Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-021-00873-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Factors Related to Immigrant/Nonimmigrant Children’s Experience
of Being Bullied: An Analysis Using the Multiple Disadvantage Model
Tyrone C. Cheng1
· Celia C. Lo2
Received: 30 January 2021 / Accepted: 2 July 2021 / Published online: 14 July 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
Applying the multiple disadvantage model, a study of children in the United States examined experiences of being bullied in
terms of 5 factors: social disorganization, social structural factors, social relationships, mental health and access to care, and
acculturation. The study was a secondary data analysis of 19,882 immigrant and non-immigrant children, using data from
the 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health. Logistic regression results show children’s likelihood of being bullied to be
associated positively with racial discrimination; child mental health problem (either attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
depression, anxiety, behavioral/conduct problem, or Tourette Syndrome); family substance use; being female; being age 6–10;
being age 11–13; and parent education level. Likelihood of being bullied was associated negatively with safe neighborhood;
being Black; being Asian; family cohesiveness; neighbor support; parent mental health; being a first- or second-generation
immigrant; and parent age. The results imply the usefulness of interventions promoting racial harmony and family support.
Keywords Bullying victimization · Racial discrimination · Mental health · Family support · Acculturation
Introduction
Bullying is aggression repeatedly displayed by a perpetrator who has a power advantage over a victim, who is unable
to self-defend against the repeated aggression (Gladden
et al., 2014; Shea et al., 2016). Research results have suggested that, in the United States, 10.6% to 28.0% of children are victims of bullying at school (Lim & Hoot, 2015;
U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Moreover, one study
reported that 18.3% to 54% of immigrant children in the
U.S. experience bullying at school (Shea et al., 2016). Two
others, however, found no association between immigrant
status and bullying victimization among children (Abada
et al., 2008; Lim & Hoot, 2015). Among American children
with mental health problems, moreover, 35% to 47% report
experiencing bullying victimization (Jackson et al., 2019).
* Tyrone C. Cheng
ccheng@sw.ua.edu; tyronecheng@yahoo.com
Celia C. Lo
clo@twu.edu
1
School of Social Work, University of Alabama, Little Hall,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, USA
2
Department of Sociology, Texas Woman’s University, CFO
306, P. O. Box 425887, Denton, TX 76204, USA
It remains important to continue to try to identify factors
perhaps involved in being bullied, among immigrant and
nonimmigrant children alike.
Literature Review
Investigating potential factors in children’s experience of
bullying victimization, the present research used the multiple disadvantage model, which proposes that socioeconomic
disadvantages and associated distress affect family and
peer relationships negatively. The model has been applied
in explaining racial disparities in victimization (Lo et al.,
2013, 2015; Cheng & Lo, 2015). In this study, the multiple
disadvantage model was employed in testing roles played by
five socioeconomic disadvantages in children’s experience of
bullying victimization. The five were social disorganization,
social structural factors, social relationships, mental health
and access to care, and substance use (see Fig. 1).
Prior studies with children in the general population
have indicated a link between bullying victimization and
social disorganization, which may include residing in an
unkempt, crime-ridden, unsafe neighborhood that exposes
children to a subculture reliant on intimidation (Cook et al.,
2010; Espelage et al., 2000; Holt et al., 2014). Socially
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
690
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Social Disorganizaon
--Rundown neighborhood
--Unsafe neighborhood
--Racial discriminaon
Social Structural Factors
--Race/ethnicity
--Socio-economic status
--Gender & age as controls
Mental Health–
Related Factors
--Child/parent
mental health
--Access to care
Acculturaon
Parental
substance use
Child being
bullied
Social Relaonships
--Family support
--Social support
--Single-parent family
Fig. 1 The multiple disadvantage model explaining children’s experience of being bullied (The figure was adopted from Cheng, Tyrone
C., and Li, Q. (2017). Adolescent delinquency in child welfare sys-
tem: A multiple disadvantage model. Children and Youth Service
Review, 73, 205-212)
disorganized neighborhoods often number immigrant families among their residents (Sidhu & Song, 2019; Yoshikawa
& Kalil, 2011), which led the present researchers to speculate that living in a neighborhood that is rundown and unsafe
from criminal perpetrators is linked to immigrant children’s
experience of bully victimization.
Moreover, the multiple disadvantage model holds that
structural racism continually frustrates persons of minority
ethnicity (Lo et al., 2013). Thus race/ethnicity and racism
are social structural factors that may figure importantly in
children’s experience of bully victimization. Perhaps not surprisingly, the literature indicates that racially discriminatory
comments are often made by those perpetrating bullying
(Koo et al., 2012; Mendez et al., 2016; Seaton et al., 2013;
Walton, 2018; Wang et al., 2020). Some studies have found
American children of Latino and Asian ethnicity to be bullied less often at school compared to White children (Koo
et al., 2012; Peguero, 2009; U.S. Department of Education,
2011; Wang et al., 2020). One, however, found the rate of
bullying among White children to be lower than that among
their peers of minority ethnicity (Mendez et al., 2016),
while two more studies observed no significant difference
in bullying victimization between these groups (Holt et al.,
2014; Hong et al., 2020). Like ethnicity, gender may affect
childhood experience of bullying victimization. At least
three investigations have concluded that male respondents
reported experiencing more bullying than female respondents did (Holt et al., 2014; Hong et al., 2020; Wang et al.,
2020). In contrast, a different study found just the opposite
(Merrill & Hanson, 2016), and yet another found girls who
had immigrated from Asian nations experienced more bullying than did White nonimmigrant boys (Koo et al., 2012).
Additionally, three published studies indicate younger
children are more often bullied than older ones (Cappadocia
et al., 2012; Holt et al., 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Social structural factors describing their parents also
appear to figure in children’s experience of being bullied.
