2006) ‘An evaluation of a group intervention for parents with
aggressive young children: improvements in child functioning, maternal confidence,
parenting knowledge and attitudes’, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 176, No.
6, 605-620.
Law, G.U., Sinclair, S. and Fraser, N. (1988) ‘Children’s attitudes and behavioural
intentions towards a peer with symptoms of ADHD: does the addition of a diagnostic
label make a difference?’ Journal of Child Health Care, Vol. 11, No. 2, 98-111.

61
Leff, S. (1999) ‘Bullied children are licked on for their vulnerability (Letter)’, British
Medical Journal, Vol. 318, 1076.
Lewis, A. and Lewis, V. (1988) ‘Young children’s attitudes, after a period of integration,
towards peers with severe learning difficulties’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, Vol. 3, No. 3, 161-171.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (eds) (2000) Researching Children’s Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewis-Jones, S. (2006) ‘Quality of life and childhood atopic dermatitis: the misery of
living with childhood eczema’, International Journal of Clinical Practice, Vol. 60, No. 8,
984-992.
Liesman, R. (2009) ‘Bullying of children with developmental disabilities: an ecological
approach to program development’, in C.A. Marshall, E. Kendall, M.E. Banks and
R.M.S. Gover, (Eds.), Disabilities: insights from across fields and around the world, 219-
237, Santa Barbara, CA, US: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.
Lindsay, G. (2007) ‘Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 77, 1-24.
Lindsay, G. and Dockrell, J.E. (2008) ‘Vulnerability to bullying in children with a history
of specific speech and language difficulties’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1-16.
Linfoot, K., Martin, A.J. and Stephenson, J. (1999) ‘Preventing conduct disorder: a
study of parental behaviour management and support needs with children aged 3 to 5
years’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, Vol. 46, No. 2,
223-246.
Little, L. (2002) ‘Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization
among children with Asperger’s syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders’, Issues in
Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 43-57.
Llewellyn, A. (1995) ‘The abuse of children with physical disabilities in mainstream
schooling’, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, Vol. 37, No. 8, 740-743.
Luciano, S. and Savage, R.S. (2007) ‘Bullying risk in children with learning difficulties in
inclusive educational settings’, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 1,
14-31.
Lynas, W. (1986) ‘Pupils’ attitudes to integration’, British Journal of Special Education,
Vol. 13, 31-33.

62
MacArthur, J., Sharp, S., Gaffney, M. and Kelly, B. (2007) ‘Does it matter that my body
is different? Disabled children, impairment, disability and identity’, Childrenz Issues,
Vol. 11, No. 2, 25-30.
Macleod, G. and Munn, P. (2004) ‘Social, emotional and behavioural difficulties: a
different kind of special educational need?’, Scottish Educational Review, Vol. 36, No.
2, 169-176.
Macpherson, A. (1992) The Exclusion of Disruptive Students from Western Australian
Government Schools: 1984-1990. Perth: University of Western Australia.
Marini, Z., Fairbairn, L. and Zuber, R. (2001) ‘Peer harassment in individuals with
developmental disabilities: towards the development of a multidimensional bullying
identification model’, Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 2, 170-195.
Martlew, M. and Cooksey, C. (1989) ‘The integration of a child with cerebral palsy into
a mainstream nursery’, European Journal of Special Educational Needs, Vol. 4, 103-
116.
Martlew, M. and Hodson, J. (1991) ‘Children with mild learning difficulties in an
integrated and in a special school: comparisons of behaviour, teasing and teacher’s
attitudes’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, 355-372.
Maughan, B. (1996) ‘Reading problems and antisocial behaviour: developmental
trends in comorbidity’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 37, No. 4, 405-
418.
McConkey, R. and Smyth, M. (2003) ‘Parental perceptions of risks with older teenagers
who have severe learning difficulties contrasted with the young people's views and
experiences’, Children and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, 18-31.
McLaughlin, C., Byers, R. and Peppin Vaughan, R. (2010) Responding to Bullying among
Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, Scoping study for the
Knowledge Phase of the Lamb Inquiry into Special Educational Needs and Parental
Confidence. Cambridge: March 2010.
Medina, C. and Luna, G. (2006) ‘Suicide attempts among adolescent Mexican American
students enrolled in special education classes’, Adolescence, Vol. 41, No. 162, 299-312.
Mencap (1999) Living In Fear: the need to combat bullying of people with a learning
disability. London: Mencap.
Mencap (2004) They Won't Believe Me: bullying of children with a learning disability.
London: Mencap.
Mencap (2007) Don’t Stick It, Stop It! Bullying Wrecks Lives: the experiences of children
and young people with a learning disability. London: Mencap.

