Measuring 

Violence-Related

Attitudes, Behaviors,

and Influences

Among Youths:

A Compendium of Assessment Tools

Second Edition

N

APED TR T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICE USAAPED TR ME T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES USA
This compendium of assessment tools is a publication of the

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, Director

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Ileana Arias, PhD, Acting Director

Division of Violence Prevention

W. Rodney Hammond, PhD, Director

Graphic Design and Layout:

Jeffrey C. Justice

Cover Design:

Jeffrey C. Justice

Cover Photography:

Kid’s World, James Carroll—Artville, LLC, 1997

Suggested Citation: Dahlberg LL, Toal SB, Swahn M,

Behrens CB. Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes,

Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of

Assessment Tools, 2nd ed., Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, 2005.
Measuring 

Violence-Related

Attitudes, Behaviors,

and Influences 

Among Youths:

A Compendium of Assessment Tools

Second Edition

Compiled and Edited by

Linda L. Dahlberg, PhD

Susan B. Toal, MPH

Monica H. Swahn, PhD

Christopher B. Behrens, MD

Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia

2005
Acknowledgments

In 1992 and 1993, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention funded

15 evaluation projects whose primary

goal was to identify interventions that

change violence-related attitudes,

beliefs and behaviors among children

and youths. The investigators and

program staff from these projects made

invaluable contributions to the field of

violence prevention and were

instrumental to the development of the

first edition of this compendium

published in 1998. Since that time,

additional studies have been completed

which serve to further enrich our ability

to evaluate outcomes of violence

prevention efforts. There have also been

a number of longitudinal studies

conducted over the last two decades that

have greatly enhanced our

understanding of the factors that

increase and decrease the risk for youth

violence. We wish to acknowledge and

thank all individuals who have

contributed measures to this

compendium and who have helped to

move the field of violence prevention

forward.

ii

J. Lawrence Aber

Michael W. Arthur

Henry (Hank) Atha

Kris Bosworth

Richard Catalano

John Coie

Edward DeVos

Kenneth Dodge

Dennis D. Embry

Leonard Eron

Dorothy Espelage

Albert D. Farrell

David P. Farrington

Daniel J. Flannery

Robert L. Flewelling

Vangie A. Foshee

Roy M. Gabriel

Deborah Gorman-Smith

Nancy G. Guerra

Marshall Haskins

J. David Hawkins

David Henry

Tony Hopson

Arthur (Andy) M. Horne

Cynthia Hudley

L. Rowell Huesmann

Kenneth W. Jackson

Russell H. Jackson

Steven H. Kelder

Marvin D. Krohn 

Molly Laird

Gerry Landsberg

Jennifer Lansford

Linda Lausell-Bryant

Fletcher Linder

Alan J. Lizotte

Rolf Loeber

Christopher Maxwell

Aleta L. Meyer

Helen Nadel

Pamela Orpinas

Mallie J. Paschall

Pam K. Porter

David L. Rabiner

Christopher L. Ringwalt

Tom Roderick

Faith Samples

Robert J. Sampson

Michael Schoeny

John Slavik

Mark Spellmann

Carolyn A. Smith 

David A. Stone

Magda Stouthamer-Loeber

Terence P. Thornberry 

Patrick Tolan

Rick VanAcker

Welmoet B. Van Kammen

Alexander T. Vazsonyi

William H. Wiist
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

How To Use This Compendium . . . . . . . . . . . .1

How This Compendium Is Organized

Choosing the Right Instrument

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Why Outcome Evaluations Are So Important

Components of Comprehensive Evaluations

Ten Steps for Conducting Outcome Evaluations

Future Considerations

Section I

Attitude and Belief Assessments . . . . . . . . .13

Section II

Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments . . .61

Section III

Behavior Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161

Section IV

Environmental Assessments . . . . . . . . . . .275

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .360

iii

This compendium provides researchers and

prevention specialists with a set of tools to assess

violence-related beliefs, behaviors, and influences,

as well as to evaluate programs to prevent youth

violence. If you are new to the field of youth

violence prevention and unfamiliar with available

measures, you may find this compendium to be

particularly useful. If you are an experienced

researcher, this compendium may serve as a

resource to identify additional measures to assess the

factors associated with violence among youths.

Although this compendium contains more than

170 measures, it is not an exhaustive listing of

available measures. A few of the more widely used

measures to assess aggression in children, for

example, are copyrighted and could not be included

here. Other measures being used in the field, but not

known to the authors, are also not included. Many of

the measures included in the first edition of the

compendium focused on individual violence-related

attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. These types of

measures are included in this edition as well and may

be particularly useful if you are evaluating a schoolbased curriculum or a community-based program

designed to reduce violence among youths. Several

measures to assess peer, family, and community

influences have been added to the compendium.

Many of these measures are from the major

longitudinal and prevention research studies of youth

violence being conducted in the United States. 

Most of the measures in this compendium are

intended for use with youths between the ages of 11

and 24 years, to assess such factors as serious

violent and delinquent behavior, conflict resolution

strategies, social and emotional competencies, peer

influences, parental monitoring and supervision,

family relationships, exposure to violence, collective

efficacy, and neighborhood characteristics. The

compendium also contains a number of scales and

assessments developed for use with children

between the ages of 5 and 10 years, to measure

factors such as aggressive fantasies, beliefs

supportive of aggression, attributional biases,

prosocial behavior, and aggressive behavior. When

parent and teacher versions of assessments are

available, they are included as well.

How This Compendium Is Organized

The Introduction, beginning on page 5, provides

information about why outcome evaluations are so

important and includes some guidance on how to

conduct such evaluations. Following the

Introduction, you will find four sections, each

focusing on a different category of assessments.

Each section contains the following components:

• Description of Measures. This table

summarizes key information about all of the

assessments included in the section. Each

assessment is given an alphanumeric identifier

(e.g., A1, A2, A3) that is used repeatedly

throughout the section, to guide you through

the array of assessments provided. The table

identifies the constructs being measured

(appearing in alphabetical order down the lefthand column), provides details about the

characteristics of the scale or assessment,

identifies target groups that the assessment has

been tested with, provides reliability and

validity information where known, and

identifies the persons responsible for

developing the scale or assessment. When

reviewing the Target Group information, keep

in mind that we have included only those

1

How To Use This Compendium
target groups we know and that the reliability

information pertains specifically to these

groups and may not apply to other groups.

When reviewing the Reliability/Validity

information, you will notice that several

measures are highly reliable (e.g., internal

consistency > .80) whereas others are

minimally reliable (e.g., internal consistency 

< .60). We included measures with minimal

reliability because the reliability information

is based, in some cases, on only one target

group from one study; these measures may be

more appropriate for a different target group.

We also included measures with limited

reliability with the hope that researchers will

try to improve and refine them. Evidence of

validity is available for only a few of the

measures included in this compendium.

• Scales and Assessments. The items that

make up each assessment are provided,

along with response categories and some

guidance to assist you with scoring and

analysis. In the few instances where scales

have been adapted, the most recent

(modified) version is presented. We also

have provided information on how to obtain

permission to use copyrighted materials. In

most cases, we have presented individual

scales rather than the complete instruments

because instruments generally are composed

of several scales. This approach increases

the likelihood that the scales’ test properties

will be altered. Nonetheless, we did this

because the field has produced few

standardized instruments with established

population norms for a range of target

audiences.

• References. This list includes citations for

published and unpublished materials pertaining

to original developments as well as any recent

adaptations, modifications, or validations. In

the few instances where scales have been

adapted, references for the most recent

(modified) version are provided. To obtain

information about the original versions, please

contact the developers and refer to any relevant

references cited.

Choosing the Right Instrument

Developing instruments that are highly reliable,

valid, and free of any bias is not always possible.

Carefully choose among the measures included in

this document. The criteria on the facing page may

assist you in making this selection. As with any

research effort, consider conducting a pilot test to

minimize problems and to refine the instrument.

2
3

Source: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc., 1991.

General Rating Criteria for Evaluating Scales

Criterion Rating Exemplary Extensive Moderate Minimal

Inter-item correlation Average of .30 or better Average of .20 to .29 Average of .10 to .19 Average below .10

Alpha-coefficient .80 or better .70 to .79 .60 to .69 < .60

Test-Retest Reliability Scores correlate more

than .50 across a period

of at least 1 year.

Scores correlate more than .40

across a period of 3-12 months.

Scores correlate more

than .30 across a period

of 1-3 months.

Scores correlate more than

.20 across less than a 1

month period.

Convergent Validity Highly significant

correlations with more

than two related

measures.

Significant correlations with

more than two related

measures.

Significant correlations

with two related

measures.

Significant correlations

with one related measure.

Discriminant Validity Significantly different

from four or more

unrelated measures.

Significantly different from two

or three unrelated measures.

Significantly different from

one unrelated measure.

Different from one

correlated measure.

5

Youth violence is a serious global public health

problem.1 Despite a decline in homicide rates across

the United States during the 1990’s,2 homicide rates

are again rising and continue to claim the lives of

many young people. The human and economic toll

of violence on young people, their families, and

society is high. Homicide is the second leading

cause of death for persons 15-24 years of age and

has been the leading cause of death for AfricanAmericans in this age group for over a decade.2 The

economic cost associated with violence-related

illness, disability, and premature death is estimated

to be in the billions of dollars each year.1

Researchers and prevention specialists are under

pressure to identify the factors that place young

people at risk for violence, to find out which

interventions are working, and to design more

effective prevention programs. Across the country,

primary prevention efforts involving families,

schools, neighborhoods, and communities appear to

be essential to stemming the tide of violence, and

many promising and effective programs have been

identified.3-6 Identifying effective programs rests, in

part, on the availability of reliable and valid

measures to assess change in violence-related

attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and other influences.

Monitoring and documenting proven strategies will

go a long way toward reducing youth violence and

creating peaceful, healthier communities.

Why Outcome Evaluations Are So Important

In their desire to be responsive to constituents’

concerns about violence, schools and communities

often are so involved with prevention activities that

they rarely make outcome evaluations a priority.

Such evaluations, however, are necessary if we want

to know what works in preventing aggression and

violence. In the area of youth violence, it is not

enough to simply examine how a program is being

implemented or delivered, or to provide testimonials

about the success of an intervention or program.

Programs must be able to show measurable change

in behavioral patterns or change in some of the

mediating or moderating factors associated with

aggression and violence. To demonstrate these

changes or to show that a program made a

difference, researchers and prevention specialists

must conduct an outcome evaluation.

Components of Comprehensive Evaluations

Evaluation is a dynamic process. It is useful for

developing, modifying, and redesigning programs;

monitoring the delivery of program components to

participants; and assessing program outcomes. Each

of these activities represents a type of evaluation.

Together, these activities compose the key

components of a comprehensive evaluation.

• Formative Evaluation activities are those

undertaken during the design and pretesting of

programs.7 Such activities are useful if you

want to develop a program or pilot test all or

part of an intervention program prior to

implementing it routinely. You can also use

formative evaluation to structure or tailor an

intervention to a particular target group or use

it to help you anticipate possible problems and

identify ways to overcome them.

• Process Evaluation activities are those

undertaken to monitor program

implementation and coverage.7 Such activities

are useful if you want to assess whether the

program is being delivered in a manner

consistent with program objectives; for

Introduction
6

determining dose or the extent to which your

target population participates in the program;

and for determining whether the delivery of the

program has been uniform or variable across

participants. Process or monitoring data can

provide you with important information for

improving programs and are also critical for

later program diffusion and replication.