Specifically, parents’ education, employment status, and
income have been implicated in victimization. One American study showed that having relatively less educated parents
elevated children’s likelihood of being bullied (Hong et al.,
2020); in turn, a Canadian study observed no link between
parents’ education and children’s bullying victimization
(Abada et al., 2008). Additionally, at least two prior studies
report that children in low-income families are relatively
likely to be bullied, compared to higher-income peers (Hong
et al., 2020; Mendez et al., 2016), although two others report
no link of parents’ income to children’s experience of bullying (Abada et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Education,
2011). Poverty is a disadvantage affecting many immigrant
children (Chaudry et al., 2010; Gulbas et al., 2016; Sidhu
& Song, 2019), since immigrant parents often face underemployment and the resulting financial hardships. Stressed
by these things, immigrant parents may often be unable to
attend fully to children’s development and concerns (Shea
et al., 2016; Yoshikawa & Kalil, 2011). While there is scant
published literature on relationships among immigrant children’s experience of bullying and their parents’ education,
employment status, and income, the authors of the present
study speculate that strong negative links may exist, for
immigrant and nonimmigrant children alike.
When parents and children face multiple socioeconomic
disadvantages, supportive social relationships can alleviate
the distress of that experience. Parents with strong social networks tend to demonstrate effective parenting (McConnell
13
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
et al., 2011); for immigrant children, support from parents
and family, as well as peers, seem to reduce risk of being bullied (DeJonckheere et al., 2017; Gulbas et al., 2016), and the
same link has been observed in studies of children generally
(Abada et al., 2008; Cook et al., 2010; Hong et al., 2020).
A study of children in Canada found those in single-parent
families were more likely to be bullied than other families
(Abada et al., 2008). The finding implies the important role
of spousal support in minimizing children’s experience of
bullying victimization. Interestingly, one study in the literature shows that immigrant children derive social support
from relationships with healthcare providers who understand
and respect norms of the children’s native cultures (Sidhu
& Song, 2019). Another study, however, observed no significant relationship between immigrant children’s bullying
victimization and the degree or quality of communication
established between parents and these children’s healthcare
providers (Wong et al., 2017). The present research reflects
the simple speculation that, for immigrant and nonimmigrant
children, experience of bullying victimization may be associated positively with single-parent family and associated
negatively with supportive social relationships, including
family relationships.
As already noted, children’s rates of bullying victimization may be even higher in the presence of a mental disorder.
Such disorders in children are fostered by socioeconomic
disadvantages. In children, the disorders attention deficit/
hyperactivity (ADHD), depression, generalized anxiety,
autism, pervasive developmental disorder (PDD), and Tourette syndrome are all linked to relatively higher odds of
being bullied (Abada et al., 2008; Cappadocia et al., 2012;
Charania et al., 2019; Crawford & Manassis, 2011; DeJonckheere et al., 2017; Jawaid et al., 2012; Mayes et al., 2015;
Pontillo et al., 2019; Simmons & Antshel, 2021; Yockey
et al., 2019; Zinner et al., 2012). Furthermore, parents dealing with their own mental health problems may be unable
to provide their children with supportive parenting (Waylen
& Stewart-Brown, 2010); among children who are bullied,
links have been observed between that experience and their
own mental health problems (Abada et al., 2008; Cappadocia et al., 2012; Merrill & Hanson, 2016; Ong et al., 2021)
as well as their parents’ mental health problems (Cappadocia
et al., 2012). One study reported that immigrant children
with mental health problems were more likely to be bullied
than not (DeJonckheere et al., 2017).
Bullying victimization among children may be related to
their parents’ use of substances. One investigation found less
than 13% of mothers with depression to seek professional
care (Cheng & Lo, 2016) (Woolhouse et al., 2009), and parents who go without such care probably are likelier than
parents who do get treatment to self-medicate with alcohol
and/or drugs. Such use of substances, of course, tends to further impair both mental health and parenting competence. At
691
least one published study reports a link between children’s
experience of being bullied and their parents’ alcohol use
(Eiden et al., 2010).
One socioeconomic disadvantage commonly affecting
American families is the lack of insurance. Lack of health
coverage can affect children’s mental health, with uninsured
children reported more likely to have a mental health problem, versus insured children (Akobirshoev et al., 2017; Ong
et al., 2021). The literature presents mixed findings concerning a relationship between possession of health insurance by
an immigrant child’s parent and that child’s use of mental
health services. Two studies of immigrant children of Latino
ethnicity found those children to be relatively unlikely, compared to other children, to be covered by a health insurance
policy (Carson et al., 2011; Flores & Vega, 1998), although
two additional studies did not observe this association to
characterize immigrant children of Latino or Asian ethnicity
(Finno-Velasquez et al., 2016; Spencer et al., 2010). The present researchers speculated that, for immigrant and nonimmigrant children alike, experience of bullying victimization
is associated in a negative direction with family possession
of health insurance.
Facilitating use of the multiple disadvantage model to
assess immigrant children’s bullying victimization likelihood, the present researchers explored immigrant children’s acculturation. Specifically, they examined acculturation’s relationship to victimization. Through the process of
acculturation, immigrants adjust to and/or are changed by
some culture beyond their native culture (Zea et al., 2003).
Findings in the literature indicate that first-generation immigrant children report fewer mental health problems, versus
second-generation ones, due to a tendency among the first
generation to suppress one’s mental health needs to promote
maintenance of ethnic identity (Pumariega & Rothe, 2010).
In contrast, second-generation immigrant children are caught
between the old culture and the new (Pumariega & Rothe,
2010), which can present certain challenges to mental health
(Pumariega et al., 2005). According to one study of distinct
ethnic groups, differences in patterns of bullying victimization are generational. First- and second-generation immigrant children of Latino ethnicity were found less likely to
be bullied, compared to the third generation; and first- and
second-generation immigrant children of Asian ethnicity
were found more likely to be bullied, compared to the third
generation (Peguero, 2009). This suggests that acculturation
process can be a challenge or problem for a specific generation of immigrant children.
How completely an immigrant has become acculturated
is indicated by, among other things, the proficiency demonstrated with the dominant language (Celenk & Van de Vijver,
2011; Guerrero et al., 2015; Lakey, 2003). Just 43% of Asian
immigrants in one U.S. study demonstrated proficiency with
English (Ragavan et al., 2018), while less than 39% of Latino
13
692
children examined in a different study demonstrated such
proficiency (Santiago et al., 2014). In yet another study, children’s experience of being bullied was found to exhibit an
association in negative direction with speaking English at
home (Yu et al., 2003).
