Verbal Aggression Among Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Teacher Perceptions of Harm,Levels of Concern,and Relationship With Certification Status

Abstract

Students who exhibit emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) typically have high frequencies of disruptive and noncompliant behavior including physical and verbal aggression (VA). Physical aggression attracts great concern from school professionals yet VA is often overlooked, despite being a highly pervasive and harmful social act. We surveyed 279 first to 12th grade teachers of students with EBD to assess their perceptions about the harmfulness of VA, students’ intent to harm, their concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA, and concern about types of verbally aggressive messages. We investigated if these perceptions differed when teachers considered students with EBD compared with typical peers and if special education certification related to responsiveness to VA. The majority of teachers reported that VA was either somewhat or very harmful and perceived students with EBD to be just kidding around and not intending to hurt others when perpetrating VA. Compared with noncertified colleagues, certified teachers reported more concern about VA, more intent to harm when students with EBD exhibit VA, and they were more likely than their noncertified counterparts to report the use of a structured intervention/curriculum to reduce VA. We discuss implications for special education teacher preparation and offer suggestions for further research.

Keywords

verbal aggression emotional and behavioral disorders special education teacher certification survey research

Numerous sources estimate that between 2% and 7% of the school population in the United States exhibit significant, long-term emotional or behavioral problems that often involve strong negative emotions and aggression that interfere with academic and social learning (Forness, Kim, & Walker, 2012; Kauffman & Landrum, 2017). Students who receive special education (SE) services for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) often display high rates of externalizing (e.g., chronic noncompliance, verbal and physical aggression) and internalizing (e.g., anxiety and depression) behavior problems and they constitute a significant percentage of students isolated from the mainstream of education (Kauffman & Landrum, 2017; Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2017; Taylor & Smith, 2019). According to C. R. Smith, Katsiyannis, and Ryan (2011), students with EBD are more likely than other students with disabilities to be educated in more restrictive environments.

It is well-known that classrooms for students with EBD have high rates of disruptive, maladaptive, and noncompliant behavior, and many students with EBD exhibit both verbal and physically aggressive behaviors (Kauffman & Landrum, 2017). Although physical aggression tends to decline as students mature (Côté, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006), rates of physical aggression for students with disabilities remain stable throughout the school age years (Rose, Espelage, & Monda-Amaya, 2009) and students with EBD engage in significantly more fighting than all other student groups (Rose & Espelage, 2012). Students with EBD, among other students with disabilities, are also more likely to receive threats from peers, which can perpetuate a physical aggression cycle (Hartley, Bauman, Nixon, & Davis, 2015). For adolescents, chronic physical aggression has been associated with increased rates of physically violent criminal behavior and overall delinquency (Nagin & Tremblay, 1999). Researchers report that acts of physical aggression are a primary reason that practitioners move students with EBD to restrictive placements (Hendrickson, Smith, Frank, & Merical, 1998). Furthermore, physical aggression is a primary reason for suspension (Burke & Nishioka, 2014), a form of exclusionary discipline experienced by students with EBD at two to three times the rate of other disability categories and typical peers (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008; Zhang, Katsiyannis, & Herbst, 2004).

Acts of physical aggression generally attract the most concern and reaction from school staff; however, verbal aggression (VA) is now considered a pervasive, harmful, and unnecessary social act that is an often-overlooked contributor to undesired outcomes for students with significant behavior problems (e.g., Atkin, Smith, Roberto, Fediuk, & Wagner, 2002; Morrow, Hubbard, Barhight, & Thomson, 2014; Poling, Smith, Taylor, & Worth, 2019; Taylor & Smith, 2019). Defined as behavior that attacks a person’s self-concept to cause psychological pain (Infante, 1995) including attacks on character, competence, background, and physical appearance, as well as episodes of teasing and ridicule (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Johnson, 2015; Infante, 1987; Taylor & Smith, 2019), VA significantly predicts physical aggression among children and adolescents (Cole et al., 2014; Roberto & Wilson, 1996). In fact, Atkin et al. (2002) reported a strong correlation between the frequencies of reporting VA and committing physical aggression and a strong relationship, r(2,108) = .55, p < .001, between being victimized by VA and subsequent physical aggression.

As an increasing number of researchers recognize the high levels of VA among the general school population (e.g., Goldweber, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013; Poling et al., 2019; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009), there is emerging research indicating that the prevalence of VA among students with EBD is substantial and they perpetrate and experience higher levels of VA than their nondisabled peers (Taylor & Smith, 2019). Specifically, these researchers found that among students with EBD, 71% of the teachers reported daily observance of student-to-student VA and 57.3% indicated daily student-to-adult VA. In the same study, Taylor and Smith (2019) found that 64% of the teachers who served students with EBD reported that their students were more verbally aggressive than their typical peers and that their students responded to acts of VA primarily with retaliatory acts of verbal or physical aggression. Moreover, these researchers found that a majority of teachers described students frequently reporting, complaining, or seeking advice about issues related to VA, and they reported that VA takes place in multiple locations, with at least one bystander present, and they observed victim verbal retaliation and physical assaults because of VA. Interestingly, Taylor and Smith (2019) found that teacher responses included redirection and verbal warnings, and few teachers reported instruction of alternative prosocial behaviors.

To pursue further information about VA and students who exhibit VA, Taylor and Smith (2019) suggested a need to understand better teachers’ perceptions about (a) the harmfulness of types of VA victimization, (b) students’ intent to harm when engaged in VA, and (c) levels of concern about VA among students. According to Hektner and Swenson (2012), a significant relationship exists between teachers’ beliefs and their tendency to intervene in instances of student on student aggression. Specifically, students of teachers with normative beliefs toward aggression (i.e., part of a typical developmental process) reported reduced levels of teacher intervention and increased rates of peer victimization (Hektner & Swenson, 2012). Given that teachers’ beliefs about student-on-student aggression impact their responses (e.g., P. W. Garner, 2017; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015), examining their perceptions about VA and their use of strategies or established curriculum can provide valuable insights into effective program implementation resulting in improved student outcomes. Furthermore, Taylor and Smith recommended understanding the relationship between certified and noncertified teacher status and their responses to student VA that would provide clarity about the impact of SE teacher certification and implications for working with students with EBD.

