Developmental Neurorehabilitation, June 2009; 12(3): 146–151

Cyberbullying among students with intellectual anddevelopmental disability in special education settings

ROBERT DIDDEN1, RON H. J. SCHOLTE1, HUBERT KORZILIUS1,JAN M. H. DE MOOR1, ANNE VERMEULEN1, MARK O’REILLY2,RUSSELL LANG3, & GIULIO E. LANCIONI4

1Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2The Meadows Center for Preventing

Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin, USA, 3University of California at Santa Barbara, USA, and4Psychology Department, University of Bari, Italy

(Received 10 April 2009; accepted 14 April 2009)

AbstractObjective: To explore the types, prevalence and associated variables of cyberbullying among students with intellectual anddevelopmental disability attending special education settings.Methods: Students (n¼ 114) with intellectual and developmental disability who were between 12–19 years of age completeda questionnaire containing questions related to bullying and victimization via the internet and cellphones. Other questionsconcerned sociodemographic characteristics (IQ, age, gender, diagnosis), self-esteem and depressive feelings.Results: Between 4–9% of students reported bullying or victimization of bullying at least once a week. Significantassociations were found between cyberbullying and IQ, frequency of computer usage and self-esteem and depressivefeelings. No associations were found between cyberbullying and age and gender.Conclusions: Cyberbullying is prevalent among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special educationsettings. Programmes should be developed to deal with this issue in which students, teachers and parents work together.

Keywords: Bullying, internet, cellphone, special education, youth, intellectual and developmental disability

Introduction

Bullying is a common feature among studentswho attend regular classrooms. Bullying may bedefined as a negative intentional action aimed atcausing physical and/or psychological harm againstone or more students, who are weaker and unableto defend themselves. These negative actions arecarried out repeatedly and over time [1]. An impor-tant characteristic of bullying is that it implies animbalance of power between bully and victim [1, 2].Being a victim of bullying or aggression from peerscan disrupt adolescents’ emotional and socialdevelopment. Victims often end up having losttheir self-esteem, which can result in social-emotional difficulties [1, 3]. Depression, under-achievement and belief that they deserve to bebullied are other negative consequences of beinga victim [1].

Several studies have shown that the prevalence ofbullying is related to other variables such as gender,

although these studies show mixed results. Boys andgirls use different bully strategies, in that boys aremore likely to engage in physical or direct verbalbullying than girls [4]. Girls more often use indirectforms of bullying, which are characterized by psy-chological attacks such as humiliation and/or manip-ulation of relationships.

In studies on bullying a distinction is often madebetween bully, victim and bully/victim. A victimusually shows higher levels of internalizing symptomsand depressive tendencies then the other types [5].According to Olweus [1], victims of bullying arephysically weaker, have fewer friends and exhibitmore depression and anxiety than victims, bully/victims and non-involved children. Bullies, on theother hand, seem to make friends with greater easeand have larger peer groups. Results of other studiesindicate that bullies have higher rates of problembehaviours and have a more negative perceptionof the school climate than the other types [5].Bully/victims seem to be the group with most

Correspondence: Robert Didden, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands.E-mail: r.didden@pwo.ru.nl

ISSN 1751–8423 print/ISSN 1751–8431 online/09/030146–6 � 2009 Informa Healthcare Ltd.DOI: 10.1080/17518420902971356

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

maladaptive characteristics. These children are bothaggressively reactive and anxious [1]. They have beenshown to score higher on both externalizing andinternalizing behaviour than the other groups [5].

Bullying may occur in traditional and electronicforms. Electronic forms of bullying are also referredto as cyberbullying. This type of bullying can bedefined as an aggressive, intentional act carried outby a group or individual, using electronic forms ofcontact, repeatedly and over time against a victimwho can not easily defend itself [6].

