International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education

ISSN: 1034-912X (Print) 1465-346X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Bullying and Victimisation among TaiwaneseStudents in Special Schools
Hsi-Sheng Wei, Heng-Hao Chang & Ji-Kang Chen
To cite this article: Hsi-Sheng Wei, Heng-Hao Chang & Ji-Kang Chen (2015): Bullying andVictimisation among Taiwanese Students in Special Schools, International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2015.1092505
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1092505

Published online: 05 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
Download by: [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang]Date: 23 November 2015, At: 19:26

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1092505

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying and Victimisation among Taiwanese Students in Special
Schools
Hsi-Sheng Weia*, Heng-Hao Changb and Ji-Kang Chenca

Department of Social Work, National Taipei University, New Taipei City, Taiwan;
Department of Sociology, National Taipei University, New Taipei City, Taiwan;c
Department of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Chinab

This study examined the prevalence of bullying and victimisation among students inspecial schools in Taiwan. The sample included 140 students with various disabilities, aged 12–18, from 10 special schools throughout Taiwan. Trained interviewers
conducted face-to-face surveys using structured questionnaires. Results show that
31.8% of students in special schools experienced peer victimisation within the past
year, while 26.5% of students had bullied others during that period. While the ﬁndings did not yield gender differences, students in junior high grades tended to report
more victimisation experiences than did their senior high counterparts. Severity ofdisability was positively associated with both bullying and being bullied; however,no difference was found regarding types of disability. Delinquency was positively
associated with student bullying and victimisation. Students who suffered victimisation also reported a higher number of suicide attempts. Implications for policy andpractice are discussed.
Keywords: adolescents; bullying; disability; peer victimisation; school violence;
special school; students; Taiwan

Introduction
Bullying in schools is a common problem worldwide that has received great attention
in recent years (McGuckin, Lewis, & Cummins, 2010; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel,
2009). Previous investigations have established the prevalence of bullying among youth,
with a considerable proportion of students being involved as bullies and victims (Craiget al., 2009). Research suggests that the risk of victimisation is distributed unequally
among adolescents, and students with disabilities are at particularly high risk of being
maltreated by peers (Farmer et al., 2012; Sentenac et al., 2011; Swearer, Wang, Maag,
Siebecker, & Frerichs, 2012).
One United States study revealed that the victimisation rate of students with disabilities was 24.5% in elementary school and 34.1% in middle school, which was one to
one and a half times the national average for students without disabilities (Blake, Lund,
Zhou, Kwok, & Benz, 2012). These ﬁndings reveal a disturbing educational issue thatneeds to be taken seriously, especially in regions where little relevant data exists. In
response to this knowledge gap, the ﬁrst objective of this study was to assess theprevalence of bullying among students with disabilities in Taiwanese special schools.

*Corresponding author. Email: hswei@mail.ntpu.edu.tw© 2015 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

2

H.-S. Wei et al.

Although a number of studies have explored bullying and peer victimisation in thegeneral youth population and have identiﬁed major risk factors in multiple domains,researchers have placed less focus speciﬁcally on students with disabilities. Existing
evidence suggests vulnerability among this student group to peer maltreatment such as
being rejected, humiliated, and harassed (Jawaid et al., 2012).
Research on students with intellectual disabilities, visual impairments, attentiondeﬁcit/hyperactivity disorder, cerebral palsy, and many other special needs has similarly
highlighted their risk of being bullied (Christensen, Fraynt, Neece, & Baker, 2012;
Lindsay & McPherson, 2012; Pinquart & Pfeiffer, 2011; Timmermanis & Wiener,2011). Furthermore, schools speciﬁcally designed to serve students with disabilities are
not immune to peer victimisation (Norwich & Kelly, 2004). Given the seriousness ofthe problem, researchers have urged that more attention should be paid to identify theindividual characteristics and environmental factors associated with bullying among
these adolescents in educational settings (Weiner & Miller, 2006). Therefore, the second
objective of this study was to examine the risk factors of bullying and victimisation
among students in Taiwanese special schools.
Studies show that peer victimisation in the general population of children and youth
is associated with a variety of psychoemotional maladjustments including depression,suicidal ideation, lack of hope, and low life satisfaction (Pranjić & Bajraktarević, 2010;
You et al., 2008). While no ofﬁcial statistics exist on this issue, scarce evidence highlights the prevalence of peer maltreatment in local special schools. However, the effectof being bullied among students in special schools remains underexamined, which constitutes the third research objective of this study.
Adolescents with disabilities have the right to feel safe in school, which is necessary
for their learning and development (Mepham, 2010). The present study is the ﬁrst to
explore bullying and victimisation empirically among Taiwanese students in special
schools. The results are expected to contribute substantially to the current understandingof this issue.
Factors and Outcomes Associated with Bullying
Demographics
Researchers have identiﬁed a variety of factors in the individual, family, and peer
domains relevant to bullying and victimisation within the general student population.
For example, international literature indicates that the prevalence of bullying increases
from elementary school, peaks during the junior high school years, and then decreases
with increasing grade levels (Chen & Astor, 2009b; Espelage & Swearer, 2003;
Pepler et al., 2006). Similarly, considerable evidence from Taiwan and other countries
has shown that male students are more likely to be involved in school bullying thanare female students (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Chen & Astor, 2009a). One studyof 400 Australian children found signiﬁcant gender differences in bullying (Rigby,
2005), in which boys were more likely to report bullying others than were girls(F = 26.98, p < .01). However, a Canadian study of 3165 adult men and women withintellectual disabilities from rehabilitation agencies found few gender differences withrespect to aggression (Crocker et al., 2006). The applicability of the above
demographic effects to Taiwanese adolescents with disabilities awaits empiricalexamination.

Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

3

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Delinquency
Research indicates a strong association between deviance and school bullying (e.g.
Sigfusdottir, Gudjonsson, & Sigurdsson, 2010). Bullies tend to engage in other types ofdelinquent behaviour such as drinking, running away, and truancy (Farrington, 1993).
In one large-scale prospective study (Sourander et al., 2007), children with frequentbully status at 8 years old had higher risk of violent (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.7–4.9) andproperty offenses (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1–3.1) at ages 16–20 years. Similarly, researchers
have found an association between school bullying and delinquency, substance use, andinvolvement with risky peers among Taiwanese youth (Chen & Astor, 2010; Wei,
Williams, Chen, & Chang, 2010).
Family Characteristics
Family socioeconomic status (SES) and family structures are inﬂuential in student behavioural problems at school (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Davis, Sawyer, Lo, Priest, &Wake, 2010). A recent study of Greek adolescents found that father’s unemployment
was signiﬁcantly associated with more bullying, while mother’s employment status was
associated with being a victim-bully (Magklara et al., 2012).
Jansen et al. (2012) examined 6379 Dutch children and found that the indicators of
low family SES, including parental unemployment (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, .89–1.49) andsingle parenthood (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14–1.80), were predictive of being a bully. In
addition, parental divorce and single parenthood are associated with a higher risk ofbehavioural problems, including bullying and victimisation (Hoffmann, 2006; Jablonska& Lindberg, 2007).
Peer Relations
Western research indicates that peer rejection is a strong predictor of school bullying
and victimisation. One US study with a nationally representative sample (N = 11,033)
of youth found poor classmate relations were predictive of bully status (Spriggs,
Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), and the relative risk ratios and 95% conﬁdence intervals for White, Black, and Hispanic students were 1.71 (1.26–2.30), 1.84 (1.05–3.23),
and 2.04 (1.28–3.24), respectively. Previous investigations in Taiwan have similarly
showed a strong association between peer rejection and school violence (Chen & Astor,
2010; Wei & Chen, 2008). Thus, rejection is likely to be a major vulnerability for
Taiwanese students with special needs, as they often experience greater levels of social
adjustment problems with school peers (e.g. Tseng, Kawabata, & Gau, 2011).
Psychoemotional Maladjustment
In addition to the above risk factors associated with bullying and victimisation, theliterature indicates that frequent involvement in or exposure to school bullying cannegatively affect the psychological well-being of youth (e.g. Graham & Bellmore,2007). Empirical studies in Western and Asian countries have found depression andsuicidal ideation as two negative outcomes associated with bullying involvement (e.g.
Chen & Wei, 2011; Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005; Winsper, Lereya, Zanarini, &Wolke, 2012). Research has also suggested that students who bully or who are bullied4

H.-S. Wei et al.