Oliver and Reschly (2010) believed that many teachers may not be adequately prepared to meet the needs of students with EBD, who are often the most difficult to teach given their challenging behavioral, social, and academic needs (Kauffman & Landrum, 2017; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004; Simpson, Peterson, & Smith, 2011). According to Browder, Wood, Thompson, and Ribuffo (2014) and McLeskey and Brownell (2015), special educators require specialized preparation to serve students with high-intensity needs such as students who exhibit EBD. Accordingly, traditional SE teacher preparation programs should provide specialized knowledge, skills, and competencies for certification to facilitate effective instruction for with students with high-intensity academic and behavior problems and to collaborate effectively with other special educators, general educators, and related service providers. Identified shortages in certified SE teachers, however, result in many teachers receiving temporary or emergency certification (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 2016). Often, these types of certification require no more than a bachelor’s degree and a passing score on licensing tests that assess basic knowledge of educational practices (Stotsky, 2009). Ostensibly, discrepant routes to teacher licensure suggest that teachers who experienced an extensive and formalized training program in education, compared with those who received nonstandard preparation, have more content and pedagogical knowledge to support the quality of services necessary for students who require SE programming (Boe, Shin, & Cook, 2007; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005).

The highest percentage of noncertified or alternatively certified SE teachers are those charged with the instruction of students with EBD (Bradley et al., 2008) creating a concerning trend, given these teachers have likely not been exposed to much of the specialized knowledge required for efficacious practice involving students with EBD. Teachers who have foundational knowledge about effective, efficient, and positively oriented evidence-based practices (e.g., structured interventions and curricula) are better positioned to decrease the frequency and intensity of VA in their classrooms without relying on punitive practices such as time out, exclusion, and seclusion (Alvarez, 2007). According to Bradley et al. (2008), students with EBD experience these disciplinary practices three times the rate of students in other disability groups.

The high prevalence and reciprocal norm for VA among adolescents and adults postulated by Infante, Sabourin, Rudd, and Shannon (1990) and Rancer and Avtgis (2006) and the putative pervasiveness of VA establish the need for skilled and certified educators with the requisite knowledge to mollify the effects of VA, especially among students who exhibit EBD. Succinctly, teachers of students with EBD need a comprehensive understanding of VA to guide their response in the classroom as students with EBD require effective interventions to alter VA and their historically negative outcomes. Thus, the purpose of our exploratory study was to add to the prefatory work of Taylor and Smith (2019), by focusing on teacher perceptions about (a) the harmfulness of types of VA victimization, (b) students’ intent to harm when engaged in VA, (c) concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA, (d) level of concern about types of VA, and (e) the potential relationship among these perceptions with teacher certification status. In addition, we focused on teachers’ use of a curriculum/structured intervention to evaluate the impact SE certification may have on teacher response to VA. Finally, we wanted to gather responses from teachers about their perceptions of VA among all students in their school to act as a comparative point and to aid in interpretation of results.

As such, we posed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What perceptions do teachers have about the harmfulness of types of VA victimization among those classified as EBD and all students?

Research Question 2: What are teachers’ perceptions about the intent to harm nature of VA when perpetrated by those classified as EBD and all students?

Research Question 3: How concerned are teachers about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among those classified as EBD and all students?

Research Question 4: What is teachers’ level of concern about types of VA among those classified as EBD and all students?

Research Question 5: Do teachers with and without SE certification differ in their perceptions of:

(a) The level of harmfulness and level of concern about types of VA among students with EBD?

(b) Intent to harm nature of VA and concern about the frequency/duration of VA among students with EBD?

Research Question 6: Do teachers use a curriculum/structured intervention to teach students with EBD strategies to deal with VA and does SE certification relate to teachers’ use of this instruction?

Method

Substantive details about the sampling procedures, instrument validity, research design, response rate, and participant demographics can be found in Taylor and Smith (2019), along with the survey procedures. We provide a brief description here as context for this investigation.

Settings and Participants

We queried 279 first to 12th grade teachers who directly served students identified as EBD across five school districts in a southeastern state. As shown in Table 1, we collected data about teachers’ gender, age, and race. We also asked them to report on their education level, SE certification status (yes/no), and education settings (e.g., general, resource, and self-contained).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents.

Variables	n	%	V%
Gender
Male	86	30.82	31.62
Female	186	66.67	68.38
Total	272 (7)	97.49 (2.51)	100.00
Race
White	191	68.46	70.48
Black	46	16.49	16.97
Other	34	12.19	12.55
Total	271 (8)	97.13 (2.87)	100.00
Age (years)
20−35	85	30.47	32.57
36–50	91	32.62	34.87
51 and older	85	30.47	32.57
Total	261 (18)	93.55 (6.45)	100.00
Degree
Bachelors	143	51.25	53.16
Graduate	126	45.16	46.84
Total	269 (10)	96.42 (3.58)	100.00
Special education certification
Yes	186	66.67	68.63
No	85	30.47	31.37
Total	271 (8)	97.13 (2.87)	100.00
Setting
General education	72	25.81	28.13
Resource	27	9.68	10.55
Self-contained	88	31.54	34.38
Day school	35	12.54	13.67
Other	34	12.19	13.28
Total	256 (23)	91.76 (8.24)	100.00
Grade Level
Elementary school	81	29.03	36.49
Middle school	99	35.48	44.59
High school	42	15.05	18.92
Total	222 (57)	79.57 (20.43)	100.00

Note. Percentage calculation includes missing data. Valid percentage (V%) calculation excludes missing data.

Instrument

As detailed in Taylor and Smith (2019), we designed the Verbal Aggression Survey–Teacher (VAS-T) using a systematic progression of steps to support validity and reliability. As part of the process, we identified major themes and constructs related to VA in the relevant literature (e.g., prevalence, locations, bystanders, student responses to VA, and teacher consequences for students with EBD who use VA), which we then organized into an initial conceptual framework to create an array of research questions. These research questions provided the basis for the construction of the sections, scales, and individual items included in the VAS-T.

The VAS-T is composed of 36 items across six sections: Personal Information, Education and Experience, Current Assignment, Prevalence, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Strategies and Interventions. The last two sections provide for an examination into teacher perceptions about the level of harmfulness of types of VA victimization, students’ intent to harm when engaging in VA, concern about the frequency and/or intensity, and their level of concern about types of VA, along with teacher and student responses to VA. The VAS-T was designed to capture both teachers’ perceptions of VA victimization (or being targeted) and perpetration of VA (intent to harm). We provided a cogent definition of VA along with nonexamples of VA at the beginning of the survey.

Instrument validity and reliability

We validated the VAS-T, by conducting expert reviews, cognitive interviews with one elementary, three middle, and one high school teacher of students with EBD, and we conducted a pilot test. We revised the VAS-T based on expert-reviewer and cognitive interview feedback (i.e., content and format).

We piloted the VAS-T and online survey procedures with 52 teachers from a variety of school districts who worked with students with EBD. Over a 4-week period, we received 30 responses resulting in a 57.7% response rate that we hoped could be improved for the full study by offering an incentive upon survey completion (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009).