63
Mishna, F. (2003) ‘Learning disabilities and bullying: double jeopardy’, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, Vol. 36, No. 4, 336-347.
Montes, G. and Halterman, J.S. (2007) ‘Bullying among children with autism and the
influence of comorbidity with ADHD: a population-based study’, Ambulatory
Pediatrics, Vol. 7, No. 3, 253-257.
Mooney, S. and Smith, P.K. (1995) ‘Bullying and the child who stammers’, British
Journal of Special Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, 24-27.
Moore, S. (2009) Children Who Have Experienced Bullying: performance pointers NI69.
Dartington: Research in Practice.
Morgan, H. (2003) ‘Count us in: the inquiry into meeting the mental health needs of
young people with learning disabilities’, Tizard Learning Disability Review, Vol. 8, No. 3,
37-43.
Morris, R.J. (Ed.) (2006) Disability Research and Policy: current perspectives (includes
chapter on bullying). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morrison, G.M. and Furlong, M.J. (1994) ‘Factors associated with the experience of
school violence among general education, leadership class, opportunity class, and
special class day pupils’, Education and Treatment of Children, Vol. 17, No. 3, 356-370.
Murik, J., Shaddock, A., Spinks, A., Zilber, D. and Curry, C. (2005) ‘Reported strategies
for responding to the aggressive and extremely disruptive behaviour of students who
have special needs’, Australasian Journal of Special Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, 21-39.
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H. and Walczak, S. (2002) ‘Aggression and threat perception
abnormalities in children with learning and behavior problems’, Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, Vol. 33, No. 2, 147-163.
Murphy, T. and Heyman, I. (2007) ‘Group work in young people with Tourette
Syndrome’, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 12, No. 1, 46-48.
Nabuzoka, D. (2000) Children with Learning Disabilities: social functioning and
adjustment. Oxford: BPS Blackwell Publishing.
Nabuzoka, D. (2003) ‘Teacher ratings and peer nominations of bullying and other
behaviour of children with and without learning difficulties’, Educational Psychology,
Vol. 23, No. 3, 307-321.
Nabuzoka, D. and Smith, P.K. (1993) ‘Sociometric status and social-behavior of children
with and without learning difficulties’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, Vol. 34, 1435-1448.

64
Nadeau, L. and Tessier, R. (2006) ‘Social adjustment of children with cerebral palsy in
mainstream classes: peer perception’, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology,
Vol. 48, No. 5, 331-336.
Nakken, H. and Pijl, S.J. (2002) ‘Getting along with classmates in regular schools: a
review of the effects of integration on the development of social relationships’,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 6, No. 1, 47-61.
National Autistic Society (2006) B is for Bullied: experiences of children with autism and
their families. London: National Autistic Society.
National Children's Bureau (2007) Bullying and Disability. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
National Deaf Children’s Society (2006) Bullying and Deaf Children: a guide for schools.
London: National Deaf Children’s Society.
Newberry, M.K. and Parish, T.S. (1987) ‘Enhancement of attitudes towards
handicapped children through social interactions’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol,
127, 59-62.
Nordmann, N. (2001) ‘The marginalisation of students with learning disabilities as a
function of school philosophy and practice’, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 30, No. 3,
273-286.
Norwich, B. and Kelly, N. (2004) ‘Pupils’ views on inclusion: moderate learning
difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools’, British Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 43-65.
Nunes, T., Pretzlik, U. and Olsson, J. (2001) ‘Deaf children’s social relationships in
mainstream schools’, Deafness and Education International, Vol. 3, 123-136.
Odom, S.L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J.M., Sandall, S. and Brown, W.H. (2006)
‘Social acceptance and rejection of preschool children with disabilities: a mixed-
method analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 98, No. 4, 807-823.
Olweus, D. (1978) Aggression in the Schools: bullies and whipping boys. Washington
DC: Hemisphere.
O’Moore, A.M. and Hillery, B. (1989) ‘Bullying in Dublin schools’, The Irish Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 10, 426-441.
OReilly, M.F. (2005) ‘Evaluation of video feedback and self-management to decrease
schoolyard aggression and increase pro-social behaviour in two students with
behavioural disorders’, Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 2-3, 199-206.