Studies on cyberbullying have been rarely pub-lished yet. In a Dutch study, prevalence of cyber-bullying and its relation to social well-being was inchildren between 11–15 years old. Results show that17% of children have been harassed online oncea month on average, while 3% experience this everyweek [7]. A small number of studies on therelationship between gender and type and prevalenceof cyberbullying have appeared. Concerning genderdifferences in cyberbullying there are contradictoryresults. Children in the age range of 8–10 years oldare less involved in cyberbullying than children from14–15 years old [8, 9]. According to Van denEijnden et al. [7], there are a number of risk factorsof becoming a victim of cyberbullies. First, thefrequency with which a child often bullies online isimportant. When a child bullies online the chanceof becoming a victim as well is relatively large.Secondly, the frequency with which someone useschatsites, for example MSN messenger, plays a role.Being in online contact with strangers and the use ofweblogs are risk factors as well. Other characteristicssuch as being fat, thin, big, small or being a memberof an ethnic minority group are no risk factors forbeing a victim of cyberbullying [10]. Children whoare being bullied in the traditional form seem tospend more time behind the computer than childrenwho aren’t victims. Spending much time behind thecomputer might increase the chance of beingcyberbullied as well. According to Van den Eijndenet al. [7], youth who have been bullied by electronictools experience more depressive feelings, feelings ofloneliness and have a more negative self-conceptthan adolescents who have not been cyberbullied.

Only a few studies have been published ontraditional bullying in individuals with developmen-tal disabilities. These studies have shown that(a) bullying occurs in adolescents with severe intel-lectual disability, whereby gender and level ofcommunication skills were not related to bullying[11], (b) prevalence of bullying is high in childrenwith autism who are between 4–17 years old [12]and (c) bullying was relatively common in 186students with intellectual disability who werebetween 12–21 of age, whereby victimization wasassociated with high levels of emotional and

interpersonal problems and bullies and victim/bullies showed increased levels of challengingbehaviours [13].

To date, no study on cyberbullying and relatedvariables has been published in youth with develop-mental disabilities. This is surprising given thatmany of them use electronic communication tools.The aim of this study, therefore, is to investigatecharacteristics and frequency of cyberbullying ina sample of youth with intellectual disability and/ordevelopmental disorders who are between 12–19years old. This study assessed characteristics andfrequency of cyberbullying in this target group andexplored associations between characteristics andfrequency of cyberbullying and other variables (e.g.gender, age, traditional bullying).

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were youth with an intellectual disabilityand/or developmental disorders who were visitingthe Herman Broeren School, a school for specialeducation students in the southern province in theNetherlands. The school enrolled 280 students.Students were selected if they had a total IQ levelof at least 50 and were able to read the informationin the questionnaire. Students who did not havesufficient reading abilities were excluded. A sampleof 150 students fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Parents were sent a letter asking permission.Parents of 30 children did not give their permissionand these children were excluded. Several childrenwere excluded because of illness or absence. Allparticipants were familiar with cellphones, internetand/or computers.

A total of 114 students participated in this study,of whom most (82%) had an intellectual disabilityor borderline IQ (IQ< 85). IQ scores ranged from52–118. Eighteen per cent of the participants hadan average or above average IQ (total IQ between85–118) and visited this school because of adevelopmental disorder and behaviour and emotio-nal problems. Most adolescents (67%) had adiagnosis, such as Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder and Pervasive Developmental Disorderamong others. Most (i.e. 97%) students were bornin The Netherlands. Participants were between 12–19 years old and there were more boys (72%) thangirls (28%). Selection criteria was a total IQ of atleast 50 because a certain reading level was requiredto complete the questionnaire (see below).

Questionnaires (see Instrument) were completedin the students’ classroom. During completion boththe investigator and teacher were present in theclassroom and students were informed about the

Cyberbullying 147

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

topic of cyberbullying. They were told that the datawould be assessed anonymously. Demographicinformation of each student was retrieved from hisor her personal file.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of four parts. Each partcontained several questions (open ended andclosed). Questions and response options had beensimplified by using language that the students wereable to understand.

. Part 1. The first part addressed sociodemographicvariables (e.g. gender, age, IQ).

