信息提供者很重要:用自我报告和同伴报告评估有语言发育障碍和阅读困难儿童的欺凌受害者分类率的差异

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Research in Developmental Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104747
Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla, Victor A. Sanchez-Azanza, Mario Valera-Pozo, Inmaculada Sureda-García, Daniel Adrover-Roig
{"title":"信息提供者很重要:用自我报告和同伴报告评估有语言发育障碍和阅读困难儿童的欺凌受害者分类率的差异","authors":"Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla,&nbsp;Victor A. Sanchez-Azanza,&nbsp;Mario Valera-Pozo,&nbsp;Inmaculada Sureda-García,&nbsp;Daniel Adrover-Roig","doi":"10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and Reading Difficulties (RD) can show more peer relation problems depending on the informant.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>(1) To explore bullying victims' categorization, evaluated by self- and peer-reports, in children with DLD and RD; and (2) to assess agreement rates between informants.</p></div><div><h3>Method and procedures</h3><p>Victimization was assessed using a self-report (EBIP-Q) and a peer-report sociogram (CESC) in a sample of 83 participants (9–12 years; 10.5 ± 1.1 years), comprising of DLD (<em>n</em> = 19), RD (<em>n</em> = 32), and Control (<em>n</em> = 32) groups.</p></div><div><h3>Outcomes and Results</h3><p>We found a higher frequency of the rejected sociometric profile in the DLD and RD groups, a higher peer-reported victimization in the DLD group, and more severe self-reported victimization in the DLD and RD groups. Odds of being classified as victimized were higher for self-report except in the DLD group. Informants’ agreement was high using the most restrictive EBIP-Q criterion (7 points) for both the Control and the RD groups, being non-significant for the DLD group regardless of the criteria used.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>We found a higher victimization risk in children with language difficulties, although self-assessment seems to under-detect children with DLD according to the agreement rates, pointing out the need to combine assessments and informants.</p></div><div><h3>What does this paper add?</h3><p>Several studies have shown that children with DLD or RD obtain higher scores of victimization and score lower on several scales of social skills with continuous data. Although continuous analyses are usual in research, professional decisions are usually based on cut-off criteria more than how high or low a score is in contrast to another group. This is one of the first works that analyses victimization following the cut-off criteria of self and peer assessments that professionals used in the school settings in children with DLD and RD. Our results will raise awareness among school professionals based on the evidence about the high risk of victimization, especially in children with DLD, and the implications of selecting between several measures of victimization, in this group of children. We think that our results would help to better detect and prevent bullying in schools for children with DLD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51351,"journal":{"name":"Research in Developmental Disabilities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224000799/pdfft?md5=6428c9205e742c8439b572fe51adb013&pid=1-s2.0-S0891422224000799-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The informant matters: Differences in bullying victim categorization rates assessed with self- and peer-reports in children with developmental language disorder and reading difficulties\",\"authors\":\"Eva Aguilar-Mediavilla,&nbsp;Victor A. Sanchez-Azanza,&nbsp;Mario Valera-Pozo,&nbsp;Inmaculada Sureda-García,&nbsp;Daniel Adrover-Roig\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and Reading Difficulties (RD) can show more peer relation problems depending on the informant.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>(1) To explore bullying victims' categorization, evaluated by self- and peer-reports, in children with DLD and RD; and (2) to assess agreement rates between informants.</p></div><div><h3>Method and procedures</h3><p>Victimization was assessed using a self-report (EBIP-Q) and a peer-report sociogram (CESC) in a sample of 83 participants (9–12 years; 10.5 ± 1.1 years), comprising of DLD (<em>n</em> = 19), RD (<em>n</em> = 32), and Control (<em>n</em> = 32) groups.</p></div><div><h3>Outcomes and Results</h3><p>We found a higher frequency of the rejected sociometric profile in the DLD and RD groups, a higher peer-reported victimization in the DLD group, and more severe self-reported victimization in the DLD and RD groups. Odds of being classified as victimized were higher for self-report except in the DLD group. Informants’ agreement was high using the most restrictive EBIP-Q criterion (7 points) for both the Control and the RD groups, being non-significant for the DLD group regardless of the criteria used.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>We found a higher victimization risk in children with language difficulties, although self-assessment seems to under-detect children with DLD according to the agreement rates, pointing out the need to combine assessments and informants.</p></div><div><h3>What does this paper add?</h3><p>Several studies have shown that children with DLD or RD obtain higher scores of victimization and score lower on several scales of social skills with continuous data. Although continuous analyses are usual in research, professional decisions are usually based on cut-off criteria more than how high or low a score is in contrast to another group. This is one of the first works that analyses victimization following the cut-off criteria of self and peer assessments that professionals used in the school settings in children with DLD and RD. Our results will raise awareness among school professionals based on the evidence about the high risk of victimization, especially in children with DLD, and the implications of selecting between several measures of victimization, in this group of children. We think that our results would help to better detect and prevent bullying in schools for children with DLD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Developmental Disabilities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224000799/pdfft?md5=6428c9205e742c8439b572fe51adb013&pid=1-s2.0-S0891422224000799-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Developmental Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224000799\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Developmental Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224000799","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景患有发育性语言障碍(DLD)和阅读障碍(RD)的儿童可能会因提供信息者的不同而表现出更多的同伴关系问题。目的(1)通过自我报告和同伴报告对患有发育性语言障碍(DLD)和阅读障碍(RD)的儿童进行评估,探讨欺凌受害者的分类;(2)评估提供信息者之间的一致率。方法和程序在83名参与者(9-12岁;10.5 ± 1.1岁)样本中使用自我报告(EBIP-Q)和同伴报告社会图(CESC)对受害情况进行评估,其中包括DLD组(n = 19)、RD组(n = 32)和对照组(n = 32)。结果我们发现,在DLD组和RD组中,被拒绝的社会测量特征的频率较高,DLD组中同伴报告的受害程度较高,DLD组和RD组中自我报告的受害程度较高。除 DLD 组外,自我报告被归类为受害的几率较高。使用最严格的 EBIP-Q 标准(7 分),对照组和 RD 组的信息提供者的一致程度较高,而无论使用何种标准,DLD 组的一致程度均不显著。结论与启示我们发现,语言障碍儿童的受害风险较高,尽管根据同意率,自我评估对 DLD 儿童的检测似乎不足,这表明有必要将评估与信息提供者相结合。虽然连续性分析在研究中很常见,但专业决策通常基于截断标准,而不是与其他群体相比分数的高低。这是根据专业人员在学校环境中使用的自我和同伴评估分界标准,对残疾儿童和发育迟缓儿童的受害情况进行分析的首批作品之一。我们的研究结果将提高学校专业人员对受害高风险的认识,尤其是对 DLD 儿童的认识,以及在几种受害测量方法中进行选择对这类儿童的影响。我们认为,我们的研究结果将有助于更好地发现和预防针对 DLD 儿童的校园欺凌行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The informant matters: Differences in bullying victim categorization rates assessed with self- and peer-reports in children with developmental language disorder and reading difficulties