• Outcome Evaluation activities are those

undertaken to assess the impact of a program

or intervention on participants.7 Such activities

are useful if you want to determine if the

program achieved its objectives or intended

effects—in other words, if the program

worked. Outcome evaluations can also help

you decide whether a program should be

continued, implemented on a wider scale, or

replicated in other sites.

Ten Steps for Conducting Outcome Evaluations

Outcome evaluations are not simple to conduct

and require a considerable amount of resources and

expertise. If you are interested in conducting an

outcome evaluation, you will need to incorporate

both formative and process evaluation activities and

take the following steps:

• Clearly define the problem being addressed by

your program.

• Specify the outcomes your program is

designed to achieve.

• Specify the research questions you want the

evaluation to answer.

• Select an appropriate evaluation design and

carefully consider sample selection, size, and

equivalency between groups.

• Select reliable and valid measures to assess

changes in program outcomes.

• Address issues related to human subjects, such

as informed consent and confidentiality.

• Collect relevant process, outcome, and record

data.

• Analyze and interpret the data.

• Disseminate your findings, using an effective

format and reaching the right audience.

• Anticipate and prepare for obstacles.

Define the problem. What problem is your

program trying to address? Who is the target

population? What are the key risk factors to be

addressed? Youth violence is a complex problem

with many causes. Begin by focusing on a specific

target group and defining the key risk factors your

program is expected to address within this group.

Draw evidence from the research literature showing

the potential benefit of addressing the identified risk

factors. Given the complexity of the problem of

youth violence, no program by itself can reasonably

be expected to change the larger problem.

Specify the outcomes. What outcome is your

program trying to achieve? For example, are you

trying to reduce aggression, improve parenting skills,

or increase awareness of violence in the community?

Determine which outcomes are desired and ensure

that the desired outcomes match your program

objectives. A program designed to improve conflict

resolution skills among youths is not likely to lead to

an increased awareness of violence in the community.

Likewise, a program designed to improve parenting

skills probably will not change the interactions of peer

groups from negative to prosocial. When specifying

outcomes, make sure you indicate both the nature and

the level of desired change. Is your program expected

to increase awareness or skills? Do you expect your

program to decrease negative behaviors and increase

prosocial behaviors? What level of change can you

reasonably expect to achieve? If possible, use

evidence from the literature for similar programs and

target groups to help you determine reasonable

expectations of change.

Specify the questions to be answered. Research

questions are useful for guiding the evaluation.
7

When conducting an outcome evaluation of a youth

violence prevention program, you may want to

determine the answers to three questions: Has the

program reduced aggressive or violent behavior

among participants? Has the program reduced some

of the intermediate outcomes or mediating factors

associated with violence? Has the program been

equally effective for all participants or has it worked

better for some participants than for others? If

multiple components of a program are being

evaluated, then you also may want to ask: Have all

components of the program been equally effective in

achieving desired outcomes or has one component

been more effective than another?

Select an appropriate evaluation design.

Choose an evaluation design that addresses your

evaluation questions. Your choice in design will

determine the inferences you can make about your

program’s effects on participants and the

effectiveness of the evaluation’s various

components. Evaluation designs range from simple

one-group pretest/posttest comparisons to

nonequivalent control/comparison group designs to

complex multifactorial designs. Learn about the

various designs used in evaluation research and

know their strengths and weaknesses.

Special consideration should be given to sample

selection, size, and equivalency between groups as

part of your evaluation plan. Outcome evaluations

are, by definition, comparative. Determining the

impact of a program requires comparing persons

who have participated in a program with equivalent

persons who have experienced no program or an

alternative program.7 The manner in which

participants are selected is important for the

interpretation and generalizability of the results.

Sample size is important for detecting group

differences. When estimating the sample size, ensure

the sample is large enough to be able to detect group

differences and anticipate a certain level of attrition,

which will vary depending on the length of the

program and the evaluation. Before the program is

implemented, make sure that the treatment and

control/comparison groups are similar in terms of

demographic characteristics and outcome measures

of interest. Establishing equivalency at baseline is

important because it helps you to attribute change

directly resulting from the program rather than

change resulting from an extraneous factor.

Choose reliable and valid measures to assess

program outcomes. Selecting appropriate

measurement instruments—ones that you know

how to administer and that will produce findings

that you will be able to analyze and interpret—is an

important step in any research effort. When

selecting measures and developing instruments,

consider the developmental and cultural

appropriateness of the measure as well as the

reading level, native language, and attention span of

respondents. Make sure that the response burden is

not too great, because you want respondents to be

able to complete the assessment with ease.

Questions or items that are difficult to comprehend

or offensive to participants will lead to guessing or

non-responses. Subjects with a short attention span

or an inability to concentrate will have difficulty

completing a lengthy questionnaire.

Also consider the reliability and validity of the

instrument. Reliable measures are those that have

stability and consistency. The higher the correlation

coefficient (i.e., closeness to 1.00), the better the

reliability. A measure that is highly reliable may not

be valid. An instrument is considered valid if it

measures what it is intended to measure. Evidence

of validity, according to most measurement

specialists, is the most important consideration in

judging the adequacy of measurement instruments.

Address issues related to human subjects.

Before data collection begins, take steps to ensure
8

that participants understand the nature of their

involvement in the project and any potential risks

associated with participation. Obtaining informed

consent is necessary to protect participants and

researchers. Obtaining permission from participants

eliminates the possibility that individuals will

unknowingly serve as subjects in an evaluation. You

may choose to use active informed consent, in which

case you would obtain a written statement from each

participant indicating their willingness to participate

in the project. In some cases, you may decide to use

passive informed consent, in which case you would

ask individuals to return permission forms only if

they are not willing to participate in the project.

Become familiar with the advantages and

disadvantages of both approaches. Once you have

secured informed consent, you also must take steps

to ensure participants’ anonymity and confidentiality

during data collection, management and analysis.

Collect relevant data. Various types of data can

be collected to assess your program’s effects. The

outcome battery may be used to assess attitudinal,

psychosocial, or behavioral changes associated with

participation in an intervention or program.

Administering an outcome battery alone, however,

will not allow you to make conclusions about the

effectiveness of your program. You also must collect

process data (i.e., information about the materials

and activities of the intervention or program). For

example, if a curriculum is being implemented, you

may want to track the number of sessions offered to

participants and the number of sessions attended by

participants, as well as monitor the extent to which

program objectives were covered and the manner in

which information was delivered. Process data allow

you to determine how well a particular intervention

is being implemented as well as interpret outcome

findings. Interventions that are poorly delivered or

implemented are not likely to have an effect on

participants.

In addition to collecting data from participants,

you may want to obtain data from parents, teachers,

other program officials, or records. Multiple sources

of data are useful for determining your program’s

effects and strengthening assertions that the program

worked. The use of multiple sources of data,

however, also presents a challenge if conflicting

information is obtained. Data from records (i.e.,

hospital, school, or police reports), for example, are

usually collected for purposes other than the

evaluation. Thus, they are subject to variable recordkeeping procedures that, in turn, may produce

inconsistencies in the data. Take advantage of

multiple data sources, but keep in mind that these

sources have limitations.

Analyze and interpret the data. You can use

both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques

to analyze evaluation data. Use descriptive analyses

to tabulate, average, or summarize results. Such

analyses would be useful, for example, if you want

to indicate the percentage of students in the

treatment and comparison groups who engaged in

physical fighting in the previous 30 days or the

percentage of students who reported carrying a

weapon for self-defense. You also could use

descriptive analyses to compute gain scores or

change scores in knowledge or attitudes by

subtracting the score on the pretest from the score on

the posttest. You could extend the descriptive

analyses to examine the relationship between

variables by utilizing cross-tabulations or

correlations. For example, you might want to

determine what percentage of students with beliefs

supportive of violence also report engaging in

physical fights.

Inferential analyses are more difficult to conduct

than descriptive analyses, but they yield more

information about program effects. For example,

you could use an inferential analysis to show

whether differences in outcomes between treatment
9

and comparison groups are statistically significant or

whether the differences are likely due to chance.

Knowing the change scores of the treatment or

comparison groups is not as useful as knowing if the

change scores are statistically different. With

inferential statistical techniques, evaluators can also

take into account (i.e., statistically control for or

hold constant) background characteristics or other

factors (e.g., attrition, program dose, pretest score)

between the treatment and comparison groups when

assessing changes in behavior or other program

outcomes. Regardless of the statistical technique you

use, always keep in mind that statistical significance

does not always equate with practical meaningful

significance. Use caution and common sense when

interpreting results.

Many statistical techniques used by researchers

to assess program effects (e.g., analysis of variance

or covariance, structural equation, or hierarchical

linear modeling) require a considerable amount of

knowledge in statistics and measurement. You

should have a good understanding of statistics and

choose techniques that are appropriate for the

evaluation design, research questions, and available

data sources.

Disseminate your findings. This is one of the

most important steps in the evaluation process. You

must always keep program officials abreast of the

evaluation findings, because such information is

vitally important for improving intervention programs

or services. Also communicate your findings to

research and prevention specialists working in the

field. Keep in mind that the traditional avenues for

disseminating information, such as journal articles,

are known and accessible to researchers but not

always to prevention specialists working in

community-based organizations or schools.

When preparing reports, be sure to present the

results in a manner that is understandable to the

target audience. School, community and policy

officials are not likely to understand complex

statistical presentations. Reports should be brief and

written with clarity and objectivity. They should

summarize the program, evaluation methods, key

findings, limitations, conclusions and

recommendations.

Anticipate obstacles. Evaluation studies rarely

proceed as planned. Be prepared to encounter a

number of obstacles—some related to resources and

project staffing and others related to the field

investigation itself (e.g., tension between scientific

and programmatic interests, enrollment of control

groups, subject mobility, analytic complexities, and

unforeseeable and disruptive external events).8

Multiple collaborating organizations with competing

interests may result in struggles over resources,

goals, and strategies that are likely to complicate

evaluation efforts. Tension also may exist between

scientists, who must rigorously document

intervention activities, and program staff, who must

be flexible in providing services or implementing

intervention activities. During the planning phases

of the evaluation, scientific and program staffers

must have clear communication and consensus

about the evaluation goals and objectives, and

throughout the evaluation, they must have

mechanisms to maintain this open communication.

Future Considerations

The field of violence prevention needs reliable,

valid measurement tools in the quest to determine

the effectiveness of interventions. In past years,

researchers in violence prevention have looked to

the literature for established measures and have

modified them accordingly to assess violencerelated attitudes and behaviors. These adaptations

have sometimes yielded satisfactory results, but in

other cases, the measures have not yet proven to be

very reliable. Researchers have also tried to develop

new measures to gauge skill and behavior changes
10

resulting from violence prevention interventions.

Many of these measures also require further

refinement and validation.

To ensure that the instruments we use are

culturally appropriate, we must involve a wide range

of target groups. Violence cuts across all racial and

ethnic groups and is especially prevalent among

African-American and Hispanic youths. Some of the

more standardized instruments that have been

adapted for use in violence prevention efforts,

however, were not developed specifically for use

with minority populations. Thus, the items contained

in some of the more standardized instruments may

not be culturally or linguistically appropriate for

minority populations. 

One final problem we must continue to address

is the lack of time-framed measures that can be used

for evaluation research. To assess the effectiveness

of an intervention, we must be able to assess how a

particular construct (e.g., attitudes toward violence

or aggressive behavior) changes from one point in

time to another point in time following an

intervention. Instruments that instruct respondents to

indicate “usual behavior,” or to “describe or

characterize the behavior of a child or teenager,” are

not likely to precisely measure behavior change.