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

experience reduced life satisfaction (Flaspohler, Elfstrom, Vanderzee, Sink, &Birchmeier, 2009).
Bullying among Students with Disabilities in Taiwan
Compared to many other countries, little is known about bullying and victimisation
among Taiwanese youth with disabilities. However, in several major school bullying
incidents reported by the local media, victims are identiﬁed as students with disabilities(Lin, 2013). A recent study showed that, in mainstream classrooms, 33% of students
with special needs experienced bullying, while only 5% of their regular peers were bullied (Lo & Lu, 2013). The most common forms of maltreatment reported are verbal andrelational bullying. Moreover, Duh and Hsin (2009) found that junior high school students with intellectual disabilities were more likely to be sexually harassed, mostly byacquaintances, than were their peers. Based on interviews with local students andteachers, Lo (2011) concluded that, in regular schools, students with disabilities could
easily become the victims of bullying because of poor school performance, unusual
behaviours, poor social skills, class disturbances, and failure to comply with groupnorms.
Children and youth with disabilities are not victimised in mainstream education settings only. Compared to their peers in regular schools and inclusive classrooms, students in special schools and special education programmes may be at a higher risk ofpeer victimisation, which is a serious issue that must be addressed. Virtually no bullying
research to date has been conducted on Taiwanese special schools; however, evidence
from other countries suggests the potential gravity of this problem (Norwich & Kelly,
2004; Rose, Espelage, & Monda-Amaya, 2009).
Taiwan currently has 28 special schools (27 public, 1 private) with 687 classes and6755 students. The majority of students are in the senior high grades. In recent years,
the policy of inclusion has been promoted actively, and the number of enrollments inspecial schools has declined considerably. As a result, students in special schools areusually the most vulnerable and most in need of intensive care.
As institutions designed speciﬁcally to serve students with disabilities, special
schools are supposed to be places for these children to grow and learn safely (Chang,2007). Sadly, recently exposed scandals involving special schools in Taiwan haverevealed the existence of peer abuse within these well-intended settings (Liu, 2011). A
closer look into the class structures and social contexts of special schools sheds light on
the potential risk of peer victimisation.
Students with disabilities spend most of their school time with a ﬁxed group ofpeers in self-contained classrooms. Usually, these students are grouped by disability status and educational level. This grouping structure often means a mix of students of different ages. Further, these children not only have frequent interaction with each other atschool but also stay together after class because many special schools also provide residential services. The shortage of school personnel and the proximity between students
make many unsupervised spaces on campus easy hot spots for peer victimisation.
The Present Study
The above discussion highlights the prevalence of school bullying and the psychoemotional inﬂuence and various factors associated with it. Rose, Monda-Amaya, andEspelage (2011) proposed that distinctive predictive factors, such as type and severity

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

5of disability, are relevant to bullying and victimisation in special education. Past
research has shown that bullying and victimisation exist in special schools and theirpresence may seriously affect the development and adjustment of students with disabilities. As such, bullying is beyond an educational issue and should be regarded a humanrights concern. The present study is among the ﬁrst empirical attempts to analyse theseissues in Taiwan. Speciﬁcally, the study aimed to assess the prevalence of bullying andvictimisation among Taiwanese students in special education schools and examine theeffects of factors that are potentially relevant to bullying and victimisation among
students with special needs. In addition, this study explored the psychoemotional
maladjustment associated with bullying and victimisation among Taiwanese students
with disabilities.
Methods
Data and ParticipantsThis study used data from the 2010 Taiwan Children and Youth Life Condition Survey(Wei, Sun, Liu, & Chen, 2011), which is conducted every 4 years by the central government to gather information on the living circumstances and well-being of Taiwanesechildren and youth. Data are accessible to the public and can be requested from theChildren’s Bureau. The youth sample of the survey was drawn primarily from mainstream schools islandwide using a random sampling procedure. Students in special
schools were recruited with a different sampling frame as a supplementary part of thesurvey.
The researchers employed a two-stage sampling process in which 10 special schools
were ﬁrst randomly selected from the 28 special schools across Taiwan. Most special
schools contained both junior high and senior high grades, and the majority of students
were in the senior high grades. In every participating school, about 10 students weredrawn from those who were capable of answering the survey. The procedure resulted in
140 respondents, which constituted the sample of this study. Among respondents,
60.4% were boys and 39.6% were girls. The average age was 16, which corresponded
to the fact that the student bodies of Taiwanese special schools were largely senior highgrades.
Procedure
The researchers mailed a formal letter from the Children’s Bureau to each of the 10
special schools to explain the purpose of the survey and ask for administrative assistance with respondent recruitment. Each school was instructed to select about 10 students from its student body. The research team sent interviewers to the schools to
conduct face-to-face surveys with participating students. The interviewers had completed intensive training and had over 300 h of experience in survey administration.
Assistance from school staff was requested when necessary, including explaining
questions to students and evaluating their capabilities of answering the survey. The
researchers obtained written consent from participants. The review board of the Children’s Bureau approved the survey project, and the study was conducted in accordance with its ethical guidelines. Conﬁdentiality was ensured; the interviewers
collected questionnaires immediately upon completion and returned them to the labfor processing.

6

H.-S. Wei et al.

Measures

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying
Two items were used to measure student engagement in physical and verbal bullying
during the past year, “Hit, kick, or hurt other students with tools” and “Cursed orinsulted other students”. A 5-point Likert scale was provided (never, 1–2 times, 3–4
times, 5–6 times, 7 times or more). These items assessed the behavioural dimensions ofbullying, and the interviewers provided oral clariﬁcation to help students understandthese items.
Victimisation
Two items were used to assess students’ experiences of physical and verbal victimisation during the past year, “Being hit, kicked, or hurt by other students with tools” and“Being cursed or insulted by other students”. A 5-point Likert scale was provided(never, 1–2 times, 3–4 times, 5–6 times, 7 times or more).
Demographics
The ﬁrst section of the questionnaire requested respondent’s personal information,
including sex (male or female) and school grade (Grades 7–12).
Disability Status
The students’ disability types and severity were documented in the survey. The Physically and Mentally Disabled Citizens Protection Act (PMDCPA) of Taiwan recognises
16 types of disability such as vision disability, hearing mechanism disability, limbs disability, autism, etc. Because of the limited number of respondents in many disability
categories, the 16 types of disability were clustered based on their features. Students
were classiﬁed into the following three major groups: Group 1 (N = 51), voice mechanism disability or vision or hearing mechanism disability; Group 2 (N = 54), mental
retardation or autism; and Group 3 (N = 35), other disabilities (limbs disability, balance
disorders, multiple disabilities, etc.). The PMDCPA also recognises four levels of severity for each disability (minor, moderate, severe, and critical disabled). Specialised physicians assessed both type and severity of disability during ofﬁcial disability
certiﬁcations.
Family Characteristics
One part of the survey asked about each student’s family, including employment status
of father and mother, parents’ marital status, and student’s living situation (e.g. withboth parents). The researchers dichotomized responses to the above questions for further
analysis (employed/unemployed, married/unmarried, and living with both parents/not
living with both parents).
Delinquent Behaviour
Students were also asked whether they had engaged in any of the ﬁve common delinquent behaviours (i.e. drinking, smoking, theft, running away, and cheating on an exam)Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