Hypothesis
The reviewed literature provided only a small number of
U.S. studies of immigrant children focusing on factors in
their bullying victimization experience. The present study
hypothesized that such victimization would be associated
with measures of children’s (a) social disorganization (e.g.,
maintenance of neighborhood, safety of neighborhood, racism in community), (b) social structural factors (e.g., race/
ethnicity, parent’s education, parent’s employment, family
income), (c) social relationships (e.g., family support, social
support, single-mother household), (d) mental health and
access to care (e.g., child/parent mental health, substance
use by family members, possession of health insurance), and
(e) acculturation (e.g., first/second/third-generation, English
spoken at home).
Method
Sample
This secondary data analysis of a nationally representative
sample of 19,882 children was extracted from a public-use
data set, the 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health
(NSCH). Between June 2018 and January 2019, NSCH
researchers interviewed 30,530 children and their caregivers,
gathering information on health status, insurance coverage,
social relationships, family relationships, and neighborhood
characteristics (Child & Adolescent Health Measurement
Initiative, 2020). The present sample was limited to children
age 6–17 years who lived with their biological parents and/
or stepparents, some of whom had immigrated to the U.S.
As a secondary data analysis, the present research received
exempted approval from the institutional review board of
the university.
Measures
This study’s dichotomous (yes/no) outcome variable, being
bullied, indicated if a child had been bullied, picked on, or
excluded by others at least once in the 12 months preceding interview. The study employed six groups of explanatory variables: social disorganization, social structural factors, social relationships, mental health and access to care,
acculturation, and demographic characteristics (see Table 1).
The social disorganization group comprised three variables.
13
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Rundown neighborhood (yes/no) denoted whether a parent
described the neighborhood of residence as (a) “litter or
garbage on street or sidewalk,” (b) “poorly kept or rundown
housing,” or (c) “vandalism such as broken windows or graffiti.” The safe neighborhood variable described how safe the
neighborhood of residence was for the child, using a range
of responses: 4 (definitely agree), 3 (somewhat agree), 2
(somewhat disagree), and 1 (definitely disagree). Finally,
racial discrimination (yes/no) indicated whether a parent
had reported a child was at some point treated or judged
by a member of the community solely on the basis of race/
ethnicity.
Three measures constituted the social structural factors.
A child’s race/ethnicity was described using the dummy
variables White (the reference), Black, Hispanic, Asian, and
other race/ethnicity. Nine numbered categories were used
to describe parent’s educational attainment: 1 (8th grade or
below), 2 (9–12th grade), 3 (graduated high school or GED),
4 (vocational school), 5 (some college), 6 (associate degree),
7 (undergraduate degree), 8 (master’s degree), 9 (doctoral
or professional degree). The dichotomous measure employed
parent indicated each parent who had been a paid employee
during 50 of the 52 weeks preceding the interview. Last,
family income-to-poverty ratio gave the percentage of federal
poverty level represented by the income of a child’s family;
measures of this ratio were part of the original NSCH data
set.
Six explanatory variables made up the variables group
assessing social relationships. Single mother (yes/no) indicated a child’s caretaker was the female parent, who was
a single parent. Family cohesiveness was measured as the
combined score from two survey items that elicited information about how a family responded to problems they faced,
using the levels “the family talks together about what to do”
and “the family has strengths to draw on.” Each item was
measured via the following 4-point scale: 1 (none of the
time), 2 (some of the time), 3 (most of the time), and 4 (all
the time). Higher combined scores implied stronger family
cohesiveness. The Cronbach’s alpha for the two items was
.81. As well, family support (yes/no) indicated whether a
parent received emotional support from a spouse/partner,
other family members, or friends. Similarly, professional
support (yes/no) indicated whether a parent received emotional support from a counselor or health care provider, and
peer/religious group support (yes/no) indicated whether a
parent received emotional support from a group of peers or
a religious group. Finally, neighbor support was the total
score from three survey items asking parents how much they
agreed that adults in their neighborhoods (a) know where
to get help, (b) watch out for each other’s children, and (c)
provide help to others. Responses for each item ranged from
4 to 1, as follows: 4 (definitely agree), 3 (somewhat agree),
2 (somewhat disagree), and 1 (definitely disagree). Higher
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of
children (n = 19,882)
693
Percent
Outcome variable
Being bullied (yes)
(no)
Social disorganization factors
Rundown neighborhood (yes)
(no)
Safe neighborhood
Racial discrimination (yes)
(no)
Social structural factors
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other race/ethnicity
Parent educational attainment
Employed parent (yes)
(no)
Family income-to-poverty ratio (%)
Social relationships
Single mother (yes)
(no)
Family cohesiveness
Family support (yes)
(no)
Professional support (yes)
(no)
Peer/religious group support (yes)
(no)
Neighbor support
Mental health and access to care
ADHD (yes)
(no)
Depression (yes)
(no)
Anxiety (yes)
(no)
Behavioral/conduct problem (yes)
(no)
Autism spectrum disorder/pervasive developmental disorder (yes)
(no)
Tourette syndrome (yes)
(no)
Other mental health problem/condition (yes)
(no)
Parent mental health
Family mental health problem (yes)
(no)
Family substance use (yes)
(no)
Mean
Range
sd
50.6
49.4
20.5
79.5
4.0
96.0
71.7
5.8
11.6
4.8
7.1
78.5
21.5
14.6
85.4
80.3
19.7
25.1
74.9
30.3
69.7
3.7
1–4
.6
6.1
1–9
1.9
292.9
50–400
122.0
6.8
2–8
1.3
10.0
3–12
1.9
4.1
1–5
.9
12.6
87.4
6.7
93.3
14.0
86.0
9.1
90.9
3.3
96.7
0.3
99.7
0.4
99.6
9.5
90.5
9.9
90.1
13
694
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Table 1 (continued)
Percent
Insured (yes)
(no)
Acculturation
1st-generation immigrant family
2nd-generation immigrant family
3rd-generation immigrant family
English spoken at home (yes)
(no)
Demographic characteristics
Girl
Boy
Child age: 6 to 10 years
Child age: 11 to 13 years
Child age: 14 to 17 years
Parent age (years)
Mean
Range
sd
95.8
4.2
2.1
15.5
82.4
93.2
6.8
47.5
52.5
34.2
24.6
41.2
44.0
18–75
7.5
sd standard deviation
total scores suggested stronger networks of supportive
neighbors. These three survey items yielded a Cronbach’s
alpha of .80.