. Part 2. The second part contained nine questionsmeasuring self-esteem (e.g. ‘I think positivelyabout myself’, ‘I am not good at anything’).These questions were derived from the question-naire developed by Scholte et al. [14]. Each itemcould be rated on a 3-point Likert-type scale, withoptions ‘true’, ‘sometimes true’ and ‘not true’.A mean item score of self-esteem was calculated,provided that six of the nine questions were scored.

. Part 3. This part contained questions on 12depressive symptoms (e.g. ‘I feel happy’, ‘I amtense and nervous’, ‘I worry about things’). Eachitem could be rated on a 3-point Likert scale, withoptions ‘(almost) never’ (1), ‘ometimes’ (2) and‘often’ (3). A mean item score was calculatedprovided that eight of the 12 questions had beenendorsed by a student.

. Part 4. The fifth and largest part of the question-naire contained questions about the use ofcellphones and internet and bullying via thesemedia. Items address type and frequency ofbullying and victimization via internet and cell-phone and are rated on a 5-point Likert-typescale: ‘never’ (1), ‘once to five times’ (2), ‘oncea month’ (3), ‘once a week’ (4) and ‘more timesa week’ (5). The items were scored for the last3 months. A mean item score was calculatedprovided that four of the six questions had beenscored by the respondents.

Bullies, victims, bullies/victims and uninvolved

students

For the purpose of these analyses related tocyberbullying via internet and cyberbullying viacellphone, this study distinguished between fourgroups of students: the first group consisted onlyof victims, the second group comprised onlystudents who bullied, the third group consisted ofstudents who were both bully and victim and thefourth group consisted of students who were neithera bully nor a victim. The last group consisted ofstudents who were uninvolved, thus neither a bully

nor a victim of cyberbullying. These groups wereestablished on the basis of deviation of scores.Students were allocated to groups if they had atleast a score of ‘3’ (occurring once a month) forbeing a victim, bully, bully/victim and uninvolved.

Results

Cellphone

Most students (i.e. 87%) owned a cellphone andmost popular activities via cellphone were to makephone calls (70%) and send text messages (57%).In a minority of students (i.e. 12%), parentscontrolled their activities on the cellphone. Table Idepicts percentages who were victimized or bulliedvia their cellphone at least once during the last3 months. The most frequent types of cyberbullyingwere deliberately ignoring phone calls, frequentcalling (or being called) and sending (or receiving)anonymous text messages. It appears that boys moreoften were involved in victimization and bullying viacellphone than girls (Table I).

Internet

Almost all students had access to the internet athome (97%). Less than half of the sample (41%) hada computer in their own bedroom. According tostudents, 69% reported that their parents wereunaware of the type of activities they engaged inwhen using the internet. Most students used theinternet for Microsoft Network (MSN) (67%),downloading music (65%) and playing onlinegames (57%), sending/receiving email (43%), down-loading pictures and films (31%), looking for infor-mation for educational purposes (30%), using a webcam (28%), putting information about oneself onthe internet (27%), chatting on a website (24%) andusing skype (internet phone) (12%). Cyberbullyingoccurred less often and took the form of puttinginformation about other students on the internet(5%), sending anonymous mails (4%), hackingsomeone’s computer (4%) and sending a text mes-sage bomb via MSN (3%).

Results depicted in Table II show that moststudents never bullied or were victimized via theinternet during the last month. Percentages ofstudents who were victimized at least once a weekvaried between 5–12%, depending on the form ofvictimization. Percentages of students who bullied atleast once a week were somewhat lower and variedbetween 1–8%.

Prevalence of victims, bullies, victim/bullies

and non-involved students

Most students were not involved in bullying via theinternet (i.e. 90%) and via cellphone (i.e. 86%).

148 R. Didden et al.

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Percentages of students who were victimized, whobullied and who were both bully and victim via theinternet were 7, 0 and 3, respectively. Four per centof students were victimized via cellphone, 4% werebullies and 5% were both victimized and bullied viacellphone.