Instruments that instruct respondents to consider

behavior “now or in the last six months” are also not

precise enough to measure behavior change. 

Much progress has been made over the last

decade in terms of understanding the factors that

place young people at risk for violence and

identifying promising and effective approaches to

reduce youth violence. Still, more work remains to

be done. New tools must be developed and existing

tools need to be improved. More importantly,

researchers and prevention specialists dedicated to

the prevention of youth violence must have access to

the many measurement tools that have been

developed. We hope that increased use of and

experience with these measures will help to validate

them and will expand our knowledge about effective

strategies to prevent youth violence.
11

References

1. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB,

Lozano R (eds.). World report on violence and

health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization, 2002.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Webbased Injury Statistics Query and Reporting

System – WISQARS. Available on the Internet:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/ wisqars/default.htm.

3. United States Department of Health and Human

Services. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon

General. Washington, DC: US Government

Printing Office, 2001.

4. Thornton TN, Craft CA, Dahlberg LL, Lynch BS,

Baer K. Best practices of youth violence

prevention: a sourcebook for community action.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, 2000.

5. Mihalic S, Irwin K, Elliott D, Fagan A, Hansen D.

Blueprints for violence prevention. Juvenile

Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 2001 (July).

6. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Effective interventions

for serious juvenile offenders: a synthesis of

research. In: Loeber R, Farrington DP (eds.).

Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors

and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage 1998:313–345.

7. Rossi PH, Freeman HE. Evaluation: a systematic

approach. 5th Edition, Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, 1993.

8. Powell KE, Hawkins DF. Youth violence

prevention: descriptions and baseline data from

13 evaluation projects. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine 1996;12(5 Suppl).

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 13

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Section I

Attitude 

and Belief

Assessments

The assessments in this section measure attitudes 

and beliefs related to:

A. Aggression/Delinquency

B. Couple Violence

C. Education and School

D. Employment

E. Gangs

F. Gender Roles

G. Guns

H. Television
14 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ATTITUDE AND BELIEF ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggression/

Delinquency

A1. Normative Beliefs

about Aggression; 20

items

Measures a child,

adolescent, or young

adult’s perception of

how acceptable it is to

behave aggressively,

both under varying

conditions of

provocation and when

no conditions are

specified. Can be

administered

individually or in

groups.

Children in nursery

school through

college in several

countries and with

different racial/ethnic

groups.

Internal consistency:

.90. One-year

stability: .39

(Huesmann, Guerra,

Zelli & Miller, 1992;

Guerra, Huesmann, &

Hanish, 1995;

Huesmann & Guerra,

1997).

Huesmann, Guerra,

Miller & Zelli, 1992

Copyright 1989

A2. Beliefs

Supporting

Aggression; 

6 items

Measures agreement

with normative beliefs

about aggression.

Designed to be

administered in group

settings with

individual audio

cassette players.

Respondents see only

response choices in

written form on

answer sheets.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.66. Strongly

associated with

violent behavior

(Parke & Slaby, 1983;

Slaby & Guerra,

1988).

Bandura, 1973

A3. Beliefs about

Hitting; 4 items

Measures the

perceptions of adult

role models about

fighting.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

.76.

Orpinas, 1993

A4. Attitude Toward

Violence; 6 items

Measures attitudes

toward violence and

its acceptability,

particularly in relation

to fighting.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

.67.

Houston Community

Demonstration

Project, 1993

Adapted by Bosworth &

Espelage, 1995

A5. Beliefs about

Aggression and

Alternatives; 

12 items

Measures student

beliefs about the use

of aggression and

endorsement of nonviolent responses to

hypothetical

situations.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

Beliefs about

aggression .72; Use

of non-violent

strategies .72.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004 

Adapted from Farrell,

Meyer & White, 2001

A6. Attitude Toward

Conflict; 8 items

Measures attitudes

toward the use of

violence in response

to disagreements or

conflicts. Can be

administered in a

classroom setting.

Sixth grade students

in an urban setting.

Internal consistency: 

.66 to .72.

Lam, 1989
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 15

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ATTITUDE AND BELIEF ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggression/

Delinquency

(Continued)

A7. KMPM

Questionnaire; 

11 items

Measures beliefs about

conflict, a few selfreported risk-taking

behaviors and the

developmental level of a

child’s interpersonal

relationships.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 4-6.

Not available. Group for the Study

of Interpersonal

Development, 1993

Adapted by Aber,

Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995

A8. Attitude Toward

Interpersonal Peer

Violence; 

14 items

Measures a passive or

violent attitude orientation

as well as knowledge and

skill in resolving conflict

non-violently.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

.75.

Slaby, 1989

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

A9. Beliefs about

Conflict—NYC Youth

Violence Survey; 9

items

Measures beliefs about

conflict and perceptions of

familial beliefs on fighting

and weapon carrying.

Students in grades 

9-12.

Not available. Division of

Adolescent and

School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993

A10. Attitude Toward

Delinquency—

Pittsburgh Youth

Study; 11 items

Measures acceptance of

engaging in delinquent

behaviors.

Male students initially

in grades 1, 4 and 7

in 1987 or 1988, and

followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.91.

Loeber, Farrington,

Stouthamer-Loeber &

Van Kammen, 1998

A11. Delinquent

Beliefs—Rochester

Youth Development

Study; 8 items

Measures beliefs about

delinquency.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.84.

Thornberry, Lizotte,

Krohn, Farnworth &

Jang, 1994

A12. Norms for

Aggression and

Alternatives; 36

items

Measures students’

perceptions of what other

students in their school

would think if students

engaged in aggression or

alternatives to aggression

(school norms) and

students’ own evaluations

of the same behaviors

(individual norms).

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

School norms—

Aggression .80;

Alternatives to

aggression .70.

Individual norms—

Aggression .73;

Alternatives to

aggression .74.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004 

Adapted from Jackson,

1966; and Sasaki, 1979

B. Couple Violence B1. Acceptance of

Couple Violence; 

11 items

Measures acceptance of

couple violence. Has three

subscales: male on female

violence; female on male

violence; and acceptance

of general dating violence.

Students in grades 

8-9.

Internal consistency:

.74, .71 and .73.

Foshee, Fothergill &

Stuart, 1992

C. Education and

School

C1. Attitudes Toward

School—Denver

Youth Survey; 5

items

Measures attitudes toward

school (e.g., homework,

teachers’ opinions).

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.38.

Institute of Behavioral

Science, 1990

C2. Commitment to

School—Seattle

Social Development

Project; 6 items

Measures feelings about

the importance of school

and course work.

Students aged 

11-18.

Internal consistency:

.81.

Glaser, Van Horn,

Arthur, Hawkins &

Catalano, in press
16 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ATTITUDE AND BELIEF ASSESSMENTS

C. Education

and School

(Continued)

C3. Commitment to

School—Rochester

Youth Development

Study; 10 items

Measures the youth’s

agreement about the

importance of schoolwork.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in

1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency: .81. Thornberry,

Lizotte, Krohn,

Farnworth &

Jang, 1991

C4. Prosocial

Involvement,

Opportunities and

Rewards—Seattle

Social Development

Project; 9 items

Measures students’

perception of the extent to

which opportunities and

rewards are available within

the school setting. 

Students aged 

11-18.

Internal consistency:

Opportunities .68; Rewards

.73.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano

& Baglioni, 2002

C5. Classroom Climate

Scale; 18 items

Measures three aspects of

classroom climate from a

student or teacher

perspective: studentstudent relationships,

student-teacher

relationships, and

awareness/reporting.

Middle school

students, grades

6-8 and their

teachers.

Internal consistency:

Students—Student-student

relationships .61; Studentteacher relationships .66;

Awareness/reporting .63.

Teachers—Student-student

relationships .64; Studentteacher relationships .74;

Awareness/reporting .75.

Multisite Violence

Prevention

Project, 2004 

Adapted from

Vessels, 1998

D. Employment D1. Attitudes Toward

Employment—Work

Opinion Questionnaire;

8 items.

Measures self-confidence

and motivation for work.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency: .54

(Harter, 1988).

Johnson, Messe

& Crano, 1984

E. Gangs E1. Attitudes Toward

Gangs; 9 items

Measures attitudes toward

gangs.

Students in grades

9-12.

Internal consistency: .74. Nadel, Spellmann,

Alvarez-Canino,

Lausell-Bryant &

Landsberg, 1996

F. Gender

Roles

F1. Gender

Stereotyping; 7 items

Measures gender

stereotyping in the context

of relationships and

responsibility.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency: .55

(Foshee & Bauman, 1992).

Gunter & Wober,

1982

F2. Attitudes Toward

Women; 12 items

Measures gender

stereotyping.

Students in grades

8-9.

Internal consistency: 

.62 to .86.

Galambos,

Petersen,

Richards, &

Gitelson, 1985

G. Guns G1. Attitudes Toward

Guns and Violence; 23

items

Measures attraction to

guns and violence in

relation to: aggressive

response to shame,

excitement, comfort with

aggression, and power/

safety. Designed for

written response by 10-18

year olds and oral

response by 8-9 year olds.

Students in grades

3-12.

Internal consistency: Full

scale .88; Aggressive

response to shame .83;

Excitement .79; Comfort

with aggression .81;

Power/safety .72 (Shapiro,

Dorman, Burkey,

Walker & Clough, 1997).

Applewood

Centers, Inc.,

1996

Copyright 1996

H. Television H1. TV Attitudes; 6

items

Measures attitudes toward

television violence.

Students in grades

2-5.

Internal consistency: .38.

One year stability: .36.

Huesmann, Eron,

Klein, Brice &

Fischer, 1983
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 17

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

SCALES AND ASSESSMENTS

A1. Normative Beliefs about Aggression

Retaliation Belief Questions

Suppose a boy says something bad to another boy, John.

1. Do you think it’s OK for John to scream at him?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

2. Do you think it’s OK for John to hit him?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

Suppose a boy says something bad to a girl.

3. Do you think it’s wrong for the girl to scream at him?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

4. Do you think it’s wrong for the girl to hit him?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

Suppose a girl says something bad to another girl, Mary.

5. Do you think it’s OK for Mary to scream at her?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

6. Do you think it’s OK for Mary to hit her?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

Suppose a girl says something bad to a boy.

7. Do you think it’s wrong for the boy to scream at her?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

This scale measures a child, adolescent, or young adult’s perception of how acceptable it is to behave

aggressively, both under varying conditions of provocation and when no conditions are specified. It can be

administered individually or in groups. Respondents are asked to select the one choice that best describes

their own ideas or experience.
18 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

8. Do you think it’s wrong for the boy to hit her?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

Suppose a boy hits another boy, John?

9. Do you think it’s wrong for John to hit him back?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

Suppose a boy hits a girl.

10. Do you think it’s OK for the girl to hit him back?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

Suppose a girl hits another girl, Mary.

11. Do you think it’s wrong for Mary to hit her back?

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

Suppose a girl hits a boy.

12. Do you think it’s OK for the boy to hit her back?

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

General Belief Questions

13. In general, it is wrong to hit other people.

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

14. If you’re angry, it is OK to say mean things to other people.

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

15. In general, it is OK to yell at others and say bad things.

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

16. It is usually OK to push or shove other people around if you’re mad.

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

17. It is wrong to insult other people.

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

18. It is wrong to take it out on others by saying mean things when you’re mad.

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 19

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

19. It is generally wrong to get into physical fights with others.

■ It’s really wrong ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s perfectly OK

20. In general, it is OK to take your anger out on others by using physical force.

■ It’s perfectly OK ■ It’s sort of OK ■ It’s sort of wrong ■ It’s really wrong

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use, contact:

L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D.