The fourth group of explanatory variables represented
mental health and access to care. Seven dichotomous variables were used to indicate whether a doctor had ever diagnosed the child respondent with ADHD, depression, anxiety, behavioral/conduct problem, autism spectrum disorder/
pervasive developmental disorder, Tourette syndrome, and
other mental health problem/condition. In contrast, parent
mental health was a self-reported measure using a 5-point
response scale: 1 (poor), 2 (fair), 3 (good), 4 (very good),
and 5 (excellent). Family mental health problem denoted
dichotomously whether a child ever lived with a mentally ill,
suicidal, or severely depressed individual. Family substance
use, also dichotomous, indicated if a child ever lived with an
individual who used alcohol or drugs problematically. The
yes/no variable insured described a child’s access to health
care in terms of the family’s possession of health insurance
coverage.
Three explanatory variables measured the acculturation
of a family in the study. Two dichotomous dummy variables
were allowed to indicate what stage of the acculturation
process characterized child and parent. A first-generation
immigrant family included a child born outside the U.S. plus
at least one parent born outside U.S. A second-generation
immigrant family included a child born in the U.S. plus at
least one parent born outside U.S. The reference for these
two variables was third-generation family, in which the child
and both parents were born within U.S. borders. Additionally, the dichotomous variable English spoken at home
stated whether a family largely used English as their language at home. (The measure was an indicator of a family’s
13
English-language proficiency.) Finally, three demographic
variables provided controls during modeling: parent age (in
years), girl (versus boy), and child age, indicated using three
age ranges: 6–10 years, 11–13 years, and 14–17 years (the
reference).
Data Analysis
Since the present study used a binary outcome variable,
STATA logistic regression was employed to conduct linearized variance estimations with robust standard errors.
Sampling weights provided by NSCH researchers were,
furthermore, applied. No multicollinearity problems among
employed explanatory variables were suggested by the conducted preliminary analyses of tolerance statistics (.62 or
higher) and correlations (− .41 ≤ r ≤ .45).
Results
Sightly over half (50.6%) of child respondents in this analysis of data gathered in 2018 were reportedly bullied at some
point during the period under study (see Table 1). Just 20.5%
of the children resided in rundown neighborhoods, and on
average their parents “somewhat agreed” that the neighborhood of residence was safe for the child, their average
score being 3.7. Parent respondents reported just 4.0% of
child respondents had experienced racial discrimination.
Child respondent race/ethnicity broke down as follows:
White, 71.7%; Black, 5.8%; Hispanic, 11.6%; Asian, 4.8%;
other race/ethnicity, 7.1%. On average, parent’s education
level was 6.1 (associate degree). More than three-fourths
of parent respondents (78.5%) were employed, and average
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
family income-to-poverty ratio for the sample was 292.9%
(of 400.0% possible).
In the present study, single mothers represented 14.6%
of the caregivers of the sample’s 19,882 child respondents.
Average score for family cohesiveness across the sample
was 6.8 (of 8.0 possible), and for neighbor support was 10.0
(of 12.0 possible). Among the parent respondents, cited
sources of emotional support broke down as follows: 80.3%
reported deriving it from family members and/or friends;
25.1% from counselors and/or other health providers; 30.3%
from members of a formal group of peers and/or a religious
group. Among child respondents in the present sample, a
physician’s diagnosis of ADHD described 12.6% of them;
of depression described 6.7% of them; of anxiety described
14.0% of them; of a behavioral/conduct problem described
9.1%; of autism spectrum disorder/pervasive developmental
disorder described 3.3%; of Tourette syndrome described
0.3%; and of other mental health problem/condition
described 0.4%. Parent respondents had, on average, a score
of 4.1 for mental health, or very good. Just under one in ten
child respondents in the sample (9.5%) had lived with a family member suffering from a mental disorder, while slightly
more (9.9%) had lived with a family member who used one
or more substances problematically. The large majority of
child respondents, 95.8%, were covered by a health insurance policy of some sort.
Members of first-generation immigrant families made
up 2.1% of the present sample; second-generation immigrant families made up 15.5%, and third-generation families
made up 82.4%. English was the language primarily spoken
in the homes of 93.2% of families in the present sample.
The average age of a parent respondent in the sample was
44 years. Concerning age of child respondents, 34.2% were
6–10 years old; 24.6% were 11–13 years old; and 41.2%
were 14–17 years old. Girls constituted 47.5% of the child
sample.
Results of multivariate analysis confirmed the hypothesized model to differ significantly from the null model
(Wald’s χ2 = 810.25, p < .01; see Table 2). Children’s likelihood of being bullied was reduced, in this study, by residence in a safe neighborhood (OR 0.84; p < .01). It was
increased, in turn, by experience of racial discrimination
(OR 2.43; p < .01). Residence in a rundown neighborhood
showed no association with children’s likelihood of being
bullied.
In the present study, child respondents who were Black
were less likely to be bullied than those who were White
(OR .45; p < .01). Similarly, child respondents who were
of Asian ethnicity were less likely to be bullied than White
counterparts (OR .56; p < .01). No significant differences in
likelihood of bullying victimization were observed between
White child respondents and those of either Hispanic or
other race/ethnicity. As well, no significant association with
695
bullying likelihood was found for family income-to-poverty
ratio or for parent employment status. This study did find
an association in positive direction between parent education and children’s likelihood of being bullied (OR 1.05,
p < .05). Furthermore, children’s likelihood of being bullied
was diminished by family cohesiveness (OR .89, p < .01)
and by neighbor support (OR .95, p < .01), although such
likelihood was not found to be significantly associated with
parent emotional support from family, health providers, or
peer/religious groups.