Background

Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and Reading Difficulties (RD) can show more peer relation problems depending on the informant.

Aims

(1) To explore bullying victims' categorization, evaluated by self- and peer-reports, in children with DLD and RD; and (2) to assess agreement rates between informants.

Method and procedures

Victimization was assessed using a self-report (EBIP-Q) and a peer-report sociogram (CESC) in a sample of 83 participants (9–12 years; 10.5 ± 1.1 years), comprising of DLD (n = 19), RD (n = 32), and Control (n = 32) groups.

Outcomes and Results

We found a higher frequency of the rejected sociometric profile in the DLD and RD groups, a higher peer-reported victimization in the DLD group, and more severe self-reported victimization in the DLD and RD groups. Odds of being classified as victimized were higher for self-report except in the DLD group. Informants’ agreement was high using the most restrictive EBIP-Q criterion (7 points) for both the Control and the RD groups, being non-significant for the DLD group regardless of the criteria used.

Conclusions and Implications

We found a higher victimization risk in children with language difficulties, although self-assessment seems to under-detect children with DLD according to the agreement rates, pointing out the need to combine assessments and informants.

What does this paper add?

Several studies have shown that children with DLD or RD obtain higher scores of victimization and score lower on several scales of social skills with continuous data. Although continuous analyses are usual in research, professional decisions are usually based on cut-off criteria more than how high or low a score is in contrast to another group. This is one of the first works that analyses victimization following the cut-off criteria of self and peer assessments that professionals used in the school settings in children with DLD and RD. Our results will raise awareness among school professionals based on the evidence about the high risk of victimization, especially in children with DLD, and the implications of selecting between several measures of victimization, in this group of children. We think that our results would help to better detect and prevent bullying in schools for children with DLD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
178
期刊介绍: Research In Developmental Disabilities is aimed at publishing original research of an interdisciplinary nature that has a direct bearing on the remediation of problems associated with developmental disabilities. Manuscripts will be solicited throughout the world. Articles will be primarily empirical studies, although an occasional position paper or review will be accepted. The aim of the journal will be to publish articles on all aspects of research with the developmentally disabled, with any methodologically sound approach being acceptable.
期刊最新文献
Making memories: The gestural misinformation effect in children aged 11-16-years-old with intellectual/developmental difficulties. EEG activation in preschool children: Characteristics and predictive value for current and future mental health status Editorial Board The effect of dual-task training on postural and cognitive performances in adolescents with down syndrome Editorial: Advancing understanding and care for individuals with developmental disabilities in the Middle East
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1