Our construct of VA, derived from an extensive literature review, included six items that describe verbally aggressive behavior: (a) swearing/profanity, (b) using insulting names, (c) yelling or using aversive tone of voice, (d) character comments, (e) competence comments, and (f) appearance comments. We used these six items in each of four questions posed to teachers about VA’s level of harmfulness for students with EBD (α = .87) and for all students (α = .86), level of concern about types of VA for students with EBD (α = .87) and for all students (α = .87).

Research Design, Sampling, and Procedures

We used the mixed-mode cross-sectional survey design as detailed in Taylor and Smith (2019) to gather information on a population at a single point in time (Creswell, 2015). Personnel in multiple education departments at the state level were unaware of any available comprehensive databases to provide an inclusive list of qualified teachers. After thoroughly investigating the sampling options available, we concluded a comprehensive, valid, and reliable state-wide list from which to randomly select participants for this study was unattainable. We then contacted individual school district representatives about acquiring a list of teachers who worked with students with EBD, and their ability and willingness to assist us.

We learned that district personnel varied in their ability to identify those teachers we wished to query and, in their willingness, to collaborate. As such, we used a purposive nonrandom sample of districts that were willing to participate (de Leeuw, Hox, & Dillman, 2008). When using purposive sampling, researchers identify a specific predefined group (i.e., census) and then seek participants that meet the group inclusion criteria. Our administration of the VAS-T included the entire sampling frame (i.e., census) for each participating district. According to Creswell (2015), purposive sampling is useful when situations are of a short timeline for implementation and when sampling for proportionality is not possible, or the primary concern.

Survey Items

To assess teachers’ perceptions about the level of harmfulness of types of VA victimization, we provided a six-item measure of student-to-student verbally aggressive behaviors (i.e., swearing/profanity, using insulting names, yelling or using aversive tone of voice, character comments, competence comments, and appearance comments) to which teachers responded using a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not harmful) to 3 (very harmful). To query teachers if they thought that students engaged in VA with an intent to harm, teachers responded to a single-item question (When [students] engage in verbal aggression by using, for example, profanity, insulting names, or negative comments, how often do you feel students are just kidding or playing around with no intent to harm?) using a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (never) to 3 (very often). We used a single-item question (How concerned are you about the present level [frequency and/or intensity] of verbal aggression?) with a 4-point Likert-type response from 0 (not concerned) to 3 (very concerned). Finally, to assess teachers’ concern about types of VA, we provided the same six-item measure of VA for level of harmfulness but used a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not concerned) to 3 (very concerned). For each of the items (i.e., harmfulness, intent to harm, concern about the frequency and/or intensity, and level of concern about types of VA), teachers were instructed to answer separately for students with EBD and for all students in the school population. Teachers provided a yes/no response for both certification in SE and about their use of a curriculum or structured intervention to teach students with EBD strategies for dealing with VA.

Data Analysis

We used SPSS (v21) for all analyses. Missing data across all survey items ranged from 9.32% to 18.64%, and results of a Fisher’s exact test revealed no significant differences in missingness based on each demographic variable shown in Table 1. We conducted Wilcoxon signed rank tests to answer Research Questions 1 through 4 to assess differences in teacher perceptions of VA (i.e., harmfulness, intent to harm, and concern) when comparing students with EBD with all students. To answer Research Question 5(a), we performed linear regression analyses to determine if teachers’ perceived level of harmfulness of types of VA victimization and level of concern about types of VA could be predicted from SE certification status (0 = noncertified, 1 = certified). Teachers’ perceived level of harmfulness of VA and level of concern about VA were composite scores created based on teacher responses to each type of VA (i.e., swearing/profanity, using insulting names, yelling or using aversive tone of voice, character comments, competence comments, appearance comments), with higher scores indicating more harmfulness and higher concern. We measured both intent to harm and concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among students with EBD with ordinal response questions that generated data that were not normally distributed. As such, we conducted Mann–Whitney U tests for Research Question 5(b) to assess median differences between certified and noncertified SE teachers. For Research Question 6, we used logistic regression to assess whether teacher use of a curriculum or intervention (0 = no use, 1 = use) could be predicted by SE certification status.

Given that school-based aggression intervention effects (e.g., bullying programs) vary for students across grade levels (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011) and because VA peaks in middle school (Taylor & Smith, 2019), we sought to control for any variance in our regression model that may be explained by teachers’ grade level (elementary, middle, high school). Note: For reporting clarity, we use valid percent which is the percent when missing data are excluded from the calculations.

Results

Harmfulness of VA

As shown in Table 2, the majority of teachers reported that all the six items measuring student-to-student verbally aggressive behaviors were either somewhat or very harmful when all students (i.e., entire student population) and students with EBD engaged in VA. Notably, a majority of teachers indicated that insulting names were very harmful among all students (77.97%) and students with EBD (79.04%) as well as comments about appearance for all students (75.42%) and students with EBD (74.01%). As shown in Table 3, the teachers in our sample reported yelling or using aversive tone of voice as significantly more harmful (Z = −2.77, p = .006) for students with EBD compared with all students. Specific to teachers’ perceived harmfulness of the other types of VA victimization, there were no significant differences between students with EBD and all students.

Table 2.

Frequency and Percentage of Teachers’ Perceptions Toward VA’s Harmfulness by Student Group.

Student group/VA item	Not harmful			Mildly harmful			Somewhat harmful			Very harmful
Student group/VA item	n	%	V%	n	%	V%	n	%	V%	n	%	V%
All students
Swearing/profanity	6	2.15	2.37	60	21.51	23.72	107	38.35	42.29	80	28.67	31.62
Insulting names	1	0.36	0.42	9	3.23	3.81	42	15.05	17.80	184	65.95	77.97
Yelling	2	0.72	0.85	36	12.90	15.25	101	36.20	42.80	97	34.77	41.10
Character	3	1.08	1.27	19	6.81	8.02	75	26.88	31.65	140	50.18	59.07
Competence	2	0.72	0.85	11	3.94	4.66	54	19.35	22.88	169	60.57	71.61
Appearance	5	1.79	2.12	13	4.66	5.51	40	14.34	16.95	178	63.80	75.42
EBD
Swearing/profanity	7	2.51	3.04	50	17.92	21.74	91	32.62	39.57	82	29.39	35.65
Insulting names	0	0.00	0.00	12	4.30	5.24	36	12.90	15.72	181	64.87	79.04
Yelling	2	0.72	0.88	30	10.75	13.22	82	29.39	36.12	113	40.50	49.78
Character	3	1.08	1.31	23	8.24	10.04	61	21.86	26.64	142	50.90	62.01
Competence	1	0.36	0.44	14	5.02	6.14	49	17.56	21.49	164	58.78	71.93
Appearance	4	1.43	1.76	15	5.38	6.61	40	14.34	17.62	168	60.22	74.01

Note. Percentage calculation includes missing data. Valid percentage (V%) calculation excludes missing data. VA = verbal aggression; EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; Yelling = yelling or using aversive tone of voice; Character = use of comments degrading victim’s character; Competence = use of comments degrading victim’s competence; Appearance = use of comments degrading victim’s appearance.