Concerning mental health, this study found the likelihood
of being bullied to be associated (in positive direction) with
child’s diagnosis with ADHD (OR 1.46, p < .01), depression
(OR 1.95, p < .01), anxiety (OR 1.70, p < .01), behavioral/
conduct problem (OR 1.70, p < .01), or Tourette syndrome
(OR 2.29, p < .01), and also with family substance use (OR
1.27, p < .05). Likelihood of being bullied showed association in negative direction with parent mental health (OR .88,
p < .01). No link between likelihood of being bullied and
possessing health insurance was observed here. In addition,
compared to children in third-generation families, those in
first-generation families (OR .58, p < .05) and second-generation families (OR .65, p < .01) were less likely to be bullied (although speaking English in the family home showed
no association with bullying likelihood). Finally, likelihood
of being bullied was associated in positive direction with
being a girl (OR 1.33, p < .01), with being 6–10 years old
(OR 3.05, p < .01), and with being 11–13 years old (OR
2.17, p < .01); while an observed association between bullying likelihood and parent age lay in a negative direction
(OR .98, p < .01).
Discussion
This secondary data analysis of data gathered in 2018
yielded results showing one-half of its child respondents to
have been bullied. This percentage is 4.8 times greater than
one calculated in a small study of children attending a U.S.
inner-city school (Lim & Hoot, 2015), and 1.7 times greater
than one calculated by a national study (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011). Closer examination of measures for child
respondents in the present sample whose families were firstor second-generation immigrant families showed that children had experienced bullying victimization in the following by-race/ethnicity percentages: White, 45.1%; Hispanic,
35.3%; Black, 32.6%; Asian, 24.8%; and other race/ethnicity,
43.5%. Bullying victimization affected clearly substantial
percentages of immigrant child respondents in this study.
The findings partially support the present hypothesis, that
children’s experience of being bullied is associated with children’s social disorganization (e.g., maintenance of neighborhood, safety of neighborhood, racism in community), social
13
696
Table 2 Logistic regression
results on children being bullied
(n = 19,882)
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Variables
OR
Social disorganization factors
Rundown neighborhood (no)
Safe neighborhood
Racial discrimination (no)
Social structural factors
Black (white)
Hispanic (white)
Asian (white)
Other race/ethnicity (white)
Parent educational attainment
Employed parent (no)
Family income-to-poverty ratio
Social relationships
Single mother (no)
Family cohesiveness
Family support (no)
Professional support (no)
Peer/religious group support (no)
Neighbor support
Mental health and access to care
ADHD (no)
Depression (no)
Anxiety (no)
Behavioral/conduct problem (no)
Autism spectrum disorder/pervasive developmental
disorder (no)
Tourette syndrome (no)
Other mental health problem/condition (no)
Parent mental health
Family mental health problem (no)
Family substance use (no)
Insured (no)
Acculturation
1st-generation immigrant family (3rd-generation)
2nd-generation immigrant family (3rd-generation)
English spoken at home (no)
Demographic characteristics
Girl (boy)
Child age: 6 to 10 years (age: 14 to 17 years)
Child age: 11 to 13 years (age: 14 to 17 years)
Parent age
Wald’s χ2 =
RSE
95% CI
1.06
.84**
2.43**
.08
.05
.38
.91–1.24
.74–.95
1.79–3.30
.45**
.83
.56**
.83
1.05*
1.07
1.00
.06
.09
.10
.09
.02
.08
.00
.34–.60
.68–1.02
.40–.78
.67–1.03
1.01–1.08
.92–1.24
.99–1.00
1.04
.89**
.92
1.11
1.11
.95**
.09
.02
.08
.07
.07
.02
.88–1.23
.85–.93
.79–1.08
.97–1.26
.98–1.26
.92–.99
1.46**
1.95**
1.70**
1.70**
1.39
.15
.29
.15
.24
.27
1.19–1.79
1.46–2.61
1.40–2.06
1.29–2.25
.94–2.04
2.29**
1.09
.88**
1.22
1.27*
1.21
.85
.61
.03
.13
.12
.18
1.11–4.76
.36–3.27
.81–.95
.99–1.49
1.05–1.53
.90–1.63
.58*
.65**
1.37
.15
.07
.25
.35–.96
.52–.81
.95–1.96
1.33**
3.05**
2.17**
.98**
810.25**
.07
.22
.15
.00
1.19–1.48
2.65–3.52
1.90–2.49
.98–.99
Reference groups are in parentheses
OR odds-ratios, RSE robust standard errors, CI confidence-interval
**p < .01; *p < .05
structural factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, parent’s education,
parent’s employment, family income), social relationships
(e.g., family support, social support, single-mother household), mental health and access to care (e.g., child/parent
13
mental health, substance use by family members, possession
of health insurance), and acculturation (e.g., first/second/
third-generation, English spoken at home). The study found
residence in an unsafe neighborhood raised the likelihood a
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
child was bullied, which supports prior results (Cook et al.,
2010; Espelage et al., 2000; Holt et al., 2014). A strong predictor of bullying victimization was children’s experience of
racial discrimination. It raised such likelihood by 143% in
this study, consistent with earlier findings (Koo et al., 2012;
Mendez et al., 2016; Seaton et al., 2013; Walton, 2018;
Wang et al., 2020). (The 2018 survey item assessing racial
discrimination did not limit the environment in which the
discrimination had occurred. That is, respondents were not
asked about discrimination specifically in school or during
gatherings of peers or similar. Discrimination, then, could
have been targeted at the child respondents by any individual
in the general community.) It certainly appears that socially
disorganized neighborhoods and racism loom large in the
question of which children are most likely to experience bullying victimization.
Like some earlier studies, the present study found ethnic Asian children to be less likely than White children to
experience bullying (Koo et al., 2012; Peguero, 2009; U.S.
Department of Education, 2011; Wang et al., 2020). It also
found Black children to be less likely than White children to
be bullied. It did not observe any association between family income and children’s likelihood of being bullied, which
supported certain prior findings (Abada et al., 2008; U.S.