65
Palermo, M.T. (2003) ‘Preventing filicide in families with autistic children’,
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 47, No. 1,
47-57.
Pavri, S. and Monda-Amaya, L. (2001) Social support in inclusive schools: student and
teacher perspectives, Exceptional Children, Vol. 67, No. 3, 391-411.
Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Ziegler, S., and Charach, A. (1994) An evaluation of an anti-
bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental
Health, Vol. 13, 95-110.
Perkins, J. and Leadbetter, D. (2002) ‘An evaluation of aggression management
training in a special educational setting’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 7,
No. 1, 19-34.
Perry, D.G., Kusel, S.J. and Perry, L.C. (1988) ‘Victims of peer aggression’,
Developmental Psychology, Vol. 24, 807-814.
Peterson, J.S. and Ray, K.E. (2006a) ‘Bullying among the gifted: the subjective
experience’, Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3, 252-269.
Peterson, J.S. and Ray, K.E. (2006b) ‘Bullying and the gifted: victims, perpetrators,
prevalence, and effects’, Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2, 148-168.
Piek, J.P., Barrett, N.C., Allen, L.S.R., Jones, A. and Louise, M. (2005) ‘The relationship
between bullying and self-worth in children with movement coordination problems’,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 75, 453-463.
Pilling, N., McGill, P. and Cooper, V. (2007) ‘Characteristics and experiences of children
and young people with severe intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour
attending 52-week residential special schools’, Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, Vol. 51, No. 3, 184-196.
Pope, A.W., Bierman, K.L. and Mumma, G.H. (1991) ‘Aggression, hyperactivity, and
inattention-immaturity: behavior dimensions associated with peer rejection in
elementary school boys’, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 4, 663-671.
Porter, J. and Lacey, P. (2005) Researching Learning Difficulties: a guide for
practitioners. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Rabold, S. and Baier, D. (2008) ‘Violence and other forms of deviant behavior in
schools for students with special needs’, Zeitschrift Fur Padagogik, Vol. 54, No. 1, 118-
141.
Reiter, S. and Lapidot, L.N. (2007) ‘Bullying among special education students with
intellectual disabilities: differences in social adjustment and social skills’, Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 45, No. 3, 174-181.

66
Research Autism (2008) Bullying of children with autism in secondary schools,
Research Autism Research report 2008 www.researchautism.net
Richardson, M. (2007) The Efficacy of an Alternative Farm School Program for Referred
Children with Severe Antisocial Behaviour. Crawley WA: University of Western
Australia.
Rigby, K. (2000) ‘Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support
on adolescent well-being’, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 23, 57-68.
Rigby, K. (2005) ‘Bullying in schools and the mental health of children’, Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 15, No. 2, 195-208.
Rigby, K. (2010) Bullying Interventions in Schools: six basic approaches. Victoria,
Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Roberts, J. (1995) ‘A mothers thoughts on bullying, failure and one special needs child’,
Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 13, No. 2, 23-24.
Roberts, C. and Zubrick, S. (1992) ‘Factors influencing the social status of children with
mild academic disabilities in regular classrooms’, Exceptional Children, Vol. 59, No. 3,
192-202.
Roland, E. and Galloway, D. (2002) ‘Classroom influences on bullying’, Educational
Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, 299-312.
Rollinson, R. (1997) ‘Managing aggression and violence at the Mulberry Bush School’,
Journal of Mental Health, Vol. 6, No. 5, 457-466.
Ronen, T., Rahav, G. and Moldawsky, A. (2007) ‘Aggressive behavior among Israeli
elementary school students and associated emotional/behavioral problems and self-
control’, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, 407-431.
Rose, C.A., Espelage, D.L., and Monda, A.L.E. (2009) ‘Bullying and victimisation rates
among students in general and special education: a comparative analysis’, Educational
Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 7, 761-776.
Rose, R. and Howley, M. (2003) ‘Structured approaches to the inclusion pupils with
autistic spectrum disorder in group work.’ Unpublished paper presented at the
European Conference on Education Research, University of Hamburg, Germany, 17-20
September 2003.
Rourke, B. (1989) Nonverbal Learning Disabilities: the syndrome and the model. New
York: Guilford Press.
Salmon, G. and West, A. (2000) ‘Physical and mental health issues related to bullying
schools,’ Current Opinion on Psychiatry, Vol. 13, No 4, pp. 375-380