Table 3.

Comparing Teachers’ Perception of VA’s Harmfulness Toward all Students and Students With EBD Using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.

VA item	All students > Students with EBD		Students with EBD > all students		W	Z
VA item	n	Mean rank	n	Mean rank	W	Z
Swearing/profanity	21	23.00	28	26.50	483.00^a	−1.43
Insulting names	17	15.00	15	18.20	255.00^a	−0.19
Yelling	16	24.59	35	26.64	393.50^a	−2.77*
Character	23	24.04	25	24.92	553.00^a	−0.40
Competence	17	14.38	13	16.96	220.50^b	−0.27
Appearance	21	19.07	15	17.70	265.50^b	−1.16

Note. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; VA = verbal aggression; Yelling = yelling or using aversive tone of voice; Character = use of comments degrading victim’s character; Competence = use of comments degrading victim’s competence; Appearance = use of comments degrading victim’s appearance.

Calculation based on all students > students with EBD. ^bCalculation based on students with EBD > all students.

p < .01.

Intent to Harm Nature of VA

Just over half of teachers indicated that students with EBD never or rarely committed acts of VA with the intent to harm (59.0%), whereas 43.9% reported the same for all students. Only 3.5% of the teachers surveyed felt that students with EBD very often used VA with the intent to harm another student, whereas a similar percentage reported the same for all students (4.6%). In our sample, teachers reported lower intent to harm for students with EBD (mean rank = 31.17) compared with all students (mean rank = 30.00), a statistically significant difference (Z = −5.5, p < .001). In other words, teachers perceived that students with EBD are more often just kidding around and do not intend to hurt others when perpetrating VA.

Concern About VA

Concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA

A small number of teachers, about 18.4% and 16.5%, indicated that they were mildly or not concerned about the frequency and/or intensity of VA for all students and students with EBD, respectively. Approximately 42% of the teachers reported being very concerned for all students, whereas 57% reported being very concerned about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among students with EBD. Compared with all students (mean rank = 43.45), teachers reported significantly more concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among students with EBD (mean rank = 45.22; Z = −3.17, p = .002).

Level of concern about VA types

As shown in Table 4, when asked about their concern about the six specific types of VA, the majority of teachers found the use of insulting names among all students (75.63%) and students with EBD (74.89%) to be very concerning. Most teachers also reported being very concerned about competence comments (e.g., you are stupid) for all students (61.92%) and students with EBD (66.67%). A comparison of teachers’ level of concern about VA across the six items (i.e., swearing/profanity, using insulting names, yelling or using aversive tone of voice, and character, competence, and appearance comments) revealed three differences between all students and students with EBD (see Table 5). With regard to character comments (e.g., you are a liar), teachers reported significantly more concern (Z = −3.28, p = .001) for students with EBD, compared with all students. In addition, for VA that targets appearance (e.g., facial features, weight), teachers indicated significantly more concern for students with EBD than all students (Z = −3.74,p = .001). Interestingly, teachers reported significantly less concern (Z = −2.10, p = .036) for students with EBD compared with all students for VA in the form of swearing/profanity.

Table 4.

Frequency and Percentage of Teachers’ Level of Concern Toward VA Types by Student Group.

Student group/VA item	Not concerning			Mildly concerning			Somewhat concerning			Very concerning
Student group/VA item	n	%	V%	n	%	V%	n	%	V%	n	%	V%
All students
Swearing/profanity	7	2.51	2.93	35	12.54	14.64	65	23.30	27.20	132	47.31	55.23
Insulting names	2	0.72	0.84	11	3.94	4.62	45	16.13	18.91	180	64.52	75.63
Yelling	2	0.72	0.91	24	8.60	10.96	80	28.67	36.53	113	40.50	51.60
Character	3	1.08	1.26	29	10.39	12.13	90	32.26	37.66	117	41.94	48.95
Competence	5	1.79	2.09	19	6.81	7.95	67	24.01	28.03	148	53.05	61.92
Appearance	16	5.73	6.69	24	8.60	10.04	67	24.01	28.03	132	47.31	55.23
Students with EBD
Swearing/profanity	9	3.23	3.93	35	12.54	15.28	72	25.81	31.44	113	40.50	49.34
Insulting names	0	0.00	0.00	19	6.81	8.37	38	13.62	16.74	170	60.93	74.89
Yelling	3	1.08	1.31	24	8.60	10.48	75	26.88	32.75	127	45.52	55.46
Character	2	0.72	0.88	22	7.89	9.65	68	24.37	29.82	136	48.75	59.65
Competence	2	0.72	0.88	16	5.73	7.02	58	20.79	25.44	152	54.48	66.67
Appearance	10	3.58	4.41	17	6.09	7.49	51	18.28	22.47	149	53.41	65.64

Table 5.

Comparison of Teachers’ Level of Concern Toward VA Types for All Students and Students With EBD Using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.

VA item	All students > students with EBD		Students with EBD > all students		W	Z
VA item	n	Mean rank	n	Mean rank	W	Z
Swearing/profanity	38	31.03	22	29.59	651.00^a	−2.10*
Insulting names	25	23.76	22	24.27	534.00^a	−0.34
Yelling	37	34.78	33	36.30	1,198.00^a	−0.29
Character	22	34.61	49	36.62	761.50^b	−3.28**
Competence	19	26.74	33	26.36	508.00^b	−1.82
Appearance	16	34.00	49	32.67	544.00^b	−3.74**

Calculation based on all students > students with EBD. ^bCalculation based on students with EBD > all students.

p < .05. **p < .001.

Teacher Certification and Perceptions of VA

We conducted linear regression analyses to determine if teachers’ perceived level of harmfulness of types of VA victimization and level of concern about types of VA could be predicted from SE certification status. In our sample, SE certification was not a significant predictor of these composite variables. The results of the Mann–Whitney U tests suggest, however, that compared with their noncertified peers (mean rank = 126.75), SE-certified teachers reported significantly more intent to harm (mean rank = 109.19) for VA perpetration (U = 4,646.5, p = .039). That is, SE-certified teachers reported more often that students with EBD intend to harm when they exhibit VA. The Mann–Whitney U tests also revealed that SE-certified teachers (mean rank = 121.97) reported significantly higher concern than noncertified peers (mean rank = 100.71) about the frequency and/or intensity of VA (U = 4,565.0, p = .012). In other words, teachers in our sample who have SE certification reported more concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among students with EBD than their noncertified counterparts.

