Çocukluk ve Ergenlik Dönemindeki Adli Olgularda Akran Zorbalığının Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, akran zorbalığı sonrasında adli değerlendirme amacıyla yönlendirilen çocuk ve ergenlerin sosyodemografik özelliklerini, zorbalık alt boyutlarını ve adli özelliklerini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Akran zorbalığı nedeniyle Adli Tıp Polikliniğine yönlendirilen 104 çocuk ve ergenin dahil edildiği bu kesitsel araştırmada, veriler prospektif olarak toplandı. Katılımcılar çocuk (8–13 yaş, n=39) ve ergen (14–18 yaş, n=65) olarak gruplandırılmıştır. Veriler, Akran Zorbalığını Belirleme Ölçeği, Sosyodemografik Veri Formu ve Darp Nedeniyle Başvuran Hastalara Yönelik Anket Formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Zorbalık puanları normal dağılım göstermediğinden, sürekli değişkenler medyan (minimum–maksimum) olarak sunulmuştur.

Bulgular: Çocuklarda mağdur ve zorba puanlarının medyan değerleri sırasıyla 67,5 (37–148) ve 49 (37–69), ergenlerde ise 67 (53–131) ve 61 (53–96) olarak bulunmuştur. Katılımcıların çoğunluğu kentsel bölgelerde ve her iki ebeveyniyle birlikte yaşamaktaydı. Sigara, alkol ve madde kullanımı ergenlerde daha yaygındı. En sık bildirilen olay türü hakaret/küfür, en sık yaralanma mekanizması ise yumruktu. Çocuklarda kızların söylenti yayma ve mala zarar verme mağduriyeti puanları daha yüksekken, erkeklerin fiziksel zorbalık uygulama puanları daha yüksekti. Zorbalıkla ilişkili puanlar ebeveyn eğitim düzeyi, akademik başarı ve okul memnuniyetine göre farklılık gösterdi. Ergenlerde erkeklerin cinsel zorbalık uygulama puanları daha yüksekken, dışlanma ve toplam zorbalık puanları sınıf düzeyine göre farklılık gösterdi.

Sonuç: Akran zorbalığı nedeniyle adli değerlendirmeye yönlendirilen çocuk ve ergenlerde zorbalıkla ilişkili özellikler sosyodemografik, eğitimsel ve ailevi faktörlerle ilişkili bulunmuştur. Bu bulgular, adli değerlendirmeye yönlendirilen bir örneklemden elde edilen tanımlayıcı kanıtlar sunmakta olup, daha büyük, çok merkezli ve uzunlamasına çalışmalarla doğrulanmalıdır.

Keywords

• Akran zorbalığı
• mağdur
• zorba
• çocuk ve ergen
• adli tıp

Ethical Statement

Çalışma için Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Klinik Araştırma Etik Kurulu’ndan etik onay alınmıştır (Karar No. 2022/09-19). Tüm katılımcıların ebeveynlerinden veya yasal vasilerinden yazılı bilgilendirilmiş onam alınmış, uygun olduğu durumlarda çocuk ve ergenlerden de rıza alınmıştır. Çalışma, Helsinki Bildirgesi ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Evaluation of Peer Bullying in Pediatric Forensic Cases

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics, bullying subdimensions, and forensic characteristics of children and adolescents referred for forensic evaluation following peer bullying.

Material and Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional study included 104 children and adolescents referred to a Forensic Medicine Outpatient Clinic due to peer bullying. Participants were categorized as children (8–13 years, n=39) and adolescents (14–18 years, n=65). Data were collected using versions of the Peer Bullying Identification Scale, a Sociodemographic Data Form, and the Questionnaire for Patients Presenting Due to Assault. Because bullying scores were not normally distributed, continuous variables are presented as median (minimum–maximum).