7

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

during the last year. Every item was answered dichotomously (1 = yes, 0 = no). The
researchers added the scores of the ﬁve items to create a composite measure ofdelinquency.
Peer Relation Problem
Students were asked whether they had experienced problems with peer relationships intheir daily lives during the past year. Participants answered this item dichotomously(1 = yes, 0 = no).
Life Satisfaction
Three items were used to assess student life satisfaction. Items asked students about
their attitudes toward themselves, others, and the future: “I believe that people are trustworthy”, “I feel optimistic about my future”, and “I regard myself as a happy person”.
A 5-point Likert scale was provided (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree). The
Cronbach’s alpha was .75.
Attempted Suicide
Students were asked whether they attempted to commit suicide during the last year.
Participants answered this item dichotomously (1 = yes, 0 = no).
Data Analysis
This study was a secondary analysis using data from an existing governmental survey
on Taiwanese adolescents. The survey covered a range of questions; however, theresearchers measured most constructs with only one or two items, which made it difﬁcult to apply advanced statistical techniques. Given that respondents were special school
students with various disabilities and types of measurement varied, a series of basic
inferential statistics (i.e. ANOVA, Chi-square test, and simple regression) were used as
the major analytic strategies. The researchers combined or dichotomised certain variables during the analysis to compare group differences under a limited sample size. The
results of analysis are summarised to provide a clear presentation.
Results
Overall, 9.1% of students reported hitting, kicking, or hurting other students with tools
during the past year, and 25.6% of students had cursed or insulted others during that
period. Taken together, 26.5% of students had ever engaged in physical or verbal bullying. Similarly, 22.7% of students reported being physically bullied, and 27.8% reported
being verbally harassed by other students. In total, 31.8% of students had ever suffered
physical or verbal victimisation by peers during the past year.
Because of the skewness of the distribution, the researchers combined anddichotomised the physical and verbal bullying scores to create a composite measure(ever bullied = 1/never bullied = 0). A series of statistical analyses were performed to
examine potential group differences in bullying. No gender differences in bullying were
found, χ2(1, N = 131) = 1.13, p = .29. Students were dichotomised according to theirschool grade, junior high (N = 24) and senior high (N = 115). The analysis revealed noDownloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

8

H.-S. Wei et al.