Curriculum/Structured Intervention Use and SE Certification

Of the 212 teachers who reported on curriculum or structured intervention use, 61.3% indicated the use of a curriculum or structured intervention to teach students with EBD strategies for dealing with VA, whereas 38.7% reported they did not. Results of the logistic regression indicated that SE certification is a significant predictor of the use of a curriculum/structured intervention in response to VA, Exp(B) = 4.46, Wald = 19.95, p < .001. That is, teachers in our sample with SE certification, controlling for grade level, were about four and half times more likely than noncertified teachers to report using a structured intervention or curriculum to teach students with EBD strategies for dealing with VA.

Discussion

In addition to physical aggression in school settings attracting significant concern and attention, researchers are now considering VA equally concerning, exceedingly pervasive, and psychologically harmful with significant negative effects (e.g., Cole et al., 2014; Taylor & Smith, 2019). As students with EBD perpetrate and experience higher rates of VA than those of their typical peers (Taylor & Smith, 2019), they are particularly situated for negative school and long-term outcomes.

Taylor and Smith (2019) sought to query teachers to generate descriptive data about VA among students with EBD (e.g., prevalence, locations, bystander presence, and teacher consequences), whereas our current exploratory study aimed to examine teacher perceptions about the harmfulness of types of VA victimization and whether teachers thought students intended to harm others when engaged in VA. We also wanted to assess teachers’ concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA, their level of concern about types of VA, and we sought to determine whether teacher perceptions (harmfulness, intent to harm, and concerns about VA) differed when teachers considered students with EBD and all students. We sought to identify any relationships among these perceptions and teacher certification status as well. Finally, we wanted to investigate if teachers used a curriculum/structured intervention to teach students with EBD strategies to deal with VA and if teacher certification was related.

Harmfulness

Student VA is especially detrimental given the unique association between victimization and deleterious internalizing outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and hopelessness (Cole et al., 2014; Hanley & Gibb, 2011; Rueger & Jenkins, 2014) along with the destructive nature of reciprocal retaliation associated with VA (Geiger & Fischer, 2006). As such, it was encouraging that across all six types of VA, 75% to 95% of the teachers indicated VA among students with EBD was either somewhat or very harmful, similar to their perception about all students. About one in four teachers, however, indicated that swearing/profanity for all students and students with EBD were mildly or not harmful. We did discover that teachers reported yelling as more harmful for students with EBD compared with the general student population. This finding suggests that teachers believe (a) yelling and using an elevated voice level may signal an escalation in aggression intensity that could precede a physical altercation, (b) yelling may be socially stigmatizing for victim and perpetrator, or (c) this form of VA further disrupts learning environments with the existing classroom management concerns (Kauffman & Landrum, 2017) and increases the likelihood of exclusionary discipline (Achilles, McLaughlin, & Croninger, 2007). In contrast to our findings, Coyne, Archer, and Eslea (2006) found that pre- to mid-adolescent students reported “being yelled at” (p. 302) as the least harmful form of VA.

Intent to Harm

Perhaps due to saturation and lack of observable harm, more than half (59%) of the teachers in this study reported students with EBD never or rarely intended to harm others while committing acts of VA, which was higher compared with all students (43.9%). Given that less than half of the teachers (41%) indicated students with EBD often or very often intend to harm their victim, the high levels of reported harmfulness among types of VA (75%–95%) seem inconsistent. T. Garner (1983) suggested that cultural influences of verbal games and insult rituals in which participants take turns affronting each other could reduce perceptions of intent to harm by observers (see also Neu, 2008). Coyne et al. (2006) maintained that indifference about a student’s intention to harm others when engaging in VA may be because the effects of VA (e.g., insulting, make fun of clothes or personality to a person’s face, teasing) are not perceived to be as injurious or long-lasting as indirect or direct relational or social aggression (e.g., destroying someone’s relationships, malicious gossiping, spreading rumors). Perceptions that students with EBD rarely or never intend to harm others indicate that some teachers may not fully appreciate that VA messages inflict harm, irrespective of intent. As Geiger and Fischer (2006) explained, “the extent to which a message is perceived to be offensive, threatening, or provocative is related to the interpretation of the receiver of the message, regardless of the intention of the person transmitting it” (p. 338). Overall, these findings suggest that some teachers may lack knowledge or understanding of the unseen psychological harm VA may cause.

Concern About VA

Teachers in this study reported more concern about the frequency and/or intensity of VA among for students with EBD compared with all students, which further supports findings by Taylor and Smith (2019) who found that students with EBD exhibit more VA than the general student population. Along with findings about the frequency and/or intensity of VA, evaluating concerns about different types of VA provides a more nuanced picture about teacher perceptions. Large majorities of teachers reported that they were somewhat or very concerned across all types of VA among students with EBD and all students, however, up to one in five teachers reported low levels of concern (not concerned or mild concern) for both groups for swearing/profanity. We also discovered that teachers indicated significantly less concern for swearing/profanity for students with EBD compared with all students.

Interestingly, teachers in our sample reported higher concern about both character and appearance comments for students with EBD when compared with all students. Given that the malice of VA often lies in the personalized nature of the messages (e.g., Cole et al., 2014), teachers may understand character and appearance comments as the most disparaging type of VA, which, in turn, may likely provoke a retaliatory and escalating verbal or physical response. This aligns with qualitative findings from Geiger and Fischer (2006), who discovered that VA messages that emphasized a youth’s unalterable characteristics (e.g., facial features) elicited a strong emotional response such as anger and humiliation and a frequent reaction of physical aggression.

Our finding that up to 17% of the teachers expressed low levels of concern for all students about the use of comments degrading students’ appearance is in line with Cohn and Canter (2002) who reported that one in four teachers see nothing wrong with VA in the form of putdowns. Relatedly, researchers report that teachers who perceive peer aggression as typical student behavior are less likely to use effective strategies to reduce it (Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015). The reporting of low concern by some teachers about students’ use of VA may be due to the omnipresent frequency of VA in the school setting reported by Taylor and Smith (2019) and the lack of observable harm (e.g., Coyne et al., 2006). More specifically, Taylor and Smith found that the majority of teachers (71%) who worked with students with EBD reported witnessing acts of student-to-student VA on a daily basis, with 57.3% reporting the daily occurrence of student-to-adult VA.

