Morton Hannah E, Bottini Summer B, McVey Alana J, Gillis Jennifer M, Romanczyk Raymond G
TEACCH Autism Program, Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA.
Binghamton University, Binghamton, USA.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2025 Jun 26. doi: 10.1007/s10803-025-06938-1.
Autistic and ADHD youth face heightened risk of peer victimization and subsequent poor educational and mental health outcomes. Yet, bullying interventions have had limited success in these groups, potentially due to variability in bullying assessment methods across studies. Additionally, general tools validated for community samples may fail to capture the unique victimization experiences of these youth. This study evaluated the agreement and sensitivity of three bullying assessment methods-a single-item assessment, the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ), and the disability-specific Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)-and examined group differences in victimization risk. Caregivers of 516 autistic, ADHD, and community youth completed all three bullying assessments. Agreement across measures was examined overall and within groups using percent agreement, Cohen's kappa and McNemar's tests. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate group differences in bullying classification within each measure. Agreement between the OBQ and ABE was moderate overall, but weaker in each of the autism and ADHD groups. The single-item assessment underestimated bullying prevalence compared to multi-item questionnaires and also failed to detect any between-group differences. Youth with ADHD were nearly three times more likely to be bulled compared to community youth when measured by both the ABE (OR = 2.81; 95% CI [1.34, 5.92]) and the OBQ (OR = 2.76; 95% CI [1.37, 5.57]) whereas increased vulnerability for autistic youth with co-occurring ADHD was only identified by the ABE (OR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.42, 3.85]). Findings highlight the limitations of single-item assessments and general measures in capturing disability-specific bullying. By including disability-specific behaviors, the ABE provides greater sensitivity for assessing bullying in autistic and ADHD youth. Integrating theory-driven frameworks may further improve assessment and intervention approaches for understanding and addressing bullying risk in autistic and ADHD youth.
患有自闭症和注意力缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）的青少年面临着更高的同伴受害风险，以及随之而来的不良教育和心理健康后果。然而，针对这些群体的欺凌干预措施成效有限，这可能是由于不同研究中欺凌评估方法存在差异。此外，针对社区样本验证的通用工具可能无法捕捉到这些青少年独特的受害经历。本研究评估了三种欺凌评估方法的一致性和敏感性，这三种方法分别是单项评估、奥维斯欺凌问卷（OBQ）和针对特定残疾的欺凌经历评估（ABE），并研究了受害风险的群体差异。516名自闭症、ADHD和社区青少年的照顾者完成了所有三种欺凌评估。使用一致率、科恩kappa系数和麦克尼马尔检验对各项测量之间的一致性进行了总体和组内检验。逻辑回归模型用于评估每项测量中欺凌分类的群体差异。总体而言，OBQ和ABE之间的一致性为中等，但在自闭症和ADHD组中各自的一致性较弱。与多项问卷相比，单项评估低估了欺凌的发生率，并且也未能检测到任何组间差异。在用ABE（比值比[OR]=2.81；95%置信区间[CI][1.34,5.92]）和OBQ（OR=2.76；95%CI[1.37,5.57]）进行测量时，ADHD青少年被欺凌的可能性几乎是社区青少年的三倍，而只有ABE识别出患有ADHD的自闭症青少年受害风险增加（OR=2.34；95%CI[1.42,3.85]）。研究结果突出了单项评估和通用测量方法在捕捉特定残疾欺凌方面的局限性。通过纳入特定残疾行为，ABE在评估自闭症和ADHD青少年的欺凌情况时具有更高的敏感性。整合理论驱动的框架可能会进一步改进评估和干预方法，以理解和应对自闭症和ADHD青少年的欺凌风险。