Research Center for Group Dynamics

5030 Institute for Social Research

426 Thompson Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248

Tel: (734) 764-8385

Fax: (734) 763-1202

huesmann@umich.edu

This measure is composed of three main scales. The items are scored using the following 4-point scale:

It’s perfectly OK = 4

It’s sort of OK = 3

It’s sort of wrong = 2

It’s really wrong = 1

The General Approval Aggression scale is calculated by summing participants’ responses to 8 items (12-

20) and dividing by the total number of items. A maximum score of 4 indicates a belief that it is generally

acceptable to aggress against others. A minimum score of 1 indicates the belief that aggression against others

is generally unacceptable.

The second scale, Approval of Retaliation Aggression, is calculated by summing participants’ responses

to 12 items (1-12) and dividing by the total number of items. A maximum score of 4 indicates a belief that it

is acceptable to aggress against others in specific provocation situations. A minimum score of 1 indicates the

belief that it is unacceptable to aggress against others in specific provocation situations.

The third scale, Total Approval of Aggression, measures beliefs about aggression in both specific and

general situations. It is calculated by averaging all 20 items.
20 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A2. Beliefs Supporting Aggression

1. It makes you feel big and tough when you push someone around.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. If you back down from a fight, everyone will think you are a coward.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. Sometimes you have only two choices—get punched or punch the other kid first.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. It’s OK to hit someone if you just go crazy with anger.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. A guy who doesn’t fight back when other kids push him around will lose respect.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. A guy shows he really loves his girlfriend if he gets in fights with other guys about her.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number of items. The intended range of

scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating more beliefs that support aggressive behavior.

These items measure agreement with normative beliefs about aggression. Respondents select the one

choice that best describes their own ideas or experience.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 21

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A3. Beliefs about Hitting

Thinking about the adults you spend the most time with, how many of them would tell you the following?

All Most Few None

1. “If another students hits you, hit them back (it is OK to fight).” a b c d

2. “If another student wants you to fight, you should try to talk your a b c d

way out of the fight.”

3. “If another student asks you to fight, you should tell a teacher or a b c d

someone older.”

4. “Fighting is not good. There are other ways to solve problems.” a b c d

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

All = 4

Most = 3

Few = 2

None = 1

Item 1 is reverse scored. Responses are summed across all items, with a possible range of 4 to 16. Higher

scores indicate the presence of more non-violent adult role models.

These items measure the perception of adult role models about fighting. Students are asked to circle

the response that reflects their thinking.
22 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A4. Attitude Toward Violence

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly Strongly 

agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree

1. If I walk away from a fight, I’d be a coward a b c d e

(“chicken”).

2. I don’t need to fight because there are other a b c d e

ways to deal with being mad.

3. It’s okay to hit someone who hits you first. a b c d e

4. If a kid teases me, I usually cannot get him/her a b c d e

to stop unless I hit him/her.

5. If I really want to, I can usually talk someone out a b c d e

of trying to fight with me.

6. If I refuse to fight, my friends will think I’m a b c d e

afraid.

(Item 4 was modified and item 6 added by Bosworth & Espelage, 1995.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 5

Agree = 4

Neither = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 2 and 5 are reverse scored. A total score of 30 is possible by summing across all items. Higher

scores indicate a positive attitude toward violent strategies and limited use of nonviolent strategies.

These items measure attitudes toward violence and its acceptability, particularly in relation to fighting.

Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of statements.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 23

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A5. Beliefs about Aggression and Alternatives 

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

agree somewhat somewhat disagree

1. If I’m mad at someone, I just ignore them. 1 2 3 4

2. Even if other kids would think I’m weird, I 1 2 3 4

would try to stop a fight.

3. It’s O.K. for me to hit someone to get them to do 1 2 3 4

what I want.

4. Sometimes a person doesn’t have any choice but to 1 2 3 4

fight.

5. When my friends fight, I try to get them to stop. 1 2 3 4

6. If I back down from a fight, everyone will think I’m 1 2 3 4

a coward.

7. There are better ways to solve problems than fighting. 1 2 3 4

8. I try to talk out a problem instead of fighting. 1 2 3 4

9. I feel big and tough when I push someone around. 1 2 3 4

10. If people do something to make me really mad, they 1 2 3 4

deserve to be beaten up.

11. Sometimes I have only two choices: get punched or 1 2 3 4

punch the other kid first.

12. If I get crazy with anger, it’s O.K. to hit someone. 1 2 3 4

These items measure student beliefs about the use of aggression and endorsement of non-violent

responses to hypothetical situations. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or

disagree with twelve statements.
24 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. All items are reverse coded before summing. Two subscales are

included in this assessment: Beliefs about Aggression (items 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12) and Use of Nonviolent

Strategies (items 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8). Point values for responses in each subscale are summed and then divided

by the total number of items in the subscale.

Beliefs about Aggression: A high score indicates more favorable beliefs supporting the use of aggression.

Use of Nonviolent Strategies: A high score indicates higher levels of support for using nonviolent strategies.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 25

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A6. Attitude Toward Conflict

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly 

agree somewhat somewhat disagree

1. If I’m mad at someone I just ignore them. 1 2 3 4

2. Even if other kids would think I’m weird I would 1 2 3 4

try to stop a fight.

3. It’s O.K. for me to hit someone to get them to do 1 2 3 4

what I want.

4. Sometimes a person doesn’t have any choice but 1 2 3 4

to fight.

5. When my friends fight I try to get them to stop. 1 2 3 4

6. There are better ways to solve problems than fighting. 1 2 3 4

7. I try to talk out a problem instead of fighting. 1 2 3 4

8. If people do something to make me really mad, 1 2 3 4

they deserve to be beaten up.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above, with the exception of items 3, 4 and 8. These items are reverse coded as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree somewhat = 3

Disagree somewhat = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

This scale can be scored by summing the point values of the responses from a participant. If one or two

responses are left blank, the average of the point values for the remaining items should be multiplied by eight to

calculate a pro-rated score. The scale should generally not be scored if more than two responses are left blank.

A maximum obtainable score of 32 indicates a strong favorable attitude toward using violence to resolve

disagreements or conflicts. A minimum score of 8 indicates a strong negative attitude toward using violence.

These items measure attitudes toward the use of violence in response to disagreements or conflicts.

Students are asked to circle the number that best describes how they feel about each statement.
26 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A7. Knowledge, Management, & Personal Meaning (KMPM) Questionnaire

1. The best reason why young people in your neighborhood or school fight is:

a. their parents tell them to fight back

b. they just like to

c. to get revenge

d. they were hit

e. they frequently see that people solve problems by fighting

f. they just like fighting to show who’s in charge

g. people talk behind their back

2. The best reason why some young people avoid fighting is:

a. they decide they don’t like to fight

b. they don’t hang out with kids who fight

c. they realize they don’t need to fight to prove themselves

d. they begin to learn other ways to deal with problems

e. they stay home

f. they learn to walk away or ignore kids who fight or spread rumors

g. they are wimps

3. The best reason why some young people join gangs is:

a. to protect themselves

b. other kids make them

c. to show off in front of other girls and boys

d. it gives them a sense of family that they might not feel

e. to be cool

f. they just want to

4. Joe doesn’t like the idea of stealing things from stores. One day Joe’s best friend Noah says he is going to

steal something from a store and asks Joe to go with him. Joe says he doesn’t want to, and Noah calls him

a wimp. What would you suggest Joe do?

a. just leave

b. punch his friend Noah

c. tell Noah to leave him alone

d. explain to Noah why he thinks stealing is wrong and try to get him not to steal

e. tell Noah he won’t have anything to do with him if he steals

f. persuade Noah that he isn’t a wimp just because he won’t go along with Noah

This assessment measures beliefs about conflict, a few self-reported risk-taking behaviors and the

developmental level of a child’s interpersonal relationships.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 27

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

5. Leroy met Manuel when they both joined the neighborhood basketball team. Leroy liked how well

Manuel played basketball and wanted to be his friend. What would you suggest Leroy do to become

friends with Manuel?

a. lend him his favorite video game

b. do what he does

c. invite him to join the group of friends he hangs with

d. talk about the team

e. ask him over to his house

6. Sarah had not been getting along with her mother lately because she had been on her back about

schoolwork and housework. Recently Sarah slept over at her best friend’s house and liked the way her

friend got along with her mother. Sarah decided that she wants to get along better with her own mother.

What would you suggest she do?

a. ask her mother for advice

b. have meals at the same time

c. tell her mother she will be a better daughter

d. tell her mother that she gets on her back too much

e. talk to her mom about times when they can talk about their feelings

7. Raynaldo has saved some money to buy a walkman, but his mother needs money to pay some bills.

Raynaldo’s mother asks him if he will lend her the money. What would you suggest Raynaldo do?

a. just give her the money

b. lend her the money, expecting to be paid back

c. ask her to buy you an extra gift for your birthday in exchange for lending her the money

d. ignore her

e. join with the rest of the family to organize a way to raise money

f. lend his mother the money since he needs the bills to be paid too

8. Claudia could not finish her homework because she had to help her mother who was sick. The next day in

school, the teacher tells Claudia that she has to stay after school to finish her homework. If Claudia does

that, she will miss the big basketball game that is after school, and she is the star player on the team. What

would you suggest Claudia do?

a. walk out of class and go to the basketball game because Claudia is right

b. offer to stay after school on another day to make up the work

c. explain to the teacher what happened, why basketball is so important, and work out another date for the

homework

d. run out of class and hide

e. just do what the teacher says

f. try to convince the teacher to let her go by explaining what happened
28 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

9. When I get in physical fights with other people, it is because:

a. they talk about me behind my back

b. I always defend my family and friends

c. I like beating up on people

d. I keep my self-respect by not backing down

e. I realize that we live in a world where you have to fight to survive

f. I don’t let anyone mess with me

10. When I don’t get in physical fights with other people, it is because:

a. people just gang up on you if you fight all the time

b. not fighting is the best way for me to deal with problems

c. I don’t want to get in trouble

d. it’s not really me—it would be the last thing I do

e. nobody likes a bully

f. I don’t want to get my face messed up

11. When someone calls my mother a name or insults me in school:

Choose one answer from either X or Y—not both.

X. I would fight them because:

a. you have to defend yourself and your family

b. if you let them get away with it once it will just happen again

c. even though I know that fighting is not always the best thing to do, sometimes there’s no other

way to deal with disrespect

d. nobody messes with me

Y. I would not fight them because:

a. I could get beat up

b. the school rule is no fighting

c. I only fight when physically attacked

d. fighting’s not going to make me feel better or solve anything even if I beat up the other kid

(These items are a subset of the original, with slightly modified wording by Aber, Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995, for use with the intended sample.)