67
Sale, P. and Carey, D.M. (1995) ‘The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a
full inclusion school’, Exceptional Children, Vol. 62, No. 1, 6-19.
Savage, R. (2005) ‘Friendship and bullying patterns in children attending a language
base in a mainstream school’, Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, 23-36.
Saylor, C.F. and Leach, J.B. (2009) ‘Perceived bullying and social support in students
accessing special inclusion programming’, Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, Vol. 21, 69-80.
Scope, Disability Now and The United Kingdom's Disabled People's Council (2008)
Getting Away with Murder: disabled people's experience of hate crime in the United
Kingdom. London: Scope, Disability Now and The United Kingdom's Disabled People's
Council.
Sharp, S. (1996) The role of peers in tackling bullying in schools, Educational
Psychology in Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4, 17-22.
Sheard, C., Clegg, J., Standen, R. and Cromby, J. (2001) ‘Bullying and people with
severe intellectual disability’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Vol. 45, No. 5,
407-415.
Shechtman, Z. and Nachshol, R. (1996) ‘A school-based intervention to reduce
aggressive behavior in maladjusted adolescents’, Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 4, 535-552.
Singer, E. (2005) ‘The strategies adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain
their self-esteem when teased at school’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No.
5, 411-423.
Siperstein, G.N. and Bak, J.J. (1985) ‘Effects of social behaviour on children’s attitudes
toward their mildly and moderately retarded peers’, American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, Vol. 90, 319-327.
Siperstein, G.N. and Gottlieb, J. (1977) ‘Physical stigma and academic performance as
factors affecting children’s first impressions of handicapped peers’, American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, Vol. 81, 455-462.
Skär, L. (2003) ‘Peer and adult relationships of adolescents with disabilities’, Journal of
Adolescence, Vol. 26, No. 6, 635-649.
Skinner, A. (1992) Bullying: an annotated bibliography of literature and resources.
Leicester: National Youth Agency/Youth Work Press.
Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (eds) (2004) Bullying in Schools: how successful can
interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

68
Smith, P.K., Whitney, I. and Nabuzoka, D. (1992) ‘Bullying in schools: mainstream and
special needs’, Support for Learning, Vol. 7, No. 1, 3-7.
Speakup Self Advocacy (2000) Bully off! Rotherham: Speakup Self Advocacy (DVD).
Speakup Self Advocacy (2004) Abuse is bad, Rotherham: Speakup Self Advocacy (DVD).
Special Children (2006) ‘Focus on … bullying’, Special Children, No. 172 (April/May
2006).
Special Children (2007) ‘Bullying: The DCSF has published new guidance on tackling
bullying that is directed at children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Special Children looks at the issues and the advice’, Special Children – Birmingham.
Stafford, I. and Stafford, K. (1995) ‘Aggressive playground behaviour in children with
emotional and/or behavioural difficulties’, Educational Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, 277-291.
Stinson, M., Whitmire, K. and Kluwin, T. (1996) ‘Self-perceptions of social relationships
in hearing-impaired adolescents’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 132 – 143.
Storch, E.A., Heidgerken, A.D., Geffken, G.R., Lewin, A.B., Ohleyer, V., Freddo, M. and
Silverstein, J.H (2006) ‘Bullying, regimen self-management, and metabolic control in
youth with Type I Diabetes’, Journal of Paediatrics, Vol. 148, No. 6, 784-787.
Storch, E.A., Ledley, D.R., Lewin, A.B., Murphy, T.K., Johns, N.B., Goodman, W.K. and
Geffken, G.R. (2006) ‘Peer victimization in children with Obsessive-Compulsive
disorder: relations with symptoms of psychopathology’, Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3, 446-455.
Storch, E.A., Lewin, A., Silverstein, J.H., Heidgerken, A.D., Strawser, M.S., Baumeister,
A. and Geffken, G.R. (2004) ‘Peer victimization and psychosocial adjustment in children
with type 1 diabetes’, Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 43, No. 5, 467-471.
Storch, E.A., Masia-Warner, C. and Brassard, M.R. (2003) ‘The relationship of peer
victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescence’, Child Study Journal, Vol.
33, 1-18.
Sveinsson, A.V. (2006) ‘School bullying and disability in Hispanic youth: are special
education students at greater risk of victimization by school bullies than non-special
education students? Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and
Social Sciences, Vol. 66, No. 9A, 3214.
Sweeting, H. and West, P. (2001) ‘Being different: correlates of the experience of
teasing and bullying at age 11’, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 16, No. 3, 225-246.