Department of Education, 2011). In contrast, some of this
study’s findings on parent education and bullying likelihood
contradicted earlier research. Namely, for the present sample
of 6- to 17-year-olds, likelihood of bullying victimization
was elevated when parent education level was relatively
high. But when Hong et al. (2020) studied a sample of only
6- to 11-year-olds from the NSCH 2016 data set (not 2018),
they found a negative association.
The present study showed an association in negative
direction between likelihood of being bullied and the variables family cohesiveness and neighbor support (Hong et al.,
2020). On the other hand, likelihood of being bullied had
no association with emotional support from family, professionals, and peer/religious groups. These results imply that
children are protected when cohesiveness with family and
neighbors are strong.
Like some prior ones, the present study showed
increased likelihood of bullying victimization among
children diagnosed with ADHD, depression, anxiety, behavioral/conduct problem, or Tourette syndrome
(Abada et al., 2008; Cappadocia et al., 2012; Charania
et al., 2019; Crawford & Manassis, 2011; DeJonckheere
et al., 2017; Mayes et al., 2015; Pontillo et al., 2019; Simmons & Antshel 2021; Yockey et al., 2019; Zinner et al.,
2012). Tourette syndrome, however, yielded the strongest
odds-ratio or association with likelihood of being bullied.
In addition, unlike a study with a psychiatric sample of
children (Mayes et al., 2015), the present study did not
link diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and pervasive
697
developmental disorder to children’s experience of being
bullied. The present study did suggest that bullying victimization was relatively likely among children of parents
with poor mental health (Cappadocia et al., 2012) or a
substance use problem (Eiden et al., 2010), compared to
other children. So, child mental health problems along
with nonsupportive parenting arising from parent mental
health problems are disadvantageous where likelihood of
bullying is concerned. Moreover, it must be remembered
that mental health problems in children may be among
the adverse consequences of bullying victimization. The
present results indicated no association between children’s
being covered by a health insurance policy and their likelihood of being bullied; it is probably the case that many
bullied children seek no help from professionals to address
mental health problems triggered by victimization.
Concerning acculturation and bullying victimization,
the present findings support at least one prior study of
Latino immigrant children in finding that children belonging to first- and second-generation immigrant families
had a lower likelihood of being bullied versus children
belonging to third-generation families (Peguero, 2009).
However, development of some interaction terms during additional analysis led the present study to contradict
other published results. The interaction term linking ethnic
Asian child and first-generation immigrant family showed
a negative association with likelihood of being bullied (OR
.14, p < .01), unlike the positive association shown by a
national study of ­10th-graders from some two decades ago
(Peguero, 2009). This means that, in the present study,
first-generation Asian immigrant children were less likely
to be bullied than were second- and third-generation ethnic Asian children. This study found the percentage of
first-generation child respondents of all ethnicities who
were bullied was 28.4%; of all second-generation child
respondents was 37.3%; and 36.2% of children from these
two generations were bullied. The majority of children in
this study who belonged to first- and second-generation
immigrant families were not bullied. Still, the study’s finding of a strong link between bullying victimization and
racial discrimination suggests that many immigrant children witness race-based bullying; that fact may discourage
or at least complicate their efforts towards acculturation.
This study with children 6–17 years old found no association between child bullying victimization and speaking of
English at home. In that, it differs from 1997 research with
a nationally representative sample of children 12–17 years
old (Yu et al., 2003). Acculturation-related results from
the present study suggest immigrant children are unlikely
to be bullied early on in the acculturation process. This is
due in part to their tendency to feel alienated by and even
withdraw from mainstream culture (Chaudry et al., 2010;
Pumariega & Rothe, 2010). As children’s acculturation
13
698
significantly progresses, they may become more likely to
experience bullying victimization (Peguero, 2009).
Consistent with prior research, the present study found
younger (under age 14) children were more likely than
older (14 and up) ones to be bullied (Cappadocia et al.,
2012; Holt et al., 2014; U.S. Department of Education,
2011). Present findings were also consistent with the literature in showing an association in positive direction
between being a girl and being bullied (Merrill & Hanson, 2016).
Conclusion
Examination of 2018 data from a nationally representative
sample of 6- to 17-year-old immigrant and nonimmigrant
children, using the multiple disadvantage model, identified
key factors in U.S. children’s bullying victimization. Perhaps
most important is the results’ implication that intervention
can be of most benefit to bullied children who have been
discriminated against because of their race/ethnicity. Social
policies that, inadvertently or not, tend to perpetuate prejudice and discrimination should certainly be reevaluated, and
perhaps abolished. Social service professionals who work
with families are responsible to raise clients’ awareness of
bullying and its adverse effects on child mental health.
The present study was constrained by two limitations.
First, the study used measures of child and parent factors
which NSCH provided but which did not represent clinical evaluations or standardized scales. Examples are the
measures for rundown neighborhood, safe neighborhood,
social-emotional supports, and mental health. Generalizing
any results that involved such proxy measure requires caution. Second, less than 18% of children in the present sample
belonged to first- or second-generation immigrant families.
That fact limits the study’s illustration of acculturation.
Future research might use longitudinal data to explore
bullying of children. Such an analysis could prove particularly helpful for understanding bullying victimization within
a child-development context. For better understanding any
relationship of bullying victimization to the acculturation
process, future research might focus exclusively on first- and
second-generation immigrant families, looking specifically
at the country of origin and at length of residence in the
U.S. Also, researchers should consider examining relationships between children’s bullying victimization and their
own specific health-related behaviors (e.g., substance use,
aggression). Of course, to obtain the full picture of bullying
among children will require studying respondents who both
suffer and perpetrate bullying.
13
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Author Contributions All authors contributed to the study conception,
design, material preparation, data collection and analysis. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors did not receive funding support from any organization for the submitted work.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Abada, T., Hou, F., & Ram, B. (2008). The effects of harassment and
victimization on self-rated health and mental health among Canadian adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 67(4), 557–567.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​socsc​imed.​2008.​04.​006
Akobirshoev, I., Bowser, D., Parish, S. L., Thomas, C., & Bachman, S.