Low levels of concern about VA among some teachers in this study may be related to findings from numerous other studies that students often do not report instances of victimization to their teachers (Bauman, Meter, Nixon, & Davis, 2016; Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006; Smith & Shu, 2000). For example, Bauman and colleagues discovered that VA in the form of calling names was the only type of aggression that did not predict telling school staff. Furthermore, researchers have found that students reported that teacher response would make the situation worse (e.g., Bradshaw, O’Brennan, & Sawyer, 2008). In fact, specific to VA, Hillard, Love, Franks, Laris, and Coyle (2013) found that 42% of the students rated teacher responsiveness as not effective, whereas only 55% reported that teachers stopped acts of VA. Student under- or nonreporting may leave teachers and other school professionals with the mistaken perception that students are not troubled by VA and that current strategies are adequate. This phenomenon may be exacerbated for SE teachers exposed to an excess of VA in EBD classrooms (Taylor & Smith, 2019) that may desensitize some practitioners to the intentions of aggressors or its impact on their students. In addition, in restrictive settings such as self-contained or special schools with high concentration of students and perhaps elevated rates of other forms of problematic or unsafe behavior, teachers may perceive VA as a comparatively less serious offense possibly influencing the nature of their beliefs and related responsiveness.

SE Certification and Teacher Perceptions

When compared with their noncertified colleagues, SE-certified teachers reported more often that students with EBD are not joking or playing around and aim to intentionally harm when they perpetrate VA. Certified teachers may view acts of VA as proactive and purposeful attempts by students with EBD to guard against potential peer victimization (Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011). By acquiring certification to teach in SE programs, teachers can gain general awareness about behavioral disabilities and specific knowledge about the atypical behaviors exhibited by students with EBD (Kauffman & Landrum, 2017). Thus, SE-certified teachers may understand better the seriousness of VA and be less likely to view it as a normative form of behavior, which is an important factor in the decision to intervene (e.g., Hektner & Swenson, 2012; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015).

The relationship between certification and increased recognition of intentionality aligns with our finding that SE-certified teachers reported more concern about the frequency and intensity of VA compared with their noncertified colleagues. Given that teachers play a central role in preventing acts of student-to-student aggression (e.g., Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005) and teacher beliefs about aggression are associated with the quality of their response (Ellis & Shute, 2007; Troop-Gordon & Ladd, 2015), this is particularly relevant for the preparation of special educators. Accordingly, SE-certified teachers trained in preventive behavior management may be more attuned to the problematic nature of VA.

Given that Taylor and Smith (2019) found that 64% of the teachers reported that students with EBD responded to VA with physical aggression, SE-certified teachers may be more aware that VA can be an antecedent to physical altercations or fights in their classrooms, which provides a plausible explanation for elevated levels of concern. Notably, varying paths to SE certification (i.e., alternative route, 4-year program, graduate degree) tend to offer different courses, content, or experiences, which may have a distinct correlation with the development of teachers’ perceptions about VA. As such, investigations into these possible relationships are an important area of future research.

SE Certification and Use of Curriculum/Structured Intervention

Interestingly, 38.7% of those who responded indicated that they did not use a structured curriculum or intervention for teaching students strategies to curb the proliferation of VA. This finding mirrors the high percentage of teachers in the Taylor and Smith (2019) study, who reported reactive responses (e.g., verbal warning) to VA rather than providing proactive and explicit skill instruction to increase more prosocial behavior and thus reduce VA. In total, 27% of the teachers surveyed by Taylor and Smith indicated daily reports by students with EBD about VA suggesting some informal instructional opportunities. These unplanned opportunities, however, are not substantive nor comprehensive enough to remediate VA.

Teachers in our sample with SE certification were four and a half times more likely than noncertified teachers to report using a structured curriculum to teach students who were involved in VA. It may be that SE-certified teachers, given their specialized training, are more often assigned by school administrators or school-based teams to provide behavioral support services to students with EBD (e.g., social skills or conflict resolution instruction). Relatedly, SE certification programs may increase teacher’s interventionist-orientation (i.e., belief that student’s disability-related needs are the responsibility of the teacher and can be addressed with accommodations), which Jordan and Stanovich (2001) explained is associated with frequent and effective engagement in meaningful instructional interactions with students with disabilities. As there are no known curricula or evidenced-based interventions targeting VA exclusively, it can be assumed that teachers used general behavioral programs focusing on social skills, antisocial behavior, or bullying that included aspects related to VA perpetration and victimization. Future researchers should investigate the types and effectiveness of interventions teachers use and, importantly, the perceptions of these efforts as judged by students.

Limitations and Future Research

Although a cross-sectional design has distinct advantages such as efficiency of time and resources, and the ability to generate a multitude of findings useful for creating new or more in-depth research (Creswell, 2015), it is not without its limitations. A cross-sectional design is not useful for analyzing behaviors/perceptions of a long period of time, because it only captures a snapshot of a population at a single point.

In addition, our sample was restricted to one state and SE teacher training programs, employment requirements, and certification standards vary across the country (Rosenberg, Boyer, Sindelar, & Misra, 2007; Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005). Some states require as little as a passing score on a subject exam before individuals receive provisional licenses allowing them to fill positions in subjects/areas of known teacher shortages (e.g., SE, rural schools). Although provisional, emergency, or temporary licenses are usually given for a limited time period, standards for qualifying for a full professional license are state specific (Kaye, 2012). The various licensure pathways available, especially when compared with traditional teacher preparation programs, result in critical differences between teachers’ experience with and knowledge of quality pedagogy (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). Thus, as the sample was restricted geographically, the results of this study may not generalize to all teachers who work with students with EBD.

A dichotomous response option was adequate to identify teacher certification status; however, we did not consider the many pathways to certification that a teacher might pursue based on a myriad of circumstances and access to resources (e.g., admittance to teacher education program, funding, and suitable life situations). For establishing the use of a structured curriculum or intervention, we felt it was prudent to use the yes/no option as opposed to having teachers identify the myriad of curricula or programming that they use, which would only allow us to report as anecdotal data. Although a yes/no response option may not be optimal to distinguish nuances relative to the route an individual teacher may have taken to acquire teacher certification and the use of a curriculum or intervention, we believe these areas are worthy of additional scrutiny. Future researchers, in their quest to understand aberrant student behaviors, should gather data about teacher preparation standards, certification requirements, and years of experience to facilitate additional moderator and mediator analyses to discover possible relationships between preparation and use of instructional practices. Correspondingly, specific preservice course content, certification requirements, and completed professional development need to be evaluated as related variables that may impact teacher responsiveness to student behavior in general and specifically to VA.