69
Taylor, A.R., Asher, S.R. and Williams, G.A. (1987) ‘The social adaptation of
mainstreamed mildly retarded children’, Child Development, Vol. 58, 1321-1334.
Ten Haaf, M. (2005) Severe Antisocial Tendencies in Intellectually Disabled Students in
Western Australian Schools, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA.
Thompson, D., Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1994) Bullying of children with special
needs in mainstream schools’, Support for Learning, Vol. 9, 103-106.
Thornton, P. (2000) ‘Disability’, Research Matters, October 2000/April 2001, 34-36.
Torrance, D.A. (1997) ‘Do you want to be in my gang?': a study of the existence and
effects of bullying in a primary school class’, British Journal of Special Education, Vol.
24, No. 4, 158-162.
Torrance, D.A. (2000) ‘Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools’, British
Journal of Special Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, 16-21.
Turnbull, J. (2006) ‘Promoting greater understanding in peers of children who
stammer’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 11, No. 4, 237-247.
Twyman, K.A., Saylor, C.F., Saia, D., Macias, M.M., Taylor, L.A. and Spratt, E. (2010)
‘Bullying and ostracism experiences in children with special health care needs’, Journal
of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1-8.
Unnever J.D. and Cornell, D.G. (2003) ‘Bullying, self-control, and ADHD’, Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 18, No. 2, 129-147.
Van Cleave, J. and Davis, M.M. (2006) ‘Bullying and peer victimization among children
with special health care needs’, Pediatrics, Vol. 118, No. 4, 1212-1219.
Van der Klift, E. and Kunc, N. (2002) ‘Beyond benevolence’, in J.S. Thousand, R.A. Villa,
and A.I. Nevin (eds) Creativity and Collaborative Learning: the practical guide to
empowering students, teachers, and families. Baltimore, MA: Paul. H. Brookes.
van Nieuwenhuijzen, M., de Castro, B.O., van Aken, M.A.G. and Matthys, W. (2009)
‘Impulse control and aggressive response generation as predictors of aggressive
behaviour in children with mild borderline intelligence intellectual disabilities’, Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, 233-242.
van Roekel, E., Scholte, R.H.J. and Didden, R. (2010) ‘Bullying among adolescents with
Autism Spectrum Disorders: prevalence and perception’, Journal Of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, Vol. 40, No. 1, 63-73.
Vetter, D.K. (1982) ‘Language disorders and schooling’, Topics in Language Disorders,
Vol. 2, 13-19.