S. (2017). Does parental health mediate the relationship between
parental Uninsurance and insured Children’s Health Outcomes?
Evidence from a US National Survey. Health & Social Work,
42(2), E68–E76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​hsw/​hlx003
Cappadocia, M. C., Weiss, J. A., & Pepler, D. (2012). Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism spectrum disorders.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(2), 266–277.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10803-​011-​1241-x
Carson, N. J., Stewart, M., Lin, J. Y., & Alegria, M. (2011). Use and
quality of mental health services for Haitian youth. Ethnicity &
Health, 16(6), 567–582. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13557​858.​2011.​
586024
Celenk, O., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Assessment of acculturation: Issues and overview of measures. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 8(1), 10.
Charania, S. N., Danielson, M., Bitsko, R., Claussen, A., & LeburnHarris, L. A. (2019). Bullying victimization and perpetration
among children with Tourette’s disorder. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(10), S187–S187.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaac.​2019.​08.​143
Chaudry, A., Capps, R., Pedroza, J. M., Castañeda, R. M., Santos, R., &
Scott, M. M. (2010). Facing our future: Children in the aftermath
of immigration enforcement. The Urban Institute.
Cheng, T. C., & Lo, C. C. (2015). Racial disparities in intimate partner
violence and in seeking help with mental health. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(18), 3283–3307.
Cheng, T. C., & Lo, C. C. (2016). Racial disparities in children’s health:
A longitudinal analysis of mothers based on the multiple disadvantage model. Journal of Community Health, 41(4), 753–760.
Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. (2020). 2018
National Survey of Children’s Health: SPSS Codebook for Data
Users (Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent). U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S.
(2010). Predictors of Bullying and Victimization in Childhood and
Adolescence: A Meta-analytic Investigation. School Psychology
Quarterly, 25(2), 65–83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0020​149
Crawford, A. M., & Manassis, K. (2011). Anxiety, social skills, friendship quality, and peer victimization: An integrated model. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 25(7), 924–931. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
janxd​is.​2011.​05.​005
DeJonckheere, M. J., Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2017). Latino
immigrant youth living in a nontraditional Migration City: A
social-ecological examination of the complexities of stress and
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
resilience. Urban Education, 52(3), 399–426. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​00420​85914​549360
Eiden, R. D., Ostrov, J. M., Colder, C. R., Leonard, K. E., Edwards,
E. P., & Orrange-Torchia, T. (2010). Parent alcohol problems
and peer bullying and victimization: Child gender and toddler
attachment security as moderators. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 39(3), 341–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15374​41100​36917​68
Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the
social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 78(3), 326–333. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/j.​1556-​6676.​2000.​tb019​14.x
Finno-Velasquez, M., Cardoso, J. B., Dettlaff, A. J., & Hurlburt, M.
S. (2016). Effects of parent immigration status on mental health
service use among latino children referred to child welfare. Psychiatric Services, 67(2), 192–198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1176/​appi.​
ps.​20140​0444
Flores, G., & Vega, L. R. (1998). Barriers to health care access for
Latino children: A review. Family Medicine, 30(3), 196–205.
Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin,
C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version
1.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Education.
Guerrero, A. D., Ponce, N. A., & Chung, P. J. (2015). Obesogenic
dietary practices of Latino and Asian subgroups of children in
California: An analysis of the California Health Interview Survey,
2007–2012. American Journal of Public Health, 105(8), E105–
E112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2105/​ajph.​2015.​302618
Gulbas, L. E., Zayas, L. H., Yoon, H., Szlyk, H., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., &
Natera, G. (2016). Deportation experiences and depression among
US citizen-children with undocumented Mexican parents. Child
Care Health and Development, 42(2), 220–230. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​cch.​12307
Holt, T. J., Turner, M. G., & Exum, M. L. (2014). The impact of self
control and neighborhood disorder on bullying victimization.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 347–355. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jcrim​jus.​2014.​04.​004
Hong, J. S., Song, E. J., Peguero, A. A., Wu, C. F., & Schmaeman, A.
C. (2020). Can family and neighborhood cohesiveness buffer the
association between family economic hardship and children’s peer
victimization? Families in Society-the Journal of Contemporary
Social Services, 101(3), 382–394. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10443​
89419​895853
Jackson, D. B., Vaughn, M. G., & Kremer, K. P. (2019). Bully victimization and child and adolescent health: New evidence from the
2016 NSCH. Annals of Epidemiology, 29, 60–66. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​annep​idem.​2018.​09.​004
Jawaid, A., Riby, D. M., Owens, J., White, S. W., Tarar, T., & Schulz, P.
E. (2012). “Too withdrawn” or “too friendly”: Considering social
vulnerability in two neuro-developmental disorders. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 56(4), 335–350. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/j.​1365-​2788.​2011.​01452.x
Koo, D., Peguero, A., & Shekarkhar, Z. (2012). The “model minority”
victim: Immigration, gender, and Asian American vulnerabilities
to violence at School. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice,
10(2), 129–147. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15377​938.​2011.​609405
Lakey, P. N. (2003). Acculturation: A review of the literature. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(2), 103–118.
Lim, S. J. J., & Hoot, J. L. (2015). Bullying in an increasingly diverse
school population: A socio-ecological model analysis. School Psychology International, 36(3), 268–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01430​34315​571158
Lo, C. C., Howell, R. J., & Cheng, T. C. (2013). Explaining black-white
differences in homicide victimization. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 18, 125–134.
699
Lo, C. C., Howell, R. J., & Cheng, T. C. (2015). Racial disparities
in age at time of homicide victimization: A test of the multiple
disadvantage model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1),
152–167.