Results: Median victim and perpetrator scores were 67.5 (37–148) and 49 (37–69) in children, and 67 (53–131) and 61 (53–96) in adolescents, respectively. Participants lived predominantly in urban areas and with both parents. Smoking, alcohol, and substance use were more common among adolescents. Insulting or swearing was the most common incident type, and injuries resulted from punching. Among children, girls had higher rumor-spreading and damage-to-property victimization scores, whereas boys had higher physical bullying perpetration scores. Bullying-related scores differed according to parental educational level, academic achievement, and school satisfaction. Among adolescents, males had higher sexual bullying perpetration scores, while exclusion and total bullying scores differed according to grade level.

Conclusion: Among children and adolescents referred for forensic evaluation because of peer bullying, bullying-related characteristics were associated with sociodemographic, educational, and family-related factors. These findings provide descriptive evidence from a referred sample and should be confirmed in larger, multicenter longitudinal studies.

Keywords

• Peer bullying
• victim
• perpetrator
• child and adolescent
• forensic medicine

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Kütahya Health Sciences University Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision No. 2022/09-19). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents or legal guardians of all participants, and assent was obtained from children and adolescents when appropriate. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

References

1. Olweus D. Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 1993.
2. Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, Dostaler S, Hetland J, Simons-Morton B, et al. A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(Suppl 2):216-24. doi:10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9.
3. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Health. 2014;55(5):602-11. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007.
4. Arseneault L. Annual research review: the persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence: implications for policy and practice. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;59(4):405-21. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12841.
5. Gürhan N. Her yönü ile akran zorbalığı. Turkiye Klinikleri J Psychiatr Nurs-Special Topics. 2017;3(2):175-81.
6. Nansel TR, Craig W, Overpeck MD, Saluja G, Ruan WJ. Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(8):730-6. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.8.730.
7. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Loeber R. The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2011;21(2):80-9. doi:10.1002/cbm.808.
8. Valdebenito S, Ttofi M, Eisner M. Prevalence rates of drug use among school bullies and victims: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Aggress Violent Behav. 2015;23:137-46. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.004.