The SE field could benefit from a thorough review of the available evidenced-based interventions to assess to what extent, if at all, VA is an aim of instruction. Little is known about how VA is situated within interventions, but it is clear from literature reviews and meta-analyses focused on school-based anti-bullying programs (cf. Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011) that VA is not a specified focus of intervention effects. As researchers point out, VA significantly predicts physical aggression among children and adolescents (Cole et al., 2014; Roberto & Wilson, 1996), yet they have distinct attributes conceivably requiring separate intervention strategies. Given the correlation between VA and physical aggression (Hanley & Gibb, 2011) and the corpus of studies indicating that VA victimization predicts depressive symptomology (e.g., Cole et al., 2014), it is necessary for SE teachers who work with students with EBD to have a strong understanding of VA and learn strategies for teaching students’ prosocial responses. Thus, the high rate of VA among students with EBD and the negative short- and long-term outcomes associated with its use require the development of empirically validated curricula and intensive interventions that aim to reduce VA among students with significant behavior problems.

Factors related to teacher beliefs and classroom ecology warrant further investigation as well as data collection from multiple informants. For example, future researchers should examine whether teacher appraisal and decision processes related to general aggression affect their responsiveness to observed VA. Associations among multiple factors may provide salient focal points to guide the reduction of student VA and could inform preservice coursework or in-service professional development about managing general behavior problems and specifically developing new knowledge structures about VA. We did not query teachers about their perceptions on the different motives that may underlie students’ use of VA. Some students with EBD may be highly reactive in their use of VA, whereas other students may rely on VA as a form of proactive aggression. For example, students with poor behavioral self-regulation may react with VA when provoked by peers or when frustrated completing assigned tasks. According to Gumpel and Sutherland (2010), these “provocative victims” (p. 352) often have significant internalizing difficulties and low social status. On the contrary, some youth with EBD may be more socially adept aggressors who engage in proactive VA, such as making threats to harm as a way to exert dominance over their peers. These proactive aggressors often have elevated social standing and belong to a group of other aggressive peers (Pellegrini, 1998). Given the qualitative differences between students who may exhibit reactive and proactive VA and the distinct reasons that drive their use of VA, teachers may have different perceptions about their intent to harm and this may be an area of exploration in future research.

Researchers should also investigate teacher authoritative practices and classroom management procedures as potential ecological variables related to VA among students with EBD (Gest & Rodkin, 2011; Luckner & Pianta, 2011). In addition, the frequency and intensity of VA among students with EBD may vary based on the restrictiveness of educational placement (e.g., self-contained, resource, mainstream) and grade level, thus future studies could test statistical models that include student placement and grade level as variables that effect teacher perceptions about, and/or responses to VA. Finally, little is known about student and parent perspectives about VA. Thus, future researchers should investigate students and parent attitudes and beliefs.

Given the extent and perniciousness of VA and the negative outcomes associated with both experiencing and perpetrating this form of aggression, it is imperative that researchers continue the study of VA and teacher educators prepare school professionals to be aware of, and address effectively, this harmful behavior. Teachers who possess adequate knowledge structure and skills to neutralize VA in school settings will be better positioned to proactively reduce occurrences of physical violence, while also mitigating unhealthy intrapersonal effects.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Stephen W. Smith

Daniel V. Poling

References

Achilles

G. M.

McLaughlin

M. J.

Croninger

R. G.

(2007). Sociocultural correlates of disciplinary exclusion among students with emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities in the SEELS national dataset. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15, 33–45. doi:10.1177/10634266070150010401

Alvarez

H. K.

(2007). The impact of teacher preparation on responses to student aggression in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1113–1126. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.001

Atkin

Smith

Roberto

Fediuk

Wagner

(2002). Correlates of verbally aggressive communication in adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 251–268. doi:10.1080/00909880216585

Bauman

Meter

D. J.

Nixon

Davis

(2016). Targets of peer mistreatment: Do they tell adults? What happens when they do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 118–124. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.013

Boe

E. E.

Shin

Cook

L. H.

(2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170. doi:10.1177/00224669070410030201

Bradley

Doolittle

Bartolotta

(2008). Building on the data and adding to the discussion: The experiences and outcomes of students with emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 4–23. doi:10.1007/s10864-007-9058-6

Bradshaw

C. P.

O’Brennan

Sawyer

(2008). Examining variation in attitudes toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 10–21. doi:10.5330/psc.n.2010-12.10

Bradshaw

C. P.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Johnson

S. L.

(2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44, 494–508. doi:10.1080/15374416.2014.893516

Browder

D. M.

Wood

Thompson

Ribuffo

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities (Document No. IC-3). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/

10.

Burke

Nishioka

(2014). Suspension and expulsion patterns in six Oregon school districts (REL 2014–028). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

11.

Cohn

Canter

(2002). What schools and parents can do. Retrieved from http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/bullying_fs.html

12.

Cole

D. A.

Martin

N. C.

Sterba

S. K.

Sinclair-Mcbride

Roeder

K. M.

Zelkowitz

Bilsky

S. A.

(2014). Peer victimization (and harsh parenting) as developmental correlates of cognitive reactivity, a diathesis for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 336–349. doi:10.1037/a0036489

13.

Côté

Vaillancourt

LeBlanc

J. C.

Nagin

D. S.

Tremblay

R. E

. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre-adolescence: A nationwide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 68–82. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9001-z

14.

Coyne

S. M.

Archer

Eslea

(2006). “We’re not friends anymore! Unless . . . ”: The frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 294–307. doi:10.1002/ab.20126

15.

Creswell

(2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

16.

Darling-Hammond

Chung

Frelow

(2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286–302. doi:10.1177/0022487102053004002

17.

Darling-Hammond

Holtzman

D. J.

Gatlin

S. J.

Heilig

J. V.

(2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1–48. doi:10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005

18.

de Leeuw

E. D.

Hox

J. J.

Dillman

D. A

. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

20.

Ellis

A. A.

Shute

(2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 649–663. doi:10.1348/000709906X163405

21.

Evans

C. B.

Fraser

M. W.

Cotter

K. L.

(2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 532–544. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004

22.

Forness

S. R.

Kim

Walker

H. M.

(2012). Prevalence of students with EBD: Impact on general education. Beyond Behavior, 21(2), 3–10.

23.

Garner

P. W.

(2017). The role of teachers social-emotional competence in their beliefs about peer victimization. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 33, 288–308. doi:10.1080/15377903.2017.1292976

24.

Garner

(1983). Playing the dozens: Folklore as strategies for living. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(1), 47–57. doi:10.1080/00335638309383634

25.

Geiger

Fischer

(2006). Will words ever harm me? Escalation from verbal to physical abuse in sixth-grade classrooms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 337–357. doi:10.1177/0886260505282886

26.