70
Visser, M., Singer, E., Geert, P.L.C. van. and Kunnen, S.E. (2005) ‘The strategies
adopted by Dutch children with dyslexia to maintain their self-esteem when teased at
school’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No. 5, 411-423.
Visser, M., Singer, E., Geert, P.L.C. van. and Kunnen, S.E. (2009) ‘What makes children
behave aggressively? The inner logic of Dutch children in special education’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1-20.
Warne, A. (2003) ‘Establishing peer mediation in a special school context’, Pastoral
Care in Education, Vol. 21, No. 4, 27-33.
Warnock, M. (2005) ‘Special educational needs: a new look’, Impact No. 11, London:
The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
Watts, I.E. and Erevelles, N. (2004) ‘These deadly times: reconceptualizing school
violence by using critical race theory and disability studies’, American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, 271-299.
Wehby, J.H., Symons, F.J. and Shores, R.E. (1995) ‘A descriptive analysis of aggressive-
behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and behavioral-disorders’,
Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 20, No. 2, 87-105.
Weiner, M.T. and Miller, M. (2006) ‘Deaf children and bullying: directions for future
research’, American Annals of the Deaf, Vol. 151, No. 1, 61-70.
Wenz-Gross, M. and Siperstein, G.N. (1997) ‘Importance of social support in the
adjustment of children with learning problems’, Exceptional Children, Vol. 63, No. 2,
183-193.
Wheatley, A., Murrihy, R., Van Kessel, J., Wuthrich, V., Remond, L., Tuqiri, R., Dadds,
M. and Kidman, A. (2009) ‘Aggression management training for youth in behaviour
schools: a quasi-experimental study’, Youth Studies Australia, Vol. 28, No. 1, 29-36.
White, N. and Loeber, R. (2008) ‘Bullying and special education as predictors of serious
delinquency’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 45, No. 4, 380-397.
Whitney, I., Nabuzoka, D. and Smith, P.K. (1992) ‘Bullying in schools: mainstream and
special needs’, Support for Learning, Vol. 7, No. 1, 3-7.
Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1993) ‘A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools’, Educational Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, 3-25.
Whitney, I., Smith, P.K. and Thompson, D. (1994a) ‘Bullying and children with special
educational needs’, in P.K. Smith and S. Sharp (eds), School bullying: insights and
perspectives. London: Routledge.

71
Whitney, I., Smith, P.K. and Thompson, D. (1994b) ‘Bullying of children with special
needs in mainstream schools’, Support for Learning, Vol. 9, No. 3, 103-106.
Winner, E. (1997) ‘Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling’, American
Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 10, 1070-1081.
Wise, S. (1998) ‘The perceptions of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties
of their mainstream schooling’, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 3, No. 3, 3-
12.
Woods, S. and White, E. (2005) ‘The association between bullying behaviour, arousal
levels and behaviour problems’, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 28, No. 3, 381-395.
Yahya, K. and Fawwaz, O. (2003) ‘The effect of using token reinforcement and time-out
procedures on the modification of aggressive behavior of a sample of mentally
retarded children’, Dirasat: Educational Sciences, Vol. 30, No. 2, 239-256.
Young, E.L., Heath, M.A., Ashbaker, B.Y. and Smith, B. (2008) ‘Sexual harassment
among students with educational disabilities’, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 29,
No. 4, 208-221.
Young, S. (1998) ‘The support group approach to bullying in schools’, Educational
Psychology in Practice, Vol. 14, No. 1, 32-39.
Yude, C. and Goodman, R. (1999) ‘Peer problems of 9 to 11-year-old children with
hemiplegia in mainstream schools. Can these be predicted?’, Developmental Medicine
and Child Neurology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 4-8.
Yude, C., Goodman, R. and McConachie, H. (1998) ‘Peer problems of children with
hemiplegia in mainstream primary schools’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
Vol. 39, No. 4, 533-541.
Yuen, M., Westwood, P. and Wong, G. (2007) ‘Bullying and social adjustment in a
sample of Chinese students with specific learning disability’, Special Education
Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 2, 35-52.
Zalecki, C.A. and Hinshaw, S.P. (2004) ‘Overt and relational aggression in girls with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1, 125-137.
Zandberg, T., de Monchy, M. and Pijl, S.J. (2004) ‘Discrepancies in judging social
inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems’, European Journal of Special
Needs Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, 317-330.