9. Armitage R. Bullying in children: impact on child health. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2021;5(1):e000939. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000939.
10. Lee SS, Wong DS. School, parents, and peer factors in relation to Hong Kong students bullying. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2009;15(3):217-33. doi:10.1080/02673843.2009.9748030.
11. Wolke D, Lereya ST. Long-term effects of bullying. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(9):879-85. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2014-306667.
12. Farrington DP, Ttofi MM. School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Syst Rev. 2009;5(1):i-148. doi:10.4073/csr.2009.6.
13. Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003;18(2):129-47. doi:10.1177/0886260502238731.
14. Delfabbro P, Winefield T, Trainor S, Dollard M, Anderson S, Metzer J, et al. Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: prevalence and psychosocial profiles. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76(Pt 1):71-90. doi:10.1348/000709904X24645.
15. Duncan RD. Peer and sibling aggression: an investigation of intra- and extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1999;14(8):871-86. doi:10.1177/088626099014008005.
16. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Dev. 1995;66(3):710-22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x.
17. Storch EA, Masia-Warner C. The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety and loneliness in adolescent females. J Adolesc. 2004;27(3):351-62. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.003.
18. Juvonen J, Graham S. Bullying in schools: the power of bullies and the plight of victims. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:159-85. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115030.
19. Stevens V, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Oost P. Relationship of the family environment to children's involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2002;31(6):419-28. doi:10.1023/A:1020207003027.
20. Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: 'much ado about nothing'? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717-29. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991383.
21. Gökler R. Okullarda akran zorbalığı. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi. 2009;6(2):511-37.
22. Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(Suppl 1):240-53. doi:10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740.
23. Karaman Kepenekci Y, Çınkır Ş. Bullying among Turkish high school students. Child Abuse Negl. 2006;30(2):193-204. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.005.
24. UNICEF. Hidden in plain sight: a statistical analysis of violence against children [Internet]. New York: UNICEF; 2014 [cited 2026 Sep 18]. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/resources/hidden-in-plain-sight-a-statistical-analysis-of-violence-against-children
25. Uysal Toraman A, Dağhan Ş, Kısa Ö. Akran zorbalığını önlemede okul tabanlı müdahale programları: sistematik derleme. Humanistic Perspective. 2021;3(2):359-99. doi:10.47793/hp.936791.
26. Tofi M, Farrington D, Baldry AC. Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying: A systematic review. Report prepared for the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Stockholm, Sweden: Edita Norstedts Västerås; 2008.
27. Kärnä A, Voeten M, Little TD, Poskiparta E, Kaljonen A, Salmivalli C. A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 4-6. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):311-30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x.
28. Olweus D, Limber SP. Bullying in school: evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80(1):124-34. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x.
29. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011;82(1):405-32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
30. Espelage DL, Swearer SM. A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and intervention: understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters. In: Jimerson SR, Swearer SM, Espelage DL, editors. Handbook of bullying in schools: an international perspective. New York: Routledge; 2010. p. 61-72. doi:10.4324/9780203842898.
31. Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, Espelage DL. Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: theory and a three-level meta-analysis. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2015;37(1):36-51. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005.
32. T.C. Adalet Bakanlığı. Adli tıp kurumu kanunu (Kanun No. 2659). Sayı 17670 [Internet]. Ankara: T.C. Resmi Gazete [Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye]; 1982 Apr 20 [cited 2026 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/17670.pdf
33. T.C. Adalet Bakanlığı. Ceza muhakemesi kanunu (Kanun No. 5271). Sayı 25673 [Internet]. Ankara: T.C. Resmi Gazete [Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye]; 2004 Dec 17 [cited 2026 Sep 18]. Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2004/12/20041217.htm#1
34. Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Brent D, Rao U, Flynn C, Moreci P, et al. Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980-8. doi:10.1097/00004583-199707000-00021.
35. Ünal F, Öktem F, Çetin Çuhadaroğlu F, Çengel Kültür SE, Akdemir D, Foto Özdemir D, et al. Okul Çağı Çocukları için Duygulanım Bozuklukları ve Şizofreni Görüşme Çizelgesi–Şimdi ve Yaşam Boyu Şekli–DSM–5 Kasım 2016 –Türkçe uyarlamasının (ÇDŞG–ŞY–DSM–5–T) geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2019;30(1):42-50.
36. Pişkin M, Ayas T. Akran zorbalığı ölçeği: çocuk formu. Akademik Bakış. 2011;(23):1-12.
37. Ayas T, Pişkin M. Akran zorbalığı belirleme ölçeği ergen formu. Akademik Bakış. 2015;(50):316-24. izlik no:JA45BL57CL.
38. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91. doi:10.3758/BF03193146.
39. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-60. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
40. Craig WM, Pepler DJ. Identifying and targeting risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Can J Psychiatry. 2003;48(9):577-82. doi:10.1177/070674370304800903.
41. Fekkes M, Pijpers FIM, Verloove-Vanhorick SP. Bullying: who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(1):81-91. doi:10.1093/her/cyg100.