Scoring and Analysis

This information is not available.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 29

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A8. Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence

1. If I walked away from a fight, I’d be a coward (“chicken”).

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

2. The best way to stop a fight before it starts is to stop the argument (problem) that caused it.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

3. Anyone who won’t fight is going to be “picked on” even more.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

4. I don’t need to fight because there are other ways to deal with being mad.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

5. It’s OK to hit someone who hits you first.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

6. If my friends want to go someplace where a fight might happen, I find it easy to say I don’t want to go

with them.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

7. When actions of others make me angry, I can usually deal with it without getting into a physical fight.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

8. If a kid teases me or “disses” me, I usually cannot get them to stop unless I hit them.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

9. If a kid at school hits me, it is harder to report them to a teacher or other adult than it is to just hit them back.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

10. If I really want to, I can usually talk someone out of trying to fight with me.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

11. My family would be mad at me if I got in a fight with another student, no matter what the reason.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

These items assess either a passive or violent attitude orientation as well as knowledge and skill in

resolving conflicts nonviolently. Students are asked to indicate their opinions or feelings about fighting,

defined as physical fights with pushing and hitting, not just arguments.
30 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

12. If a student hits me first, my family would want me to hit them back.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

13. I usually can tell when things are bothering me or getting on my nerves.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

14. If things are bothering me or getting on my nerves, I do things to relax.

■ Disagree a lot ■ Disagree a little ■ Agree a little ■ Agree a lot

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Disagree a lot = 1

Disagree a little = 2

Agree a little = 3

Agree a lot = 4

Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 12 are reverse coded. The scale is scored by summing the point values of the

responses and dividing by the total number of responses. Blank items are not counted in the number of

responses. Higher mean scores, which can range from 1 to 4, indicate higher levels of knowledge and skills in

resolving conflict non-violently. Lower mean scores indicate less knowledge or skill in non-violent conflict

resolution and a more violent orientation.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 31

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A9. Beliefs about Conflict—NYC Youth Violence Survey

1. Suppose someone was trying to start a physical fight with you. Which one of the following is most

important in deciding whether you would get in a physical fight?

a. What your friends would think

b. What your parents would think

c. Whether you would get into trouble at school

d. Whether you would get hurt

e. Other

2. Threatening to use a weapon is an effective way to avoid a physical fight.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

3. Avoiding or walking away from someone who wants to fight you is an effective way to avoid a physical

fight.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

4. Carrying a weapon is an effective way to avoid a physical fight.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

5. Apologizing (saying you’re sorry) is an effective way to avoid a physical fight.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

6. If someone hit me first, my family would want me to hit them back.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Not sure

These items measure beliefs about conflict and perceptions of familial beliefs on fighting and weapon

carrying. Respondents are asked to select the response that best corresponds to their beliefs.
32 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

7. If someone attacked me, my family would want me to defend myself even if it meant using a weapon.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Not sure

8. If I was going to be in a physical fight, I’d feel safer if I had a knife.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Not sure

9. If I was going to be in a physical fight, I’d feel safer if I had a handgun.

a. Yes

b. No

c. Not sure

Scoring and Analysis

Items can be considered separately or as an index of beliefs about conflict resolution. If considered

separately, point values are assigned to correspond to the response categories. To create an index using

items 2-9, point values can be assigned as follows:

Yes = 3

Don’t know = 2

No = 1

Items 3 and 5 should be reverse coded. Scores are derived by summing across all responses. A total of 24

points is possible, with high scores indicating poor conflict resolution beliefs.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 33

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A10. Attitude Toward Delinquency—Pittsburgh Youth Study

How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to ...

Very A little Not wrong 

wrong wrong Wrong at all

1. Skip school without an excuse? 3 2 1 0

2. Lie, disobey or talk back to adults such as 3 2 1 0

parents, teachers, or others?

3. Purposely damage or destroy property that 3 2 1 0

did not belong to him?

4. Steal something worth less than $5? 3 2 1 0

5. Steal something worth $50? 3 2 1 0

6. Steal something worth $100? 3 2 1 0

7. Go into or try to go into a building to steal something? 3 2 1 0

8. Go joyriding, that is, take a motor vehicle 3 2 1 0

such as a car or motorcycle for a ride or drive 

without the owner’s permission?

9. Hit someone with the idea of hurting that person? 3 2 1 0

10. Attack someone with a weapon or with the idea 3 2 1 0

of seriously hurting that person?

11. Use a weapon, force, or strong-arm methods to 3 2 1 0

get money or things from people?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. All items are reverse coded before summing. Higher scores

indicate greater acceptance of delinquency.

These items measure the acceptance of engaging in delinquent behavior. Youth are asked to indicate

how wrong they think it is for someone their age to engage in certain delinquent behaviors.
34 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A11. Delinquent Beliefs—Rochester Youth Development Study

How wrong do you think it is to ...

Very A little Not at all

wrong Wrong bit wrong wrong

1. Steal something worth $100? 4 3 2 1

2. Use a weapon or force to get money or things from 4 3 2 1

people?

3. Attack someone with a weapon with the idea of 4 3 2 1

seriously hurting them?

4. Hit someone with the idea of hurting them? 4 3 2 1

5. Take a car or motorcycle for a ride without the 4 3 2 1

owner’s permission?

6. Steal something worth $50? 4 3 2 1

7. Damage or destroy someone else’s property on 4 3 2 1

purpose?

8. Skip classes without an excuse? 4 3 2 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. All items are reverse coded before summing. Higher scores

indicate greater acceptance of delinquency.

These items measure beliefs about delinquency. Respondents are asked to indicate how wrong they

think it is for someone to engage in certain delinquent behaviors.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 35

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

A12. Norms for Aggression and Alternatives

1. How would you feel if a kid in your school ignored a ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

rumor that was being spread about him or her?

2. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid ignored ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

a rumor that was being spread about him or her?

3. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

who said something mean?

4. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who said something mean?

5. How would you feel if a kid in your school told another ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

student who was starting to get into a fight that there’s a 

choice between fighting and other ways of solving problems?

6. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid told ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

another student who was starting to get into a fight that there’s 

a choice between fighting and other ways of solving problems?

7. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who said something mean?

8. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who said something mean?

9. How would you feel if a kid in your school asked a ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

teacher or another adult for help when challenged to a 

fight after school?

10. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid asked a ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

teacher or another adult for help when challenged to a 

fight after school?

These items measure students’ perceptions of what other students in their schools would think if they

engaged in certain behaviors (school norms), and students’ own evaluations of the same behaviors

(individual endorsement). Respondents are asked to indicate whether they (or other students) would like

the behavior, would not like it, or would not care. 
36 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

11. How would you feel if a kid in your school apologized to ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone that he or she accidentally bumped into in the hall?

12. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid apologized ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

to someone that he or she accidentally bumped into in 

the hall?

13. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who said something mean?

14. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who said something mean?

15. How would you feel if a kid in your school told another ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

student to “stop and calm down” when the other student 

started to get into a fight?

16. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid told another ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

student to “stop and calm down” when the other student 

started to get into a fight?

17. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

who hit first?

18. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who hit first? 

19. How would you feel if a kid in your school hit someone ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

for no reason?

20. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid hit ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone for no reason? 

21. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone because that person yelled first?

22. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone because that person yelled first?

23. How would you feel if a kid in your school avoided a fight ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

walking down a different hall to class?
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 37

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

24. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid avoided a ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

fight by walking down a different hall to class? 

25. How would you feel if a kid in your school listened to ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

a friend's side of the story, even though the two were in 

an argument?

26. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid listened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

to a friend’s side of the story, even though the two were 

in an argument?

27. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone for no reason?

28. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone for no reason?

29. How would you feel if a kid in your school yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who yelled first?

30. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid yelled at ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who yelled first?

31. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone for no reason?

32. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone for no reason?

33. How would you feel if a kid in your school threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who hit first?

34. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid threatened ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

someone who hit first?

35. How would you feel if a kid in your school took a deep ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

breath when he or she started to lose his temper?

36. How would the kids in your school feel if a kid took a ■ Like it ■ Not like it ■ Not care

deep breath when he or she started to lose his temper?
38 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Like it = 3

Not like it = 1

Not care = 2

Four subscales are included in this assessment. Point values for responses in each subscale are summed

and then divided by the total number of items in the subscale: 

School Norms for Aggression: Includes items 4, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32 and 34. 

School Norms for Alternatives to Aggression: Includes items 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 24, 26 and 36. 

Individual Norms for Aggression: Includes items 3, 7, 13, 17, 19, 21, 27, 29, 31 and 33. 

Individual Norms for Alternatives to Aggression: Includes items 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 23, 25 and 35. 
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 39

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

B1. Acceptance of Couple Violence

Strongly Strongly 

disagree Disagree Agree agree

1. A boy angry enough to hit his girlfriend must 1 2 3 4

love her very much.

2. Violence between dating partners can improve 1 2 3 4

the relationship.

3. Girls sometimes deserve to be hit by the boys 1 2 3 4

they date.

4. A girl who makes her boyfriend jealous on purpose 1 2 3 4

deserves to be hit.

5. Boys sometimes deserve to be hit by the girls 1 2 3 4

they date.

6. A girl angry enough to hit her boyfriend must love 1 2 3 4

him very much.

7. There are times when violence between dating 1 2 3 4

partners is okay.

8. A boy who makes his girlfriend jealous on purpose 1 2 3 4

deserves to be hit.

9. Sometimes violence is the only way to express 1 2 3 4

your feelings.

10. Some couples must use violence to solve their 1 2 3 4

problems.

11. Violence between dating partners is a personal 1 2 3 4

matter and people should not interfere.

This assessment measures acceptance of couple violence. It has three subscales: male on female

violence, female on male violence, and acceptance of general dating violence. Respondents are asked to

circle the answer that corresponds with their beliefs.
40 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated. Three subscales can be scored: the Acceptance of Male on Female Violence

subscale is based on items 1, 3 and 4; the Acceptance of Female on Male Violence subscale is based on items 5,

6 and 8; and the Acceptance of General Dating Violence subscale is based on items 2, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Within each subscale the score is calculated by summing the point values of the responses from a

participant. Alternatively, the score can be derived by summing the point values and dividing by the number

of responses. A high score indicates a high level of acceptance of couple violence; a low score indicates a low

level of acceptance.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 41

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

C1. Attitudes Toward School—Denver Youth Survey

1. Homework is a waste of time.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. I try hard in school.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. Education is so important that it’s worth it to put up with things about school that I don’t like.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. In general, I like school.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I don’t care what teachers think of me.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 2-4 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 1 and 5 should be reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the

number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a more positive attitude

toward education.

These items measure attitudes toward school (e.g., homework, teachers’ opinions). Youths are asked to

check the response that best corresponds with their beliefs.
42 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

C2. Commitment to School—Seattle Social Development Project 

1. How often do you feel that the school work you are assigned is meaningful and important?

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Almost always

2. How interesting are most of your courses to you?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Fairly ■ Slightly ■ Very 

interesting and interesting interesting dull dull

stimulating

3. How important do you think the things you are learning in school are going to be for your later life? 

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Fairly ■ Slightly ■ Not at all 

important important important important important

Now, thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you... 

4. Enjoy being in school? 

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Almost always

5. Hate being in school? 

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Almost always

6. Try to do your best work in school? 

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Almost always

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

First response = 5 (For example, in item 1, the first response is “Never.” In item 2, 

the first response is “Very interesting and stimulating.”) 

Second response = 4

Third response = 3

Fourth response = 2

Fifth response = 1

Items 2, 3 and 5 should be reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and then divided

by the number of items. Higher scores indicate a lower commitment and involvement in school.

These items measure feelings about the importance of school and course work. Students are asked to

check the response that best corresponds with their beliefs.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 43

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

C3. Commitment to School—Rochester Youth Development Study

How much do you agree or disagree with these statements? 

