Youth with disabilities are overrepresented in the bullying dynamic and experience poor mental health and school engagement outcomes associated with this involvement. However, limited existing research has looked at differences in bullying involvement based on disability category, and how youth with disabilities make decisions about bullying involvement and bystander intervention. This multi-method study examined how students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) have engaged in bullying, been impacted by this engagement, and think about bullying involvement. Drawing on quantitative analyses of surveys (N=221) and mixed methods analyses of clinical interviews (N=78), this dissertation research garnered an understanding of how youth with SLD have been involved in bullying and impacted by this involvement. In addition, this dissertation examined how these youth reason and make decisions about cyberbullying involvement and bystander intervention. A person-centered analysis was conducted in order to: 1) elucidate distinct profiles of bullying involvement amongst youth with SLD ; 2) examine if and how demographic characteristics are associated with profile membership; and 3) examine if and how school engagement and mental health outcomes are associated with profile membership. This study revealed four distinct profiles of bullying involvement: Low Involvement profile (low levels of victimization and perpetration), Mildly Involved profile (mild levels of both victimization and perpetration), Moderately/ highly Victimized profile (low levels of perpetration and moderate to high levels of victimization), and Moderately Frequent Bully-Victim profile (moderate to high levels of both victimization and perpetration). The highest percentage of youth (37%) were in Profile 1, or the low involvement group. Participants in this group experienced the lowest levels of victimization and perpetration in comparison to participants in other groups. Profile 2, or the mildly involved group, was the smallest profile in this study with 14% of participants classified in this group. Participants in this group experienced mild levels of both victimization and perpetration in comparison to participants in other profiles. Profile 3, or the moderately/highly victimized group, included 18% of participants in this study. Members of this group reported higher mean scores for victimization than participants in other groups (particularly for verbal and physical victimization). Finally, Profile 4 or the moderately frequent bully-victim profile, was the second largest of the four profiles with 31% of participants classified in this group. Participants in this group experienced higher levels of combined victimization and perpetration than those in other groups. Significant results emerged when analyzing associations between bullying involvement profile and demographic variables as predictors, as well as associations between bullying involvement profiles and school engagement and mental health outcomes. Demographic variable analyses revealed that select demographic variables were associated with some the four bullying involvement profiles. Older participants (grades 6-12) when compared to younger participants (grades 1-5) were more likely to be in the moderate/highly victimized group or profile 3 than in the low involvement bullying group or profile 1. In addition, when compared to White youth, racial minority (non--White) youth were more likely to be in lower bullying involvement groups. Furthermore, youth who identified as LGBTQIA+ were more likely to be in the lower bullying involvement groups than youth who identified as straight. Membership in Profile 2 (mild bullying involvement) and Profile 4 (moderate bully-victim) was significantly and negatively associated with school engagement when compared to Profile 1 (low bullying involvement). In addition, Profile 3 (moderately/highly victimized) showed a negative trend that approached statistical significance. Results showed more positive associations between membership in Profiles 2, 3, and 4 than Profile 1 for internalizing symptoms. Additionally, results found more positive associations between membership in Profiles 2 and 4 than Profile 1 for externalizing symptoms.). Taken together, these results highlight the negative effects on school engagement and increased rates of internalizing and externalizing symptoms associated with bullying involvement (particularly the combination of perpetration and victimization noted in profiles 2 and 4). A mixed methods analysis was employed drawing on Social Domain Theory in order to understand how youth with SLD evaluated and justified their evaluations of cyberbullying and bystander intervention in hypothetical situations. As anticipated, the majority of participants evaluated cyberbullying as unacceptable across all four situations. Participants had more negative evaluations of cyber harm when directed at a victim with a disability as compared to a victim without a disability. In addition, participants had more positive evaluations, or felt cyber harm was more understandable or acceptable, when the harm took place as an act of retaliation or within the context of a friendship than in unprovoked situations and between a transgressor and victim who are not friends. Although there were no significant age or gender differences in general evaluations of each situation, there were significant age and gender differences in response to the retaliation and friendship counter probes. Younger participants (7-10-year-old) had more negative evaluations of cyberbullying in response to counter probes about whether the act of cyberbullying was an act of retaliation than did older adolescent participants (15-18-year-old). These age differences were also observed in how younger participants (7-10-year-old) evaluated cyberbullying between friends in the science classroom significantly more negatively than did older adolescents (15-18-year-old). With regard to gender differences, in the zoom conversation situation, female participants had significantly more negative evaluations of cyberbullying between friends than did males. Although age and gender differences were observed, these differences were more significant in response to contextual features. Specifically, these results highlight the ways in which participants considered the disability of a victim, interpersonal ties between a transgressor and victim, and the intention of these acts of harm in evaluating the acceptability of these actions. With regard to how youth with SLD evaluated and justified these evaluations of bystander intervention in cyberbullying situations, there were some differences between youth with low and moderate to high levels of bullying involvement. When compared to the low involvement bullying group, a higher percentage of participants in the mild to high involvement group endorsed supporting the victim and a passive response, and a lower percentage endorsed telling an authority figure in most situations. Participants who drew on moral justifications were more likely to endorse a bystander intervention that involved supporting the victim whereas those who drew on non-moral justifications (i.e., personal or social conventional) were more likely to endorse intervening by telling an authority figure. These findings highlight the associations between how participants conceptualize the bystander intervention (i.e., as a moral or non-moral action) and the specific actions participants endorsed in response to witnessing acts of cyberbullying. In addition, these findings suggest that there is a connection between prior experiences of bullying and bystander intervention decision making. This study's findings have several implications. One, youth with SLD were involved in varying frequencies and forms of bullying as defined by the four bullying involvement groups, and the frequency of bullying involvement was significantly associated with both school engagement and mental health outcomes. Specifically, students who were involved in perpetrating bullying and also victimized were at highest risk of negative school engagement and mental health outcomes. This finding highlights the need to tailor interventions to students based on the specific forms and frequency of bullying involvement. Two, youth with SLD reasoned with more complexity (i.e., had mixed evaluations or found cyberbullying acceptable) in situations that involved retaliatory action or cyberbullying that took place between friends than in general contexts of cyberbullying. This finding underscores the need for developing intervention practices that explore these considerations and involve youth in the process of studying other factors that are relevant in evaluating situations of cyberbullying. Finally, the majority of youth in this study endorsed responding to cyberbullying situations by taking actions to support the victim. Some developmental differences were noted in these evaluations in addition to differences based on profile of bullying involvement. In addition, participants were most likely to draw on moral considerations in endorsing a response of supporting the victim. These findings suggest that future interventions should center youths' perspectives, involve authority figures such as teachers and parents, and involve a component of building skills and competence in the particularities of bystander intervention online. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]