42. Silva MAI, Pereira B, Mendonça D, Nunes B, Oliveira WA. The involvement of girls and boys with bullying: an analysis of gender differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(12):6820-31. doi:10.3390/ijerph10126820.
43. Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev. 2008;28(1):78-106. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.
44. Casey BJ, Jones RM, Hare TA. The adolescent brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1124:111-26. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.010.
45. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Dev. 2008;79(5):1185-229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.
46. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094-100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094.
47. Pellegrini AD, Long JD. A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. Br J Dev Psychol. 2002;20(2):259-80. doi:10.1348/026151002166442.
48. Wang W, Brittain H, McDougall P, Vaillancourt T. Bullying and school transition: context or development? Child Abuse Negl. 2016;51:237-48. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.004.
49. Pepler D, Jiang D, Craig W, Connolly J. Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Dev. 2008;79(2):325-38. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x.
50. Jansen PW, Verlinden M, Dommisse-van Berkel A, Mieloo C, van der Ende J, Veenstra R, et al. Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health. 2012;12:494. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-494.
51. Analitis F, Velderman MK, Ravens-Sieberer U, Detmar S, Erhart M, Herdman M, et al. Being bullied: associated factors in children and adolescents 8 to 18 years old in 11 European countries. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):569-77. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0323.
52. Georgiou SN. Parental style and child bullying and victimization experiences at school. Soc Psychol Educ. 2008;11(3):213-27. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9048-5.
53. Bowes L, Arseneault L, Maughan B, Taylor A, Caspi A, Moffitt TE. School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children's bullying involvement: a nationally representative longitudinal study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48(5):545-53. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819cb017.
54. Lereya ST, Samara M, Wolke D. Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: a meta-analysis study. Child Abuse Negl. 2013;37(12):1091-108. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001.
55. Çetinkaya S, Nur N, Ayvaz A, Özdemir D, Kavakcı Ö. Sosyoekonomik durumu farklı üç ilköğretim okulu öğrencilerinde akran zorbalığının depresyon ve benlik saygısı düzeyiyle ilişkisi. Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg. 2009;10(2):151-8.
56. Evans GW, Kim P. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping. Child Dev Perspect. 2013;7(1):43-8. doi:10.1111/cdep.12013.
57. Thomsen KR, Callesen MB, Hesse M, Kvamme TL, Pedersen MM, Pedersen MU, et al. Impulsivity traits and addiction-related behaviors in youth. J Behav Addict. 2018;7(2):317-30. doi:10.1556/2006.7.2018.22.
58. Chen M, Chan KL. Parental absence, child victimization, and psychological well-being in rural China. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;59:45-54. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.07.009.
59. Spriggs AL, Iannotti RJ, Nansel TR, Haynie DL. Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41(3):283-93. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009.
60. Holt MK, Kaufman Kantor G, Finkelhor D. Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. J Sch Violence. 2009;8(1):42-63. doi:10.1080/15388220802067813.
61. Nawi AM, Ismail R, Ibrahim F, Hassan MR, Manaf MRA, Amit N, et al. Risk and protective factors of drug abuse among adolescents: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:2088. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11906-2.
62. Yerger W, Gehret C. Understanding and dealing with bullying in schools. Educ Forum. 2011;75(4):315-26. doi:10.1080/00131725.2011.602468.
63. Wójcik M, Hełka AM. Meeting the needs of young adolescents: ABBL anti-bullying program during middle school transition. Psychol Rep. 2019;122(3):1043-67. doi:10.1177/0033294118768671.
64. Olweus D. Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: long-term consequences and an effective intervention program. In: Hodgins S, editor. Mental disorder and crime. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. p. 317-49.
65. Smith PK. Bullying in schools: the UK experience and the Sheffield Anti-Bullying Project. Ir J Psychol. 1997;18(2):191-201. doi:10.1080/03033910.1997.10558139.
66. Ortega R, Del Rey R, Mora-Merchán JA. SAVE model: an anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In: Smith PK, Pepler D, Rigby K, editors. Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 167-86. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511584466.010.
67. Pepler DJ, Craig WM, Ziegler S, Charach A. An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Can J Community Ment Health. 1994;13(2):95-110. doi:10.7870/cjcmh-1994-0014.
68. Minton SJ, O'Moore AM. The effectiveness of a nationwide intervention programme to prevent and counter school bullying in Ireland. Rev Int J Psicol Ter Psicol. 2008;8(1):1-12.
69. Horner RH, Sugai G, Anderson CM. Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus Except Child. 2010;42(8):1-14. doi:10.17161/foec.v42i8.6906.
70. Gradinger P, Yanagida T, Strohmeier D, Spiel C. Effectiveness and sustainability of the ViSC Social Competence Program to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victimization: class and individual level moderators. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):181-93. doi:10.1002/ab.21631.
71. Cross D, Hall M, Hamilton G, Pintabona Y, Erceg E. Australia: the friendly schools project. In: Smith PK, Pepler D, Rigby K, editors. Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004. p. 187-210. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511584466.011.
72. Cross D, Monks H, Hall M, Shaw T, Pintabona Y, Erceg E, et al. Three-year results of the Friendly Schools whole-of-school intervention on children's bullying behaviour. Br Educ Res J. 2011;37(1):105-29. doi:10.1080/01411920903420024.