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., Baweja, R., & Mahr, F. (2015). Maternal
ratings of bullying and victimization: Differences in frequencies
between psychiatric diagnoses in a large sample of children. Psychological Reports, 116(3), 710–722. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2466/​16.​
PR0.​116k3​0w8
McConnell, D., Breitkreuz, R., & Savage, A. (2011). From financial
hardship to child difficulties: Main and moderating effects of
perceived social support. Child Care Health and Development,
37(5), 679–691. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 111/j.​1 365-​2 214.​2 010.​
01185.x
Mendez, J. J., Bauman, S., Sulkowski, M. L., Davis, S., & Nixon, C.
(2016). Racially-focused peer victimization: Prevalence, psychosocial impacts, and the influence of coping strategies. Psychology
of Violence, 6(1), 103–111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0038​161
Merrill, R. M., & Hanson, C. L. (2016). Risk and protective factors
associated with being bullied on school property compared
with cyberbullied. BMC Public Health. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s12889-​016-​2833-3
Ong, M. S., Lakoma, M., Bhosrekar, S. G., Hickok, J., McLean, L.,
Murphy, M., et al. (2021). Risk factors for suicide attempt in children, adolescents, and young adults hospitalized for mental health
disorders. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​camh.​12400
Peguero, A. A. (2009). Victimizing the children of immigrants Latino
and Asian American student victimization. Youth & Society,
41(2), 186–208. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00441​18x09​333646
Pontillo, M., Tata, M. C., Averna, R., Demaria, F., Gargiullo, P., Guerrera, S., et al. (2019). Peer victimization and onset of Social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. Brain Sciences. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​brain​sci90​60132
Pumariega, A. J., & Rothe, E. (2010). Leaving no children or families outside: The challenges of immigration. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 80(4), 505–515. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​
1939-​0025.​2010.​01053.x
Pumariega, A. J., Rothe, E., & Pumariega, J. B. (2005). Mental health
of immigrants and refugees. Community Mental Health Journal,
41(5), 581–597. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10597-​005-​6363-1
Ragavan, M. I., Li, W. D., Elwy, A. R., Cowden, J. D., & Bair-Merritt,
M. (2018). Chinese, vietnamese, and Asian Indian parents’ perspectives about well-child visits: A qualitative analysis. Academic
Pediatrics, 18(6), 628–635. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​acap.​2017.​
11.​003
Santiago, C. D., Gudino, O. G., Baweja, S., & Nadeem, E. (2014).
Academic achievement among immigrant and US-born Latino
adolescents: Associations with cultural, family, and acculturation factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(6), 735–747.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jcop.​21649
Seaton, E. K., Neblett, E. W., Cole, D. J., & Prinstein, M. J. (2013).
Perceived discrimination and peer victimization among African
American and Latino Youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(3), 342–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10964-​012-​9848-6
Shea, M., Wang, C. X., Shi, W. N., Gonzalez, V., & Espelage, D.
(2016). Parents and teachers’ perspectives on School Bullying
Among Elementary School-Aged Asian and Latino Immigrant
Children. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 7(2), 83–96.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​aap00​00047
Sidhu, S. S., & Song, S. J. (2019). Growing up with an undocumented
parent in America: Psychosocial adversity in domestically residing immigrant children. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(10), 933–935. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jaac.​2019.​05.​032
13
700
Simmons, J. A., & Antshel, K. M. (2021). Bullying and depression
in Youth with ADHD: A systematic review. Child & Youth Care
Forum. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10566-​020-​09586-x
Spencer, M. S., Chen, J. A., Gee, G. C., Fabian, C. G., & Takeuchi,
D. T. (2010). Discrimination and mental health-related service
use in a National Study of Asian Americans. American Journal
of Public Health, 100(12), 2410–2417. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2105/​
ajph.​2009.​176321
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Student reports of bullying and
cyber-bullying: Results from the 2009 School Crime Supplement
to the National Crime Victimization Survey. U.S. Department of
Education.
Walton, L. M. (2018). The effects of “bias based bullying” (BBB)
on health, education, and cognitive-social-emotional outcomes
in children with minority backgrounds: Proposed comprehensive public health intervention solutions. Journal of Immigrant
and Minority Health, 20(2), 492–496. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10903-​017-​0547-y
Wang, K., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2020). Indicators
of school crime and safety: 2019 (NCES 2020-063/NCJ 254485).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Waylen, A., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2010). Factors influencing parenting
in early childhood: A prospective longitudinal study focusing on
change. Child Care Health and Development, 36(2), 198–207.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1365-​2214.​2009.​01037.x
Wong, M. S., Showell, N. N., Bleich, S. N., Gudzune, K. A., & Chan,
K. S. (2017). The association between parent-reported provider
communication quality and child obesity status: Variation by
parent obesity and child race/ethnicity. Patient Education and
Counseling, 100(8), 1588–1597. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pec.​
2017.​03.​015
13
Community Mental Health Journal (2022) 58:689–700
Woolhouse, H., Brown, S., Krastev, A., Perlen, S., & Gunn, J. (2009).
Seeking help for anxiety and depression after childbirth: Results
of the Maternal Health Study. Archives of Womens Mental Health,
12(2), 75–83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00737-​009-​0049-6
Yockey, R. A., King, K. A., & Vidourek, R. A. (2019). School factors and anxiety disorder among Hispanic youth: Results from
the 2016 US National Survey on Children’s Health. School Psychology International, 40(4), 403–415. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01430​34319​849621
Yoshikawa, H., & Kalil, A. (2011). The effects of parental undocumented status on the developmental contexts of young children
in immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4),
291–297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1750-​8606.​2011.​00204.x
Yu, S. M., Huang, Z. J., Schwalberg, R. H., Overpeck, M., & Kogan,
M. D. (2003). Acculturation and the health and well-being of
US immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(6),
479–488. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s1054-​139x(03)​00210-6
Zea, M. C., Asner-Self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The
Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Empirical
validation with two latino/latina samples. Cultural Diversity &
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 107–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1037/​1099-​9809.9.​2.​107
Zinner, S. H., Conelea, C. A., Glew, G. M., Woods, D. W., & Budman, C. L. (2012). Peer victimization in youth with tourette
syndrome and other chronic tic disorders. Child Psychiatry &
Human Development, 43(1), 124–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10578-​011-​0249-y
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Community Mental Health Journal is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights Reserved.