Cyberbullying via cellphone and internet

There was a significant and large positive correlation(r¼ 0.68, p< 0.01) between being a victim of cyber-bullying via the internet and being an online bully.This means that most online bullies were alsovictims of this form of cyberbullying. There alsowas a positive correlation between being a victim ofcyberbullying via cellphone and being a bully viacellphone (r¼ 0.68, p<0.01). The more studentswere a victim of bullying via the cellphone, the morethey were also a bully using a cellphone. It may beconcluded that among this sample of special educa-tion students, there is a particular group of studentswho are both a cyberbully and a victim ofcyberbullying.

Associations between cyberbullying and other

variables

Age. No significant associations were foundbetween cyberbullying via cellphone or the internetand age in years.

IQ. There was a significant positive relationshipbetween bullying via the internet and total IQ(r¼ 0.25, p<0.01) and verbal IQ (r¼ 0.26,p< 0.01). The higher students’ IQ, the more oftenthey bullied via the internet.

Gender. There were no significant differences infrequency in cyberbullying between boys and girlsin terms of frequencies in which they were involvedin bullying or were victimized via cellphone andthe internet.

ADHD and ASD. This study compared threegroups on victimization and bullying via the internetand cellphone: (a) students with ADHD, (b)students with ASD and (c) control group. Therewere no significant differences between groupsexcept for bullying via cellphone. Students withADHD bullied more often via cellphone thanstudents from the other groups, �2(2)¼ 8.91,p< 0.01.

Self-esteem, depressive feelings. There was a negativecorrelation (r¼�0.35, p<0.01) between beinga victim of internet bullying and self-esteem anda positive correlation (r¼ 0.37, p< 0.01) betweenbeing a victim of internet bullying and depressivefeelings. That is, the more often a student wasvictimized via the internet the less self-esteem and

Table II. Experiences of students who were victimized or who bullied via the internet.

Experiences on the internet

Victim Bully

Occurred aboutonce a month

Once or moretimes a week

Occurred aboutonce a month

Once or moretimes a week

Hurting 19% 5% 6% 4%Harassing 21% 12% 14% 1%Insulting 21% 8% 13% 2%Name calling 27% 6% 18% 5%Making fun of 29% 9% 22% 5%Ignoring 14% 12% 24% 8%

Table I. Percentages of victims and bullies via cellphones for boys and girls.

Bullying via cellphone

Victim Bully

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total

Anonymous text message 9 (8%) 1 (1%) 10 (9%) 7 (6%) 2 (2%) 9 (8%)Bullying via textmessage 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 3 (3%) 5 (4%) 2 (2%) 7 (6%)Sending photo’s 3 (3%) 2 (2%) 5 (4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Sending films 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%)Sending a bomb of text messages 4 (4%) 0 (0%) 4 (4%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 3 (3%)Frequent calling 12 (11%) 5 (4%) 17 (15%) 4 (4%) 2 (2%) 6 (5%)Ignoring phonecalls 13 (11%) 8 (7%) 21 (18%) 19 (17%) 7 (6%) 26 (23%)

Cyberbullying 149

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

the more depressive feelings s/he reported. A positivecorrelation (r¼ 0.29, p<0.01) was also foundbetween bullying and depressive feelings: the morea students bullied via the internet the moredepressive feelings they reported. Next, a negativecorrelation was found between victimization viacellphone and self-esteem. The more oftena student reported to be victimized via a cellphonethe lower his of her level of self-esteem(r¼�0.31, p<0.01) and the higher his self-reportedlevel of depressive feelings (r¼ 0.19, p< 0.05).Finally, a negative correlation was found betweenbullying via cellphone and level of self-esteem(r¼�0.19, p<0.05): the more students bullied viaa cellphone, the lower their level of self-esteem.These results clearly indicate that there isa relationship between cyberbullying and emotionaldistress and psychological problems.

Frequency of use of computer. Results from Mann-Whitney tests revealed that there was an associationbetween frequency with which students used thecomputer and cyberbullying. Students who usedtheir computer for less than 1 hour each day wereless often victimized via the internet than studentswho used the computer for more than 1 hour perday, z¼3.30, p< 0.001. Also, students who usedtheir computer for more than 1 hour per day bulliedmore often via the internet than students who usedtheir computer for less hours per day, z¼�3.06,p< 0.001. So the duration of computer usage maybe seen as a risk factor for being victimizedand/or bullying via the internet.