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Disagree disagree

1. You like school a lot. 4321

2. School is boring. 4321

3. You do poorly at school. 4 3 2 1 

4. You don’t really belong at school. 4321

5. Homework is a waste of time. 4 3 2 1 

6. You try hard at school. 4321

7. You usually finish your homework. 4321

8. Getting good grades is very important to you. 4321

9. Sometimes you do extra work to improve your grades. 4321

10. If you could choose on your own between studying to get a good grade on a test or going out with your

friends, would you:

■ Definitely go out ■ Probably go out ■ Probably study ■ Definitely study

with friends with friends

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 1-9 are assigned as indicated above. Point values for item 10 are assigned as follows:

Definitely go out with friends = 1

Probably go out with friends = 2

Probably study = 3

Definitely study = 4

Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 are reverse coded, then all values are summed and divided by the total number of

items. Intended range is 1-4, with a higher score indicating greater commitment to school.

These items measure youth’s agreement about the importance of school work. Youth are asked to

check the response that most closely reflects their beliefs.
44 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

C4. Prosocial Involvement, Opportunities and Rewards—

Seattle Social Development Project 

Opportunities

1. In my school, students have lots of chances NO! no yes YES!

to help decide things like class activities and rules.

2. There are lots of chances for students in my school NO! no yes YES!

to talk with a teacher one-on-one. 

3. Teachers ask me to work on special classroom NO! no yes YES!

projects. 

4. There are lots of chances for students in my NO! no yes YES!

school to get involved in sports, clubs, and other

activities outside of class.

5. There are lots of chances to be part of class NO! no yes YES!

discussions or activities. 

Rewards 

1. My teacher(s) notices when I am doing a good job NO! no yes YES!

and lets me know about it.

2. The school lets my parents know when I have done NO! no yes YES!

something well. 

3. I feel safe at my school. NO! no yes YES!

4. My teachers praise me when I work hard in school. NO! no yes YES!

These items measure students’ perception of the extent to which opportunities and rewards are

available within the school setting. Respondents are asked to indicate how strongly they feel each

sentence is true for them. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is

somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 45

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Items are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

Point values for all items are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores

indicate greater opportunities and/or rewards for prosocial involvement in school.
46 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

C5. Classroom Climate Scale

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

disagree disagree agree agree

Student-Student Relationships 

1. Students are kind and supportive of one another. 1 2 3 4

2. Students from different social classes and races 1 2 3 4

get along well.

3. Students stop other students who are unfair or 1 2 3 4

disruptive.

4. Students get along well together most of the time. 1 2 3 4

5. Students respectfully listen to each other during 

class discussions. 1 2 3 4

6. Students make friends easily. 1 2 3 4

7. Students enjoy being at school. 1 2 3 4

Student-Teacher Relationships

8. Teachers treat students with respect. 1 2 3 4

9. Teachers praise students more often than they 1 2 3 4

criticize them.

10. Teachers treat students fairly. 1 2 3 4

11. Teachers take the time to help students work 1 2 3 4

out their differences.

These items measure three components of students’ or teachers’ perceptions of their classroom climate:

student-student relationships, student-teacher relationships, and awareness/reporting. Respondents are

asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of declarative statements.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 47

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

disagree disagree agree agree

Awareness/Reporting

12. Students feel free to ask for help from teachers if 1 2 3 4

there is a problem with a student.

13. Teachers know when students are being picked on 1 2 3 4

or being bullied.

14. Students are encouraged to report bullying and 1 2 3 4

aggression.

15. Students know who to go to for help if they have 1 2 3 4

been treated badly by another student. 

16. Students report it when one student hits another. 1 2 3 4

17. Teachers take action to solve the problem when 1 2 3 4

students report bullying. 

18. Students report it when one student teases or 1 2 3 4

makes fun of another. 

(Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 were adapted from Vessels, 1998.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the total number

of items for each subscale. Intended range for each subscale is 1-4.

Student-Student Relationships: A higher score indicates a more positive relationship among students.

Student-Teacher Relationships: A higher score indicates a more positive relationship between students and

teachers.

Awareness/Reporting: A higher score indicates a stronger awareness of the need for reporting violent

incidents.
48 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

D1. Attitudes Toward Employment—Work Opinion Questionnaire

1. I am not quite ready to handle a part-time job.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. I have enough skills to do a job well.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. I know I can succeed at work.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. I would take almost any kind of job to get money.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I admire people who get by without working.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. The only good job is one that pays a lot of money.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

7. Working hard at a job will pay off in the end.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

8. Most jobs are dull and boring.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 2, 3 and 7 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 should be reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided

by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a more positive

attitude toward employment.

These items measure self-confidence and motivation for work. Youths are asked to check the response

that best corresponds with their beliefs.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 49

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

E1. Attitudes Toward Gangs

Not true True

for me for me

1. I think you are safer, and have protection, if you join a gang. 0 1

2. I will probably join a gang. 0 1

3. Some of my friends at school belong to gangs. 0 1

4. I think it’s cool to be in a gang. 0 1

5. My friends would think less of me if I joined a gang. 0 1

6. I believe it is dangerous to join a gang; you will probably end up getting 0 1

hurt or killed if you belong to a gang.

7. I think being in a gang makes it more likely that you will get into trouble. 0 1

8. Some people in my family belong to a gang, or used to belong to a gang. 0 1

9. I belong to a gang. 0 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. Items 5, 6 and 7 are reverse coded, then a total is derived by summing all

items. Higher scores indicate a more positive (accepting) attitude toward gangs.

These items measure attitudes toward gangs. Respondents are asked to indicate how true certain

statements about gangs are for them.
50 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

F1. Gender Stereotyping

1. Most women like to be pushed around by men.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. Most women like to show off their bodies.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. Most men want to go out with women just for sex.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. Most women like romantic affairs with men.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. Most women depend on men to get them out of trouble.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. It is sometimes OK for a man to hit his wife.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

7. Men and women should have equal responsibility for raising children.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 1-6 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Item 7 should be reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number

of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a more stereotypical attitude.

These items measure gender stereotyping in the context of relationships and responsibility. Youths are

asked to check the response that best corresponds to their beliefs.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 51

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

F2. Attitudes Toward Women

Strongly Strongly 

disagree Disagree Agree agree

1. Swearing is worse for a girl than for a boy. 1 2 3 4

2. On a date, the boy should be expected to pay 1 2 3 4

all expenses.

3. On the average, girls are as smart as boys. 1 2 3 4

4. More encouragement in a family should be given 1 2 3 4

to sons than daughters to go to college.

5. It is all right for a girl to want to play rough sports 1 2 3 4

like football.

6. In general, the father should have greater authority 1 2 3 4

than the mother in making family decisions.

7. It is all right for a girl to ask a boy out on a date. 1 2 3 4

8. It is more important for boys than girls to do well 1 2 3 4

in school.

9. If both husband and wife have jobs, the husband 1 2 3 4

should do a share of the housework such as washing 

dishes and doing the laundry.

10. Boys are better leaders than girls. 1 2 3 4

11. Girls should be more concerned with becoming 1 2 3 4

good wives and mothers rather than desiring a 

professional or business career.

12. Girls should have the same freedom as boys. 1 2 3 4

This scale measures gender stereotyping. Adolescents are asked to indicate the extent to which they

agree or disagree with each statement.
52 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated, with the exception of items 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12. These items should be reverse

coded so that a higher score indicates a stronger gender stereotyping. To score this scale, the point values of

the responses from a participant should be summed. A high score indicates a high level of gender

stereotyping; a low score indicates a low level of stereotyping.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 53

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

G1. Attitudes Toward Guns and Violence

1. You’ve got to fight to show people you’re not a wimp. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

2. If someone disrespects me, I have to fight them to get my ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

pride back.

3. Carrying a gun makes people feel safe. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

4. Carrying a gun makes people feel powerful and strong. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

5. If people are nice to me I’ll be nice to them, but if someone ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

stops me from getting what I want, they’ll pay for it bad.

6. I’d like to have a gun so that people would look up to me. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

7. It would be exciting to hold a loaded gun in my hand. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

8. I wish there weren’t any guns in my neighborhood. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

9. I bet it would feel real cool to walk down the street with a gun ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

in my pocket.

10. I’d feel awful inside if someone laughed at me and I didn’t ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

fight them.

11. It would make me feel really powerful to hold a loaded gun in ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

my hand.

12. Most people feel nervous around someone with a gun and they ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

want to get away from that person.

13. The people I respect would never go around with a gun because ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

they’re against hurting people.

14. I think it would be fun to play around with a real gun. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

These items measure attraction to guns and violence in relation to four major factors: aggressive

response to shame, excitement, comfort with aggression, and power/safety. Respondents are asked to

indicate whether they agree, disagree, or are not sure about an idea.
54 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

15. If someone insults me or my family, it really bothers me, ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

but if I beat them up, that makes me feel better.

16. If somebody insults you, and you don’t want to be a chump, ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

you have to fight.

17. I don’t like people who have guns because they might kill ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

someone.

18. A kid who doesn’t get even with someone who makes fun ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

of him is a sucker.

19. Belonging to a gang makes kids feel safe because they’ve got ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

people to back them up.

20. If I acted the way teachers think I should out on the street, ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

people would think I was weak and I’d get pushed around.

21. I wish everyone would get rid of all their guns. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

22. I don’t like being around people with guns because someone ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

could end up getting hurt.

23. Kids in gangs feel like they’re part of something powerful. ■ Agree ■ Not sure ■ Disagree

Scoring and Analysis

This instrument is copyrighted. For permission to use and scoring information, contact:

Western Psychological Services

12031 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Tel: (800) 648-8857

Fax: (310) 478-7838

www.wpspublish.com

This instrument has four main factors. The Aggressive Response to Shame factor has items that measure the belief

that shame resulting from being insulted can be undone only by means of aggression (items 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 16, 18 and

20). The Excitement factor measures whether the respondent finds guns to be intrinsically exciting, stimulating and fun

(items 6, 7, 9, 11 and 14). The Comfort With Aggression factor measures general beliefs, values, and feelings about

aggression and violence (items 8, 12, 13, 17, 21 and 22). The Power/Safety factor measures the belief that guns and

violence increase one’s safety on the streets and bring a sense of personal power (items 3, 4, 19 and 23).
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 55

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

H1. TV Attitudes

1. How much of what kids see on television is fake?

■ Almost ■ A lot of it ■ Some of it ■ Only a little ■ None of it

all of it of it

2. Are television shows with a lot of hitting and shooting harmful for kids?

■ They are ■ They are ■ Maybe ■ They are ■ They are 

very harmful fairly harmful fairly harmless very harmless

3. How many television programs show life just like it really is?

■ All of them ■ A lot of ■ Some of ■ Only a few ■ None of

them them of them them

4. How likely is it that watching a lot of violent television shows would make a kid meaner?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Possible ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

5. How much of a kid’s free time should be spent watching television?

■ Almost ■ A lot of it ■ Some of it ■ Only a little ■ None of it

all of it of it

6. How harmful is it for a kid to watch television all of the time?

■ Very ■ Harmful ■ Somewhat ■ Only a little ■ Not at all

harmful harmful harmful harmful

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 2, 3 and 5 are assigned as follows:

First response = 1

Second response = 2

Third response = 3

Fourth response = 4

Fifth response = 5

Items 1, 4 and 6 are reverse coded. The scale score is computed by adding the scores from all six items and

dividing by 6. Higher scores indicate a belief that violence shown on TV is realistic and harmless for children.