Gest

S. D.

Rodkin

P. C.

(2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 288–296. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004

27.

Goldweber

Waasdorp

T. E.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2013). Examining the link between forms of bullying behaviors and perceptions of safety and belonging among secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 469–485. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.04.004

28.

Gumpel

T. P.

Sutherland

K. S.

(2010). The relation between emotional and behavioral disorders and school-based violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 349–356. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.003

29.

Hanley

A. J.

Gibb

B. E.

(2011). Verbal victimization and changes in hopelessness among elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 772–776. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.59708

30.

Hartley

M. T.

Bauman

Nixon

C. L.

Davis

(2015). Comparative study of bullying victimization among students in general and special education. Exceptional Children, 81, 176-193. doi:10.1177/0014402914551741

31.

Hektner

J. M.

Swenson

C. A.

(2012). Links from teacher beliefs to peer victimization and bystander intervention: Tests of mediating processes. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 516–536. doi:10.1177/0272431611402502

32.

Hendrickson

J. M.

Smith

C. R.

Frank

A. R.

Merical

(1998). Decision making factors associated with placement of students with emotional and behavioral disorders in restrictive educational settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 275–302.

33.

Hillard

Love

Franks

H. M.

Laris

B. A.

Coyle

K. K.

(2013). “They were only joking”: Efforts to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle public schools. Journal of School Health, 84(1), 1–9. doi:10.1111/josh.12120

34.

Infante

D. A.

(1987). Aggressiveness. In McCroskey

J. C.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 152–192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

35.

Infante

D. A.

(1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communication Education, 44, 51–63. doi:10.1080/03634529509378997

36.

Infante

D. A.

Sabourin

Rudd

Shannon

(1990). Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38, 361–371. doi:10.1080/01463379009369773

37.

Jordan

Stanovich

(2001). Patterns of teacher-student interaction in inclusive elementary classrooms and correlates with student self-concept. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 33–52. doi:10.1080/10349120120036297

38.

Kauffman

J. M.

Landrum

T. J.

(2017). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

39.

Kaye

E. A.

(Ed.). (2012). Requirements for certification of teachers, counselors, librarians, administrators for elementary and secondary schools, 2012-2013. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Luckner

A. E.

Pianta

R. C.

(2011). Teacher-student interactions in fifth grade classrooms: Relations with children’s peer behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 257–266. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.010

41.

McLeskey

Brownell

M. T.

(2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR-1). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/High-Leverage-Practices-and-Teacher-Preparation-in-Special-Education.pdf

42.

Merrell

K. W.

Gueldner

B. A.

Ross

S. W.

Isava

D. M.

(2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

43.

Mishna

Pepler

Wiener

(2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims & Offenders, 1, 255–288. doi:10.1080/15564880600626163

44.

Mishna

Scarcello

Pepler

Wiener

(2005). Teachers’ understanding of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 718–738. doi:10.2307/4126452

45.

Morrow

M. T.

Hubbard

J. A.

Barhight

L. J.

Thomson

A. K.

(2014). Fifth-grade children’s daily experiences of peer victimization and negative emotions: Moderating effects of sex and peer rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 1089–1102. doi:10.1007/s10802-014-9870-0

46.

Nagin

Tremblay

R. E.

(1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181–1196. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00086

47.

Neu

(2008). Sticks and stones: The philosophy of insults. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

48.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2017). 39th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2017/parts-b-c/39th-arc-for-idea.pdf

49.

Oliver

R. M.

Reschly

D. J.

(2010). Special education teacher preparation in classroom management: Implications for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 188–199. doi:10.1177/019874291003500301

50.

Pellegrini

A. D.

(1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165–176. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80034-3

51.

Poling

D. V.

Smith

S. W.

Taylor

G. G.

Worth

M. R.

(2019). Direct verbal aggression in school settings: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 46, 127–139. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2019.01.010

52.

Rancer

A. S.

Avtgis

T. A.

(2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

Reid

Gonzalez

J. E.

Nordness

P. D.

Trout

Epstein

M. H.

(2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with emotional/behavioral disturbance. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 130–143. doi:10.1177/00224669040380030101

54.

Roberto

A. J.

Wilson

S. R.

(1996, May). The effects of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and situation on perception of intent and propensity towards violence in adolescent boys. Paper presented to the International Communication Division of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

55.

Rose

C. A.

Espelage

D. L.

(2012). Risk and protective factors associated with the bullying involvement of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 133–148. doi:10.1177/019874291203700302

56.

Rose

C. A.

Espelage

D. L.

Monda-Amaya

L. E.

(2009). Bullying and victimization rates among students in general and special education: A comparative analysis. Educational Psychology, 29, 761–776. doi:10.1080/01443410903254864

57.

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:10.2307/4126452

58.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Boyer

K. L.

Sindelar

P. T.

Misra

S. K.

(2007). Alternative route programs for certification in special education: Program infrastructure, instructional delivery, and participant characteristics. Exceptional Children, 73, 224–241. doi:10.1177/001440290707300206

59.

Rosenberg

M. S.

Sindelar

P. T.

(2005). The proliferation of alternative routes to certification in special education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 117–127. doi:10.1177/00224669050390020201

60.

Rueger

S. Y.

Jenkins

L. N.

(2014). Effects of peer victimization on psychological and academic adjustment in early adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 77–78. doi:10.1037/spq0000036

61.

Simpson

R. L.

Peterson

R. L.

Smith

C. R.

(2011). Critical educational program components for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Science, policy, and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 230–242. doi:10.1177/0741932510361269

62.

Smith

C. R.

Katsiyannis

Ryan

J. B.

(2011). Challenges of serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Legal and policy considerations. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 185–194. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43153536

63.

Smith

P. K.

Shu

(2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193–212. doi:10.1177/0907568200007002005

64.

Stotsky

(2009). Licensure tests for special education teachers: How well they assess knowledge of reading instruction and mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 464–474. doi:10.1177/0022219409338740

65.

Taylor

G. G.

Smith

S. W.

(2019). Teacher reports of verbal aggression in school settings among students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 27, 52–64. doi:10.1177/1063426617739638

66.

Troop-Gordon

Ladd

G. W.

(2015). Teachers’ victimization-related beliefs and strategies: Associations with students’ aggressive behavior and peer victimization. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 45–60. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9840-y

67.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1

68.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2016, August). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990-1991 through 2016-2017 (OMB No. 1840–0595). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf

69.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among US adolescents: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

70.

Zhang

Katsiyannis

Herbst

. (2004). Disciplinary exclusions in special education: A 4-year analysis. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 337–347. doi:10.1177/019874290402900402