signiﬁcant difference in bullying between the two age groups, χ2(1, N = 131) = 3.33,
p = .07. Regarding types of disability, the three major student groups included Group 1(N = 51), voice mechanism disability, vision, or hearing mechanism disability; Group 2(N = 54), mental retardation or autism; and Group 3 (N = 35), other disabilities. The
ANOVA showed no differences in bullying across the three disability groups, F(2,129) = 2.14, p = .12). However, the analysis yielded a signiﬁcant association between
the severity of the disability and bullying, r(122) = .20, p = .03.
The researchers combined and dichotomized (ever victimised = 1/never
victimised = 0) students’ physical and verbal victimisation scores for further analysis.
The analysis yielded no gender difference in victimisation, χ2(1, N = 131) = .02,
p = .89. A Chi-square test revealed that students in junior grades had a higher risk ofbeing victimised, χ2(1, N = 131) = 4.74, p = .03, and ANOVA indicated no difference invictimisation across the three disability groups, F(2, 129) = 1.82, p = .17. However, asigniﬁcant association existed between the severity of disability and victimisation,r(122) = .18, p = .04.
Concerning bullying and victimisation, no signiﬁcant association existed for
employment status of fathers, χ2(1, N = 114) = .41, p = .52; χ2(1, N = 114) = 1.40,
p = .24, and mothers, χ2(1, N = 122) = .24, p = .62; χ2(1, N = 122) = .01, p = .91,
respectively. Additionally, students whose parents were married were no different fromother students (Bullying: χ2[1, N = 131] = .71, p = .40 and Victimisation: χ2[1,N = 131] = .38, p = .50). Students who lived with both parents were also no different
from those who did not (Bullying: χ2(1, N = 128) = .88, p = .35 and Victimisation:
χ2[1, N = 128] = .01, p = .94).
A positive and signiﬁcant association existed between delinquency (i.e. drinking,smoking, theft, running away, and cheating on an exam) and bullying, r(129) = .23,
p = .01, and victimisation, r(129) = .18, p = .04. Self-reported peer relationshipproblems were not signiﬁcantly associated with bullying, r(127) = −.09, p = .31, or
victimisation, r(127) = .06, p = .48.
Life satisfaction was not signiﬁcantly associated with bullying, r(124) = .07,
p = .47, or victimisation, r(124) = −.02, p = .79. No differences in attempted suicide
were found between students with and without experience of bullying others, F(1, 130)
= .18, p = .68. However, students with victimisation experiences were at signiﬁcantly
higher risk of attempted suicide, F(1, 130) = 3.93, p = .05.
Discussion
This study provides possibly the ﬁrst large-scale assessment of student bullying and victimisation within special schools in Taiwan. The researchers selected the sample from10 special schools islandwide, which accounted for more than one-third of the special
schools in Taiwan. The results revealed the prevalence of multiple forms of bullying
and victimisation among students in these special schools, with 31.8% having experienced peer victimisation in the past year and about 26.5% having bullied others during
the same period.
Past research has shown that students with disabilities are at a higher risk of being
ridiculed and victimized by other students in mainstream educational settings (Carter &Spencer, 2006). However, because the student bodies of special schools are exclusively
children and youth with special needs, the results of the present study suggest that general students are not the sole bullies. In fact, students with disabilities can be bullied
physically and verbally by other students with disabilities. In other words, students with

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

9disabilities may not only be victims but may also be bullies in special schools. Thus,
the educators and professionals in the ﬁeld of special education should recognise andaddress these issues. The gravity of this problem is especially heavy in Taiwan because
students in local special schools are usually the most vulnerable. Given that many ofthese adolescents have impaired communication and body movement capabilities, it
may be more difﬁcult for them to escape from the scene or seek help from others.
Thus, special school personnel need to develop a sensitivity to peer victimisation among
students with disabilities and intervene in time (Maag & Katsiyannis, 2012).
The second objective of this study was to examine the applicability of risk factors
for bullying and victimisation drawn from the literature. As mentioned, most of the relevant studies are based on students in general education, and relatively little investigation has been done on students in special schools. The ﬁndings of the present study
revealed certain similarities to previous studies that tend to conﬁrm these ﬁndings. For
example, students in junior high grades reported higher rates of victimisation than did
their senior high counterparts, which is a result found repeatedly among Taiwaneseadolescents (e.g. Chen & Astor, 2009a). Therefore, special school students in this age
range should be regarded as the primary targets of bullying prevention and intervention
measures.
Another common ﬁnding is the positive association between delinquency and bullying and victimisation. The delinquent behaviours surveyed included drinking, smoking,theft, running away, and cheating on an exam; many of these behaviour have beenfound to have a negative inﬂuence on adolescents’ psychological well-being and educational achievement, which can lead to negative developmental outcomes in the longrun. In fact, adolescents with disabilities are often at a disproportionately higher risk of
involvement in the juvenile justice system (Mallett, Stoddard-Dare, & WorkmanCrewnshaw, 2011), and their prospects may worsen because of the system’s failure to
identify and serve their special needs. Therefore, it is recommended that special school
students’ involvement in bullying and victimisation be closely assessed and monitored
as a potential indicator of other types of antisocial behaviours and delinquency.
The ﬁndings indicated no signiﬁcant association between some of those previously
identiﬁed factors, such as sex, family characteristics, and self-reported peer relationships, with bullying and victimisation among special school students. Few bullying
studies are available for comparison that have focused speciﬁcally on special school students; however, certain relevant investigations have found similar results. For example,
a study found no differences in bullying or victimisation between genders among special education students (Swearer et al., 2012). Parent marital status is also not associatedwith aggression among children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (Kanne& Mazurek, 2011).
The lack of a signiﬁcant association between self-reported peer relationships andbullying or victimisation is noteworthy. However, because self-evaluation is often abiased measure for those with low peer acceptance, peer reports or social matrices may
provide data that is preferable in determining the magnitude of relevance. Taken
together, the ﬁndings of this study highlight a number of potential differences in bullying between general education students and those in special schools. Future research isneeded to clarify this heterogeneity and identify the speciﬁc mechanisms involved.
The analysis in this study revealed no difference between types of disability; however,
severity of disability was positively associated with both bullying and being bullied. In
their recent review, Rose et al. (2011) noted that the type and severity of disability wereboth signiﬁcant predictive factors of bullying and victimisation in special education.

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 201510

H.-S. Wei et al.

The present study partly echoes these conclusions. Harassment and maltreatment of themore disadvantaged and vulnerable seems to occur not only between students with andwithout disabilities, but also among students with disabilities. Whole-school anti-bullying
approaches are advised to create a caring community for teachers and students (Flynt &Morton, 2004).
Finally, self-reported victimisation was associated with suicide attempts, whichsuggests that these experiences can have profound inﬂuences and negative psychologicalconsequences for victims. Researchers suggest that the bullying behaviours of students
with disabilities may be reactions to constant victimisation by peers (Rose, Espelage,
Aragon, & Elliott, 2011), which could constitute a vicious cycle and result in theco-occurrence of bullying and victimisation among these adolescents. Although often
overlooked as harmless playful acts between students, such incidents are important
warning signs that require the serious attention of educators and helping professionals in
special schools.
The above discussion sheds light on a dilemma that has long existed in the policy
debate between self-contained and regular class placement. Although inclusion in a
regular class has considerable beneﬁts for students with disabilities (Doré, Dion,
Wagner, & Brunet, 2002), research clearly shows that students with special needs are ata higher risk of being rejected and victimized in these classrooms. From a peer social
network perspective, they may experience lower centrality, acceptance, companionship,and reciprocity within the peer network of regular classrooms (Chamberlain, Kasari, &Rotheram-Fuller, 2007).
On the other hand, students in self-contained classrooms are often similar regarding
their disability statuses and capability levels, which can facilitate peer support and emotional bonds. However, these similarities may also limit students’ social development
and elicit reciprocal responses from each other that maintain or escalate their problem
behaviours (Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 1996). The relatively high prevalence of bothbullying and victimisation among students in special schools may be a result of mutual
reinforcement. School staff and teachers may even tolerate student aggression andfacilitate a repressive school culture that stops victims from seeking help (Liu, 2011).
The close examination of peer dynamics, school characteristics, and interactions of staff
and teachers was beyond the scope of the present study; however, qualitative research
into these factors is crucial for effective intervention and prevention design (Torrance,2000).
Limitations
One major limitation of the present study concerns the difﬁculty of accurately assessing
respondents’ bullying and victimisation experiences in special schools. Although anational random sample was collected, many students in special schools have impaired
vision, hearing, and expressive or receptive communication capabilities. Therefore, it issometimes challenging for these students to read, comprehend, and answer surveys adequately. Assistance from trained interviewers and schoolteachers in face-to-face interviews was provided; however, such arrangements also threatened the validity of
responses because of social desirability issues.
The results of this study are better regarded as an underestimation of bullying andpeer victimisation in local special schools. Still, they showed a high victimisation ratewith 22.7% of special school students being physically bullied. Using identical measures, a national survey on general education students within the same age range

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

11yielded a physical victimisation rate of 11.2% (Wei et al., 2011). However, differencesin sampling methods prevent a direct comparison to the current ﬁndings, which isanother limitation of this study.
The current survey was cross-sectional in nature and inadequate to evaluate thedirection of causality between variables. More longitudinal research is needed to determine the causal relationships and potential mediating mechanisms involved. Finally, thesurvey measures used in this study only assessed the behavioural dimensions of bullying and victimisation and overlooked the power imbalance and peer dynamics of theseacts. Other types of abusive peer relationships in special schools were not examined.
Qualitative approaches, such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic
ﬁeldwork are called upon to address the issues raised in the present study.
Conclusion
With a national random sample of special education students, this study provided theﬁrst large-scale empirical assessment of bullying and victimisation in special schools in
Taiwan. The results clearly reveal the prevalence of bullying and victimisation among
adolescents with disabilities as well as their similarities to and differences from school
bullying among general education students. Moreover, special school students who arebullied by peers have a higher rate of suicide attempts; this ﬁnding calls for immediate
policy and service response. Under the current regulations, students with special needs
are regularly assessed to design their Individualized Education Plans (IEP). However,
the risk and experiences of peer victimisation are almost never examined in this review
process. In fact, IEP can be used as a helpful tool in bullying prevention and intervention for these students. Furthermore, the responsibility of special school personnel toprotect students from bullying and harassment should be clearly stated in the related
legislations because a safe environment is necessary for upholding the educational rightsof students with disabilities.
Although this study had certain limitations, it raised an important issue that has long
been neglected by the ﬁeld. In Taiwan, several school bullying incidents in the 2 years
prior to this study have attracted wide media attention, and the government has passed
legislation for prevention and intervention in a very short time (ROC Ministry of
Education, 2012). The Ministry of Education has issued major policies and numerous
materials accordingly; however, they almost exclusively focus on general education
schools. To date, few programs and strategies have been designed speciﬁcally for special school students that consider their characteristics and needs. This study contributes
to a localised knowledge base regarding bullying in special schools and may raise public awareness as well as help increase efforts to prevent this problem. It is hoped thatby conducting this study, we can promote the safety and well-being of students withspecial needs in Taiwan.
Disclosure statement
No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

12

H.-S. Wei et al.

Blake, J. J., Lund, E. M., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. R. (2012). National prevalence rates
of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School
Psychology Quarterly, 27, 210–222. doi:10.1037/spq0000008
Carter, B. B., & Spencer, V. G. (2006). The fear factor: Bullying and students with disabilities.
International Journal of Special Education, 21, 11–23.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social
networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 230–242. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0164-4
Chang, H. H. (2007). Social change and the disability rights movement in Taiwan: 1980–2002.
The Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 3, 3–19.
Chen, J. K., & Astor, R. A. (2009a). The perpetration of school violence in Taiwan: An analysis
of gender, grade level and school type. School Psychology International, 30, 568–584.
Chen, J. K., & Astor, R. A. (2009b). Students’ reports of violence against teachers in Taiwanese
schools. Journal of School Violence, 8, 2–17.
Chen, J. K., & Astor, R. A. (2010). School violence in Taiwan: Examining how western risk
factors predict school violence in an Asian culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
1388–1410.
Chen, J. K., & Wei, H. S. (2011). The impact of school violence on self-esteem and depression
among Taiwanese junior high school students. Social Indicators Research, 100, 479–498.
Christensen, L. L., Fraynt, R. J., Neece, C. L., & Baker, B. L. (2012). Bullying adolescents withintellectual disability. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 49–65.
doi:10.1080/19315864.2011.637660
Conger, R. D., & Donnellan, M. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199.
Craig, W. M., Currie, C., Grinvoald, H., Dostaler, S., Harel, Y., Hetland, J., … Pickett, W.
(2009). A cross-national proﬁle of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. doi:10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9
Crocker, A. G., Mercier, C. C., Lachapelle, Y. Y., Brunet, A. A., Morin, D. D., & Roy, M. E.
(2006). Prevalence and types of aggressive behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 652–661. doi:10.1111/j.13652788.2006.00815.x
Davis, E., Sawyer, M. G., Lo, S. K., Priest, N., & Wake, M. (2010). Socioeconomic risk factors
for mental health problems in 4–5-year-old children: Australian population study. Academic
Pediatrics, 10, 41–47.
Doré, R., Dion, É., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents withmental retardation: A multiple case study. Education & Training in Mental Retardation &Developmental Disabilities, 37, 253–261.
Duh, J. J., & Hsin, Y. W. (2009). Sexual harassment experiences of junior high school students
with intellectual disability: Is there difference before 15 years ago? Gender Equity Education
Quarterly, 48, 29–35.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here. School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.
Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. M. (1996). Expanding the social skills deﬁcit framework: A developmental synthesis perspective, classroom social networks, and implications forthe social growth of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 232–256.
doi:10.1177/002246699603000302
Farmer, T. W., Petrin, R., Brooks, D., Hamm, J. V., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2012). Bullying
involvement and the school adjustment of rural students with and without disabilities. Journalof Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 19–37. doi:10.1177/1063426610392039
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381–458.
Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Standby me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on qualityof life. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 636–649. doi:10.1002/pits.20404
Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2004). Bullying and children with disabilities. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 31, 330–333.

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

Bullying in Taiwanese Special Schools

13

Graham, S., & Bellmore, A. D. (2007). Peer victimization and mental health during early adolescence. Theory into Practice, 46, 138–146.
Hoffmann, J. P. (2006). Family structure, community context, and adolescent problem behaviors.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 867–880.
Jablonska, B., & Lindberg, L. (2007). Risk behaviours, victimisation and mental distress among
adolescents in different family structures. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
42, 656–663. doi:10.1007/s00127-007-0210-3
Jansen, P. W., Verlinden, M., Berkel, A., Mieloo, C., van der Ende, J., Veenstra, R., … Tiemeier, H.
(2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do
family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health, 12, 494.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-494
Jawaid, A. A., Riby, D. M., Owens, J. J., White, S. W., Tarar, T. T., & Schulz, P. E. (2012). ‘Too
withdrawn’ or ‘too friendly’: Considering social vulnerability in two neuro-developmental
disorders. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 335–350. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.
2011.01452.x
Kanne, S. M., & Mazurek, M. O. (2011). Aggression in children and adolescents with ASD:
Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 926–937.
doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1118-4
Kim, Y. S., Koh, Y. J., & Leventhal, B. (2005). School bullying and suicidal risk in Korean
middle school students. Pediatrics, 115, 357–363.
Lin, Y. S. (2013). The characteristics of disable students and school bullying. The Journal of
Chiayi Special Education, 17, 53–61.
Lindsay, S., & McPherson, A. C. (2012). Experiences of social exclusion and bullying at school
among children and youth with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34, 101–109.
doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.587086
Liu, M. T. (2011, October). Sexual harassment ruining schools. Taipei Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/10/02/2003514699
Lo, F. L. (2011). A study of bullying victimization of disable students in Taiwan middle school:
From a view of “special education teachers in inclusive classes”. Special Educators
Quarterly, 27, 13–23.
Lo, F. L., & Lu, T. H. (2013). A survey study of the current status for students with disabilities
bullied by peers in inc1usive classes. Bulletin of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 29,
73–102.
Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (2012). Bullying and students with disabilities: Legal and practiceconsiderations. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 78–86.
Magklara, K., Skapinakis, P., Gkatsa, T., Bellos, S., Araya, R., Stylianidis, S., & Mavreas, V.
(2012). Bullying behaviour in schools, socioeconomic position and psychiatric morbidity: A
cross-sectional study in late adolescents in Greece. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and
Mental Health, 6, 8. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-6-8
Mallett, C. A., Stoddard-Dare, P., & Workman-Crewnshaw, L. (2011). Special education disabilities and juvenile delinquency: A unique challenge for school social work. School Social Work
Journal, 36, 26–40.
McGuckin, C., Lewis, C., & Cummins, P. K. (2010). Experiences of school bullying, psychological well-being and stress in Northern Ireland: Data from the 2004 Young Life and Times
Survey. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 31, 53–61.
Mepham, S. (2010). Disabled children: The right to feel safe. Child Care in Practice, 16, 19–34.
doi:10.1080/13575270903368667
Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils’ views on inclusion: Moderate learning difﬁculties andbullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 43–65.
doi:10.1080/01411920310001629965
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A
developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376–384.
Pinquart, M., & Pfeiffer, J. P. (2011). Bullying in German adolescents: Attending special schoolfor students with visual impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 29, 163–176.
doi:10.1177/0264619611415332
Pranjić, N., & Bajraktarević, A. (2010). Depression and suicide ideation among secondary school
adolescents involved in school bullying. Primary Health Care Research and Development,
11, 349–362. doi:10.1017/S1463423610000307

Downloaded by [National Taipei University], [Heng-hao Chang] at 19:26 23 November 2015

14

H.-S. Wei et al.

Rigby, K. (2005). Why do some children bully at school? The contributions of negative attitudes
towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends, parents and teachers. School Psychology International, 26, 147–161.
ROC Ministry of Education. (2012). School bullying prevention website. Retrieved from https://
csrc.edu.tw/bully/
Rose, C., Espelage, D., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2009). Bullying and victimisation rates among
students in general and special education: A comparative analysis. Educational Psychology,
29, 761–776. doi:10.1080/01443410903254864
Rose, C. A., Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., & Elliott, J. (2011). Bullying and victimization
among students in special education and general education curricula. Exceptionality Education
International, 21, 2–14.
Rose, C. A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 32,
114–130. doi:10.1177/0741932510361247
Sentenac, M., Gavin, A., Arnaud, C., Molcho, M., Godeau, E., & Gabhainn, S. (2011). Victimsof bullying among students with a disability or chronic illness and their peers: A crossnational study between ireland and france. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 461–466.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.031
Sigfusdottir, I. D., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2010). Bullying and delinquency: The
mediating role of anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 391–396.
Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Elonheimo, H., Niemelä, S., Helenius, H., … Almquist,
F. (2007). Childhood bullies and victims and their risk of criminality in late adolescence.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 546–552.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying
involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences
across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283–293.
Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecker, A. B., & Frerichs, L. J. (2012). Understanding
the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 503–520. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001
Timmermanis, V., & Wiener, J. (2011). Social correlates of bullying in adolescents with attentiondeﬁcit/hyperactivity disorder. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 301–318.
doi:10.1177/0829573511423212
Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal ofSpecial Education, 27, 16–21. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00151
Tseng, W. L., Kawabata, Y., & Gau, S. S. F. (2011). Social adjustment among Taiwanese children
with symptoms of ADHD, ODD, and ADHD comorbid with ODD. Child Psychiatry &Human Development, 42, 134–151.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Wei, H. S., & Chen, J. K. (2008). Social withdrawal, peer rejection, and peer victimization in
Taiwanese middle school students. Journal of School Violence, 8, 18–28.
Wei, H. S., Williams, J. H., Chen, J. K., & Chang, H. Y. (2010). The effects of individual
characteristics, teacher practice, and school organizational factors on students’ bullying: A
multilevel analysis of public middle schools in Taiwan. Children and Youth Services Review,32, 137–143.
Wei, H. S., Sun, S. W., Liu, S. F., & Chen, J. K. (2011). 2010 Taiwan children and youth life
condition survey report. Taichung: Children’s Bureau.
Weiner, M. T., & Miller, M. (2006). Deaf children and bullying: Directions for future research.
American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 61–70. doi:10.1353/aad.2006.0021
Winsper, C., Lereya, T., Zanarini, M., & Wolke, D. (2012). Involvement in bullying andsucide-related behavior at 11 years: A prospective birth cohort study. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 271–282.
You, S., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E., Sharkey, J. D., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. (2008). Relations
among school connectedness, hope, life satisfaction, and bully victimization. Psychology in
the Schools, 45, 446–460. doi:10.1002/pits.20308