These items measure attitudes toward television violence. Respondents are asked to check the

response that best corresponds with their beliefs.
56 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

References

Aber JL, Brown JL, Jones S, Samples F. Adapting

measures of children’s beliefs, attributions and skills

for use in the evaluation of violence prevention

projects. New York, NY: National Center for

Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 1995.

(Unpublished)

Applewood Centers, Inc. Attitudes toward guns and

violence questionnaire. Cleveland, OH, 1996.

(Unpublished)

Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Pollard JA, Catalano RF,

Baglioni AJ. Measuring risk and protective factors

for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent

problem behaviors: The Communities That Care

Youth Survey. Evaluation Review 2002;26(6):575-

601.

Bandura A. Aggression: a social learning analysis.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Bosworth K, Espelage D. Teen Conflict Survey.

Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies,

Indiana University, 1995. (Unpublished)

Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion. New York City Youth Violence Survey.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 1993.

Farrell AD, Meyer AL, White KS. Evaluation of

responding in peaceful and positive ways (RIPP): a

school-based prevention program for reducing

violence among urban adolescents. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology 2001:30(4):451-463.

Foshee VA, Bauman KE. Gender stereotyping and

adolescent sexual behavior: a test of temporal order.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1992;

22(20):1561-1579.

Foshee V, Fothergill K, Stuart J. Results from the

Teenage Dating Abuse Study conducted in Githens

Middle School and Southern High Schools.

Technical Report. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina, 1992. (Unpublished)

Galambos NL, Petersen AC, Richards M, Gitelson

IB. The Attitudes Towards Women Scale for

Adolescents (AWSA): a study of reliability and

validity. Sex Roles 1985;13(5/6):343-356.

Glaser RR, Van Horn ML, Arthur MW, Hawkins JD,

Catalano RF. Measurement properties of the

Communities That Care Youth Survey across

demographic groups. Journal of Quantitative

Criminology. (In press)

Group for the Study of Interpersonal Development.

Knowledge, Management, & Personal Meaning

(KMPM) Questionnaire. Boston, MA: Harvard

Graduate School of Education and The Judge Baker

Children’s Center, 1993. (Unpublished)

Guerra NG, Huesmann LR, Hanish L. The role of

normative beliefs in children’s social behavior. In

Eisenberg N. (ed.) Review of personality and social

psychology, 15, social development. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995:140-158.

Gunter B, Wober M. Television viewing and

perceptions of women’s roles on television and in

real life. Current Psychological Research

1982;2(4):277-287.
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 57

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

Harter S. Manual for the self-perception profile for

adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver,

1988. (Unpublished)

Houston Community Demonstration Project. Peer

Leader Survey. Houston, TX: City of Houston

Health and Human Services Department, 1993.

(Unpublished)

Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Klein R, Brice P, Fischer

P. Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behaviors

by changing children’s attitudes about media

violence. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 1983;44(5):899-910.

Huesmann LR, Guerra NG. Children’s normative

beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997;

72(2):408-419 .

Huesmann LR, Guerra NG, Miller L, Zelli A. The

role of social norms in the development of

aggression. In Zumkley H, Fraczek A. (eds.)

Socialization and aggression. New York, NY:

Springer, 1992.

Huesmann LR, Guerra NG, Zelli A, Miller L.

Differing normative beliefs about aggression for

boys and girls. In Bjorkqvist K. and Pirkko N. (eds.)

Of mice and women: aspects of female aggression.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992:77-78.

Institute of Behavioral Science. Youth Interview

Schedule: Denver Youth Survey. Boulder, CO:

University of Colorado, 1990. (Unpublished)

Jackson J. A conceptual and measurement model for

norms and roles. Pacific Sociological Review 1966;

9:35-47.

Johnson CD, Messe LA, Crano WD. Predicting job

performance of low income workers: The Work

Opinion Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology 1984;

37(2):291-299.

Lam JA. School mediation program evaluation kit.

Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Student

Affairs Research and Evaluation Office, 1989.

(Unpublished)

Loeber R, Farrington DP, Stouthamer-Loeber M,

Van Kammen WB. Antisocial behavior and mental

health problems: explanatory factors in childhood

and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1998.

Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description

of measures: cohort-wide student survey, 2004.

Available from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)

Nadel H, Spellmann M, Alvarez-Canino T, LausellBryant L, Landsberg G. The cycle of violence and

victimization: a study of the school-based

intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence

prevention program. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine 1996;12(5 Suppl):109-119.

Orpinas P. Skills training and social influences for

violence prevention in middle schools. A curriculum

evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation. Houston, TX:

University of Texas Health Science Center at

Houston, School of Public Health, 1993.

Parke RD, Slaby RG. The development of

aggression. In Mussen PH, Hetherington EM, (eds.)

Handbook of child psychology, vol. 4. socialization,

personality, and social development. New York, NY:

Wiley, 1983:547-641.
Sasaki K. Present status of research on group norms

in Japan. American Journal of Community

Psychology 1979; 7:147-158.

Shapiro JP, Dorman RD, Burkey WM, Welker CJ,

Clough JB. Development and factor analysis of a

measure of youth attitudes toward guns and

violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology

1997; 26(3):311-320.

Slaby RG. An evaluation of a violence prevention

program. Health program for urban youth. Newton,

MA: Education Development Center, Inc., 1989.

(Unpublished)

Slaby RG, Guerra NG. Cognitive mediators of

aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment.

Developmental Psychology 1988;24(4):580-588.

Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth

M, Jang SJ. Testing interactional theory: an

examination of reciprocal causal relationships

among family, school, and delinquency. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 1991;82:3-35.

Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth

M, Jang SJ. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and

delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of

interactional theory. Criminology 1994;32:47-83.

Vessels G. Character and community development:

a school planning and teacher training handbook.

Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.

58 I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments
I. Attitude and Belief Assessments 59

I. Attitude and Belief Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 61

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Section II

Psychosocial 

and Cognitive

Assessments

The assessments in this section measure the following

psychosocial and cognitive factors related to youth

violence:

A. Aggressive Fantasies

B. Attachment to Role Models

C. Attributional Bias

D. Depression

E. Emotional or Psychological Distress

F. Ethnic Identity

G. Fatalism

H. Future Aspirations

I. Hopelessness

J. Hostility

K. Moral Reasoning

L. Perceived Likelihood of Involvement in

Violence and Other Problem Behaviors

M. Perceptions of Self

N. Personal Safety

O. Responsibility and Citizenship

P. Self-Efficacy, Impulse Control, 

Desire of Control, and Coping

Q. Self-Esteem

R. Sense of Caring and Support

S. Social Consciousness
62 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggressive

Fantasies

A1. Fantasy

Measure; 17 items

Measures the types and

frequency of the fantasy

behavior in which children

engage. Can be used to

construct 3 scales:

aggressive fantasy, activeheroic fantasy, and

prosocial fantasy.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 2-6.

Internal consistency:

.64. One-year

stability: .41.

Rosenfeld,

Huesmann, Eron &

Torney-Purta, 1982

Adapted by Huesmann

& Eron, 1986

A2. Aggressive

Fantasies; 7 items

Measures levels of

internal aggressive

fantasy, validated against

peer nominations of

aggression.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.69 (Nadel,

Spellmann, AlvarezCanino, LausellBryant & Landsberg,

1996).

Huesmann & Eron,

1986

Adapted by Nadel,

Spellmann, AlvarezCanino, Lausell-Bryant

& Landsberg, 1996

B. Attachment to

Role Models

B1. Rutgers Teenage

Risk and Prevention

Questionnaire; 5

items

Measures the extent to

which there are adults in

the home or community

whom the youth admires

and goes to for guidance.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Not available. Nakkula et al., 1990

Additional items

developed by Institute

of Behavioral Science,

1990

B2. Attachment to

Teacher—Rochester

Youth Development

Study; 5 items

Measures youths’

agreement about how

much they like and

respect their teachers.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood. 

Internal consistency:

.63.

Smith, Lizotte,

Thornberry & Krohn,

1995

C. Attributional

Bias

C1. Peer Relations

Assessment; 8 items

per vignette

Measures attributional

bias and preference for

reactive aggression. Is

administered in small

groups (2-3) or

individually for younger

children and those with

reading difficulties.

Students in grades 

3-6.

Six-week test-retest

correlations: .68 for

bias subscale; .74 for

anger subscale; .71

for preferred behavior

subscale.

Hudley & Graham,

1993

C2. Home Interview

(Vignettes); 4 items

per vignette

Measures children’s

attributions of hostile or

benign intent to the

provocateur in

hypothetical vignettes.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

.70 (Aber, Brown,

Jones & Samples,

1995).

Dodge, 1980

Adapted by Fitzgerald &

Asher, 1987; and by

Aber, Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995

D. Depression D1. DSM Screener

for Depression; 26

items

Measures depression,

incorporating diagnostic

criteria for DSM disorders

for children and

adolescents. Can be

analyzed as either

depression “caseness,”

using DSM III-R criteria,

or as a scale.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Pretested in a

primary care clinic.

Internal consistency:

above .90 for most

subgroups (Roberts,

Roberts & Chen,

1995).

Roberts, 1993

D2. Modified

Depression Scale; 6

items

Measures the frequency of

depressive symptoms in

the past month.

Students aged 10-18. Internal consistency:

.74.

Orpinas, 1993

D3. Depression—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

14 items

Measures frequency of

depressive symptoms.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.79.

Adapted from Radloff,

1977
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 63

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS

E. Emotional or

Psychological

Distress

E1. Distress—

Weinberger

Adjustment

Inventory; 12 items

Measures global

psychological distress

including anxiety,

depression, low selfesteem, and low

well-being.

Sixth grade students

in an urban setting.

Internal consistency:

.77, .68 and .73

(Feldman &

Weinberger, 1994).

Weinberger &

Schwartz, 1990

Copyright 1991

E2. Seattle

Personality

Questionnaire; 45

items

Measures self-reported

psychological

symptomatology. Consists

of four subscales: anxiety,

conduct problems,

somatization and

depression.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

Anxiety .57; Conduct

problems .63;

Depression .67; not

available for

somatization subscale

(Aber, Brown, Jones

& Samples, 1995).

Greenberg & Kusche,

1990; Greenberg,

1994

Adapted by Aber,

Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995

E3. PTSD Interview

(PTSD-I); 22 items

Composed of 17 items

written to follow the DMSIII-R version of PTSD

symptoms, a summary

section and 3

introductory/filter

questions.

Wide variety of

populations spanning

many age groups.

Internal consistency:

.92. Test-retest

reliability: .95.

Watson, Juba,

Manifold, Kucala &

Anderson, 1991

F. Ethnic Identity F1. Multigroup

Ethnic Identity; 20

items

Measures aspects of

ethnic identification, ethnic

practices and belonging.

High school and

college students

(Asian, Black,

Hispanic); also pilot

tested in middle

schools.

Internal consistency:

.81 to .90. 

Phinney, 1992

F2. Ethnic Identity;

15 items

Measures importance of

African-American ethnic

pride.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.66 (Paschall &

Flewelling, 1997).

Phinney, 1992

Additional items

developed by Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt,

1993

F3. Ethnic Identity—

Teen Conflict Survey;

4 items

Measures ethnic pride and

respect for differences.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.73.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

G. Fatalism G1. Fatalism; 5 items Measures confidence in

one’s ability to influence

the future.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.09.

Cummings, 1977

Additional items

developed by Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt,

1993

H. Future

Aspirations

H1. Future

Aspirations—Peer

Leader Survey; 6

items

Measures future and

career orientation and

aspirations.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.60.