Discussion

The present study investigated prevalence andassociated features of cyberbullying among 114students with developmental disabilities who visiteda school for special education. Results showed thatvictimization and bullying via the internet andcellphone was relatively prevalent and cyberbullyingwas related to IQ, presence of ADHD, self-esteem,depressive feelings and frequency of computer use.As far as is known, this is the first study oncyberbullying via electronic tools such as the internetand cellphones.

Percentages of students who were a cyberbully viacellphone varied between 0–26, depending on thetype of cyberbullying. The most frequent types ofcyberbullying were deliberately ignoring phone calls,frequent calling (or being called) and sending (orreceiving) anonymous text messages. These resultsare more or less comparable with those found inother studies among non-disabled youth who visita regular school. For example, Smith et al. [6] report

that bullying through phone calls and text messageswere most common by students who visit regularschools. Concerning cyberbullying via the internet,this study found that 16% of the students had bulliedat least once a month and 4% bullied once or moretimes a week. Victimization via the internet occurredonce month for 22% of students and once or moretimes a week for 9% of students. Somewhat higherprevalence rates were reported in other studies. Forexample, in a Dutch study by Van den Eijnden et al.[7] it was found that 30–35% of students between11–15 years old had been insulted, troubled ortreated rudely on the internet at least once a monthand 15–20% had been victimized via the internet.Differences in outcomes between this study andother studies [6, 8] may be explained by the lower IQrange of students in this sample. One may concludethat, in general, students with developmental dis-abilities have a somewhat lower probability tobecome victimized and/or bully via the internet andcellphone than their peers, although the lack ofcomparative studies preclude any firm conclusions.

This study found that most online bullies werealso online victims. This relationship has also beenfound in a study by Li [15], where by far most (85%)cyberbullies were also victimized via the internet.Thus, there seems to exist a sub-group of studentswho are both victim and bully. It is not yet clear inwhich ways this group of students differ from otherstudies in terms of sociodemographic characteristics.

This study found significant associations betweencyberbullying and IQ, type of disorder (ADHD,ASD), self-esteem and depressive feelings and fre-quency of computer use. The finding that there isa relationship between emotional and psychologicalproblems and victimization is in agreement withother studies on bullying. For example, Van deEijnden et al. [7] found that online victims reportsignificant more psychological problems (e.g.depressive feelings, loneliness, negative self-concept)than other youth between 11–15 years of age. Also,Reiter and Lapidot-Lefler [13] found that victimsreported much higher levels of emotional andinterpersonal problems than bullies and victim/bullies.

A relationship wa also found between frequency ofcomputer use and cyberbullying. This relationshiphas also been found by Ybarra and Mitchel [9]where online harassment was positively related tointernet usage. Also, Li [15] reported that cyberbul-lies and cybervictims use the computer much moreoften than uninvolved students.

Several limitations of the present study should bementioned. First, the lack of a control groupprecludes any conclusions on the specificity ofthese findings in a sample of students with develop-mental disabilities. Secondly, the validity of these

150 R. Didden et al.

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

conclusions remains unknown as it is not known ifstudents’ responses reflect their actual behaviours.Their responses were not compared to those of, forexample, parents and teachers. Also, it is not clear ifthese findings may be generalized to the populationof students visiting schools for special education.Finally, due to the fact that most data in theseanalyses were not normally distributed, mostly non-parametric tests were used.

Dealing with (cyber) bullying in a school forstudents with developmental disabilities may bedifficult. An approach is needed in which students,teachers and parents work together [16–18].Teachers should become more aware about theissue of bullying via electronic tools in students withdevelopmental disabilities. It appears that studentswith developmental disabilities use such tools tothe same extent as their non-disabled peers. Pro-grammes should be developed for the identification,remediation and prevention of cyberbullying inspecial education schools. It appears that especiallythese students are in need of specific programmeswith which they are being taught how to deal withthe internet and other electronic tools. It is impor-tant for schools to have a model of legal issuesrelating to cyberbullying and its impact on studentsafety and learning in the school context [16, 17].Finally, parents may be advised to exert morecontrol over their children’s activities on the internetand cellphone, to monitor their child’s activities andat the same time provide them with information onhow to use these tools.

Acknowledgement

We thank the Herman Broeren school for theirparticipation.

Declaration of interest: The authors report noconflicts of interest. The authors alone are respon-sible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

1. Olweus D. Bullying at school. What we know and what we cando. Oxford: Blackwell; 1993.

2. Scholte RHJ, Overbeek G, Ten Brink G. Engels RCME, DeKemp RAT. Slachtoffers van pesten en hun vrienden: eenonderzoek naar de vriendschapsprotectiehypothese (Victims of

bullying and their friends: A study on the friendshipprotection hypothesis). Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek(Journal of Special Education) 2006;45:452–463.

3. Raskauskas J, Stoltz AD. Involvement in traditional andelectronic bullying among adolescents. DevelopmentalPsychology 2007;43:564–575.

4. Williams KR, Guerra NG. Prevalence and predictors ofinternet bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 2007;41:14–21.

5. Carlson EJ, Crow Flannery M, Steinbring Kral M.Differences in bully/victim problems between early adoles-cents with learning disabilities and their non-disabled peers.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED490374.

6. Smith P, Mahdavi J, Carvalhoho M, Tippett N. An inves-tigation into cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact,and the relationship between age and gender in cyberbully-ing. Unit for school and family studies, Goldsmiths College,University of London; 2006.

7. Van den Eijnden R, Vermulst A, Van Rooy T, Meerkerk G.Pesten op internet en het psychosociale welbevinden vanjongeren. Bullying on internet and psychosocial well-being ofyouth. Rotterdam: IVO, Rotterdam; 2006.

8. TNS-NIPO. Digitaal pesten. Cyberbullying. Amsterdam:TNS-NIPO; 2006.

9. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ. Youth engaging in online harass-ment: Associations with caregiver-child relationship. Journalof Adolescence 2004;27:319–336.

10. Delver B, Hop L. Pesten is laf! Cyberpesten is laffer.(Bullying is cowardly! Cyberbullying is morecowardly.) Haarlem: Vives Media; 2007.

11. Sheard C, Clegg J, Standen P, Cromby J. Bullying and peoplewith severe intellectual disability. Journal of IntellectualDisability Research 2001;45:407–415.

12. Montes G, Halterman JS. Bullying among children withautism and the influence of comorbidity with ADHD:A population-based study. Ambulatory Pediatrics 2007;7:253–257.

13. Reiter S, Lapidot-Lefler N. Bullying among special educationstudents with intellectual disabilities: Differences in socialadjustment and social skills. Intellectual and DevelopmentalDisabilities 2007;45:174–181.

14. Scholte RHJ, Overbeek G, Ten Brink G, Rommes E,De Kemp R, Goossens L, Engels RCME. The significance ofreciprocal and unilateral friendships for peer victimizationin adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2009;38:89–100.

15. Li Q. Cyberbullying in schools: Nature and extent ofCanadian adolescents’ experience. 2005. Unpublished.

16. Shariff S. Cyberbullying. Issues and solutions for the school,the classroom and the home. London: Routledge; 2008.

17. Bak L, Dekker J, Van Drunen J, Groen N, Tempelman H.Scholen, ouders en hulpverlening op 1 lijn in de aanpakvan digitaal pesten. (Schools, parents and professionalsunited in their approach of cyberbullying). Zwolle:Gereformeerde Hogeschool; 2007.

18. Agatston PW, Kowalski R, Limber S. Students’ perspectiveson cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health2007;41:59–60.

Cyberbullying 151

Dev

Neu

rore

habi

l Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

CD

L-U

C S

anta

Cru

z on

10/

31/1

4Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.