72
Appendix: Searching strategy and results
The study has been framed around the key questions from the DCSF/DFE. The first
task of the review was to elicit the nature and scope of the evidence base available for
answering these questions, based on the results of the earlier scoping study. The
review used a broad range of methods to identify relevant material:
searches of bibliographic databases;
searches of project and organisation websites;
contacting individuals working in relevant organisations;
recommendations from the National Children’s Bureau;
References gathered from the full text of relevant articles.
Three screening stages were undertaken to filter out the materials most relevant to
the research questions.
Screening 1: using record titles and abstracts (where available) to ensure the search
results conformed to the search parameters and were relevant for answering the
research questions.
Materials were excluded if:
they did not address the issue of bullying;
they were published before 1990;
they did not relate to a study in an English-speaking country, or were not
published in English;
they did not relate to the research questions;
they reported on the causal effect of bullying on mental health problems and
disorders;
a fuller report was published elsewhere;
they were duplicate records.
Records from the first stage of screening were then gathered and disseminated for the
second screening, following further discussions about inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Further materials were excluded if:
they focused on ADHD-related ‘behavioural’ problems / disorders;
the bullying explored was between adults, or pre-school children;
they were investigating the effectiveness of medical treatments for aggressive
behaviour or ADHD;
the aggression and bullying investigated was occurring in non-school contexts
(home, parents, siblings).
After the second screening, full text versions of the articles were collected where
possible and read for analysis, to assess the evidence base for each of the research
questions. As there were some considerable discussions within the research team
about specifically which literature was to be included at this stage, it was decided that
the literature review phase will also include a revisiting of the literature excluded in
the second screening, in order to confirm the criteria applied to this study.

73
Table 1 shows the number of items found in the initial search, and selected at each
screening stage, by each database searched.
Table 1: Initial search results
Database
Items found
Items selected for
consideration
(screening 1)5
Applied Social Sciences Index
and Abstracts (ASSIA)
16
6
Australian Education Index
355
25
British Education Index
190
36
ChildData
530
126
International Bibliography of
the Social Sciences
96
14
PsycArticles / PsycInfo
208
32
Social Care Online
64
23
Social Sciences Citation Index
397
88
Social Services Abstracts
183
15
ZeToC
14
8
JSTOR
13
1
Screening 2: was conducted after consultation over the results of the first screening
among the research team, and further discussions about the remit of the study.
Further materials were excluded if:
they focused solely on ADHD-related ‘behavioural’ problems or disorders;
the bullying explored was between adults, or pre-school children;
they were investigating the effectiveness of medical treatments for aggressive
behaviour or ADHD;
the aggression and bullying investigated was occurring in non-school contexts
(for example, at home, between parents, children and siblings).
After the second screening, full text versions of the articles were collected where
possible and read for analysis, to assess the evidence base for each of the research
questions.
5 This was reduced again slightly for removal of duplicates and pre-1990 articles.
6 As the ChildData results were received later on in the scoping process, there was a high level of
duplication with items already found.

74
Screening 3: as there was some considerable discussions within the research team
about specifically which literature was to be included at this stage (see ‘Cause and
effect’, above), the literature review phase included a revisiting of the literature
excluded in the second screening, in order to confirm the criteria applied to this study.
After the decision to adopt a refined definition of SEN and disabilities, which did not
include mental health disorders, other physical differences or medical conditions, and
‘gifted’ children, the previously excluded literature was reviewed again alongside
included articles and additional literature which had been sourced from full text
articles and from further consultations with individuals.
In this third screening, sources were sorted according to primary or secondary
importance, or excluded entirely from the study. The quality and nature of the
material was recorded on ‘report cards’, with summaries of the findings in relation to
each research question.
Table 2 shows the final inclusion / exclusion criteria:
Table 2: Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion /
exclusion
criteria
Guidance
1
EXCLUDE
Date of
publication
Published before 1990
2
EXCLUDE
Publication type
General advocacy literature
3
EXCLUDE
Originality
Duplicated elsewhere
4
EXCLUDE
availability
Not available
5
EXCLUDE
Location
Other than UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand
6
EXCLUDE
Language
Other than English-language publications
7
EXCLUDE
Scope
Other than publications relevant to research
questions
8
EXCLUDE
Relationship
Any hostile or violent behaviour