Center for Urban

Affairs and Policy

Research, 1995

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

H2. Positive

Outlook—Individual

Protective Factors

Index; 6 items

Measures one’s outlook

for the future.

Low income students

in grades 7-11.

Internal consistency:

.56 (Gabriel, 1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992
64 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS

H. Future

Aspirations

(Continued)

H3. Achievement

Motivation—Denver

Youth Survey; 13

items

Measures motivation to

achieve future outcomes

associated with job, family

and community.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.78.

Institute of Behavioral

Science, 1990

I. Hopelessness I1. Children’s

Hopelessness; 

17 items

Measures negative

(hopeless) future

expectations. Adapted

from the Hopelessness

Scale for adults (Beck et

al., 1974).

Psychiatric inpatient

children aged 8 to

13.

Internal consistency:

.62. One-year

stability: .48.

Kazdin, French, Unis,

Esveldt-Dawson &

Sherick, 1983

I2. Children’s

Hopelessness

(Modified Version); 

6 items

Measures negative

(hopeless) future

expectations. Is a subset

of the 17-item

hopelessness scale, with

one additional item.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.55 (Paschall &

Flewelling, 1997).

Kazdin, Rodgers &

Colbus, 1986

J. Hostility J1. Hostility—SCL90; 6 itemsMeasures symptoms of

underlying hostility,

reflecting qualities such as

aggression, irritability,

rage and resentment.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.73 (Paschall &

Flewelling, 1997).

Derogatis, Rickels &

Rock, 1976

K. Moral

Reasoning

K1. Sociomoral

Reflection Measure,

Short Form (SRMSF); 11 items

Measures moral

reasoning and moral

judgement. Conducted

during a one-on-one

interview.

Students in grades 4

and 6, and in high

school.

Internal consistency:

.93 (Basinger, Gibbs

& Fuller, 1995).

Gibbs, Basinger, &

Fuller, 1992

Copyright 1992

L. Perceived

Likelihood of

Involvement in

Violence and Other

Problem Behaviors

L1. Likelihood of

Violence and

Delinquency; 9 items

Measures perceived

likelihood of engaging in

violence and other high

risk behaviors.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.89. 

Flewelling, Paschall &

Ringwalt, 1993

L2. Perception of

Problem Behavior—

Pittsburgh Youth

Study; 18 items

Measures willingness to

engage in problem

behavior.

Male students initially

in grades 1, 4 and 7

in 1987 or 1988, and

followed into

adulthood. 

Internal consistency:

.84.

Loeber, Farrington,

Stouthamer-Loeber &

Van Kammen, 1998

L3. Violent

Intentions—Teen

Conflict Survey; 8

items

Measures intentions to

use nonviolent strategies

to control anger and

conflict.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.84.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

L4. Peer Reactions

to Delinquency—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

6 items

Measures peer reactions

to delinquent acts.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.82.

Thornberry, Lizotte,

Krohn, Farnworth &

Jang, 1994

M. Perceptions of

Self

M1. Twenty

Statements

Measures concept of self.

Youths list descriptive

words; responses coded

by complexity and

consensual or

subconsensual

statements.

Students in grades 

1-8.

Coefficient of

reproducibility: .90.

Test-retest reliability:

.85.

Kuhn & McPartland,

1954
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 65

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS

N. Personal

Safety

N1. Personal

Safety—Joyce

Foundation Youth

Survey; 5 items

Measures how safe a

youth feels in his or her

neighborhood and school,

and going to and from

school.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.63.

LH Research, Inc.,

1993

N2. Sense of

Safety; 11 items

Measures feelings of safety

at home, in or on the way

to school, and in the

neighborhood.

Students in grades 

1-8. 

Internal consistency:

.89.

Henry, 2000

Adapted from SchwabStone, et al., 1995

O. Responsibility

and Citizenship

O1. Social

Responsibility; 6

items

Measures civic

responsibility and

awareness.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.52.

Nedwek, 1987

Additional items

developed by Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt,

1993

P. Self-Efficacy,

Impulse Control,

Desire of Control,

and Coping

P1. Self-Efficacy; 7

items

Measure one’s confidence

in attaining educational

and career goals and

avoiding fights.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.70.

Prothrow-Stith, 1987

Additional items

developed by DeJong,

Spiro, Brewer-Wilson, et

al., 1992

P2. Control—

Individual

Protective Factors

Index; 13 items

Measures sense of control.

Has two subscales: selfefficacy (7 items) and

self-control (6 items).

Low income students

in grades 7-11.

Internal consistency:

.56 and .65 (Gabriel,

1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992

P3. Restraint—

Weinberger

Adjustment

Inventory; 30 items

Measures self-restraint;

items pertain to

suppression of aggression,

impulse control,

responsibility,

consideration of others.

Can be administered in

classrooms.

Sixth grade students

in an urban setting.

Internal consistency:

Full scale .85 to .88;

Suppression of

aggression .79 to .82;

Impulse control .66 to

.69; Responsibility .76

to .77; Consideration

of others: .68 to .68

(Feldman &

Weinberger, 1994).

Weinberger &

Schwartz, 1990

Copyright 1991

P4. Children’s

Desire for Control;

16 items

Measures the desire for

control and endorsement

of aggressive strategies for

gaining control.

2nd through 5th

graders in urban

schools serving lowincome

African-American and

Hispanic children.

Internal consistency:

.69. One-year stability:

.49.

Guerra, Crawshaw &

Huesmann, 1993

P5. Self-Efficacy—

Teen Conflict

Survey; 5 items

Measures an individual’s

confidence in his or her

ability to control anger and

resolve conflicts

nonviolently.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.85.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

P6. Minimization;

10 items

Measures minimization as

a coping strategy.

Older adolescents. Internal consistency:

.67.

Plutchik & Van Praag,

1989

Q. Self-Esteem Q1. Low SelfEsteem—

Weinberger

Adjustment

Inventory; 7 items

Measures an individual’s

perception of his or her

value. Has items from

Weinberger’s Distress

Scale.

Sixth grade students

in an urban setting.

Internal consistency:

.55 to .72 (Feldman &

Weinberger, 1994).

Weinberger &

Schwartz, 1990

Copyright 1991
66 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

PSYCHOSOCIAL AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENTS

Q. Self-Esteem

(Continued)

Q2. Hare AreaSpecific Self-Esteem

Scale; 10 items

Measures adolescents’

feelings about their worth

and importance among

peers, as students, and as

family members.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.71 (Paschall &

Flewelling, 1997).

Shoemaker, 1980

Q3. How I Think

Questionnaire; 54

items

Measures an adolescent’s

cognitive distortions with

respect to the social

world.

A variety of age

groups and children

from different

ethnic/racial

backgrounds.

Internal consistency:

.96 (Barriga & Gibbs,

1996).

Gibbs, Barriga &

Potter, 1992

Copyright 1992

Q4. Modified

Rosenberg’s SelfEsteem Inventory (a);

10 items

Measures an individual’s

perception of self-worth,

ability, self-satisfaction

and self-respect.

Students in grades 

8-9.

Reported reliability

values vary.

Rosenberg, 1965

Q5. Modified

Rosenberg SelfEsteem Inventory

(b); 4 items

Measures an individual’s

perception of self.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.50.

Rosenberg, 1965

Q6. Self-Concept—

Individual Protective

Factors Index; 12

items

Has two subscales: selfconcept (6 items) and

self-confidence 

(6 items).

Students in grades 

7-11.

Internal consistency:

.58 and .59 (Gabriel,

1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992

Q7. Self-Esteem—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

9 items

Measures youth’s

agreement with

statements about his or

her self-concept.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.78.

Adapted from

Rosenberg, 1965

R. Sense of Caring

and Support

R1. Presence of

Caring—Individual

Protective Factors

Index; 9 items

Measures an individual’s

sense of support from an

adult.

Students in grades 

7-11.

Internal consistency:

.65. Correlation with a

number of helping

behaviors: .35

(Gabriel, 1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992

R2. Vaux Social

Support Record; 9

items

Measures satisfaction with

perceived emotional

advice and guidance, and

practical social support.

Elementary school

students, grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

.86.

Vaux, 1988

R3. Sense of School

Membership; 

5 items

Measures a student’s

sense of belonging to his

or her middle school.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

77 to .88.

Goodenow, 1993

R4. Empathy—Teen

Conflict Survey; 5

items

Measures ability to listen,

care, and trust others.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.62.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

S. Social

Consciousness

S1. Social

Consciousness; 5

items

Measures perceptions of

how one’s behavior affects

others.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.12.

Flewelling, Paschall &

Ringwalt, 1993
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 67

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

SCALES AND ASSESSMENTS

A1. Fantasy Measure

1. Do you sometimes daydream about helping other kids in trouble?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

2. Do you sometimes daydream that you enter a burning building to save somebody in a fire?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

3. When you get mad, sometimes, do you think about the things you would like to do to the person you’re

made at—like hitting, or breaking his toys, or telling on him?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

4. Do you sometimes pretend that you are a brave hero who saves somebody or who captures a bad guy?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

5. Do you play games where you pretend to fight with somebody?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

6. Do you play scary pretend games like ghost or monsters or something like that?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

7. Do you sometimes dream about accidents or fires or crashes?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

8. Do you sometimes have daydreams or night dreams about running away from somebody who is trying to

catch you and punish you—even when you weren’t really bad?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

9. Do you ever think about doing nice things for other people?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

10. When you are daydreaming, do you think about being the winner in a game that you like to play?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

11. Do you ever daydream about helping your mother get something she wants?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

This scale measures the types and frequency of the fantasy behavior in which children engage.

Respondents are asked how often they have pretend thoughts or daydreams that just “pop into their heads.”
68 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

12. Do you sometimes think about something bad that you did, that nobody knows about but you?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

13. Do you sometimes daydream about what would happen if you did real bad in school even when this 

didn’t really happen?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

14. Have you ever daydreamed about being an important person who helps poor people?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

15. When you are daydreaming, do you think about being a great astronaut, or scientist, or singer, or

somebody like that who is very famous?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

16. Do you sometimes have daydreams about hitting or hurting somebody that you don’t like?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

17. Have you ever daydreamed about saving a kid who fell in the lake?

■ No ■ A little ■ A lot

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is composed of three subscales. They are all scored using a 3-point scale:

No = 1

A little = 2

A lot = 3

The first subscale, Aggressive Fantasies, is scored by summing responses to six items (3, 5, 8, 12, 13 and

16) and dividing by the total number of items. A maximum score of 3 indicates that the respondent has

frequent fantasies about committing aggressive acts. A minimum score of 1 indicates that the respondent does

not have fantasies about committing aggressive acts.

The second subscale, Active-Heroic Fantasies, is calculated by summing responses to six items (2, 4, 6, 7,

10 and 15) and dividing by the total number of items. A maximum score of 3 indicates that the respondent

frequently has fantasies about active or heroic actions. A minimum score of 1 indicates that the respondent

does not have fantasies about active or heroic actions.

The final subscale, Prosocial Fantasies, is calculated by summing responses to 5 items (1, 9, 11, 14 and

17) and dividing by the total number of items. A maximum score of 3 indicates that the respondent often has

fantasies about prosocial behaviors. A minimum score of 1 indicates that the respondent does not have such

fantasies.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 69

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

A2. Aggressive Fantasies

Never A little A lot

1. When you get mad, do you sometimes imagine hitting or hurting 0 1 2

the other person?

2. Do you sometimes imagine or daydream about what would happen if you 0 1 2

did something real bad in school, or got arrested for something, even when 

this did not really happen?

3. