ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
Different Tools, Different Results: Comparing Methods for Bullying Assessment in Autistic and ADHD Youth.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autistic and ADHD youth face heightened risk of peer victimization and subsequent poor educational and mental health outcomes. Yet, bullying interventions have had limited success in these groups, potentially due to variability in bullying assessment methods across studies. Additionally, general tools validated for community samples may fail to capture the unique victimization experiences of these youth. This study evaluated the agreement and sensitivity of three bullying assessment methods-a single-item assessment, the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ), and the disability-specific Assessment of Bullying Experiences (ABE)-and examined group differences in victimization risk. Caregivers of 516 autistic, ADHD, and community youth completed all three bullying assessments. Agreement across measures was examined overall and within groups using percent agreement, Cohen's kappa and McNemar's tests. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate group differences in bullying classification within each measure. Agreement between the OBQ and ABE was moderate overall, but weaker in each of the autism and ADHD groups. The single-item assessment underestimated bullying prevalence compared to multi-item questionnaires and also failed to detect any between-group differences. Youth with ADHD were nearly three times more likely to be bulled compared to community youth when measured by both the ABE (OR = 2.81; 95% CI [1.34, 5.92]) and the OBQ (OR = 2.76; 95% CI [1.37, 5.57]) whereas increased vulnerability for autistic youth with co-occurring ADHD was only identified by the ABE (OR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.42, 3.85]). Findings highlight the limitations of single-item assessments and general measures in capturing disability-specific bullying. By including disability-specific behaviors, the ABE provides greater sensitivity for assessing bullying in autistic and ADHD youth. Integrating theory-driven frameworks may further improve assessment and intervention approaches for understanding and addressing bullying risk in autistic and ADHD youth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40571841What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.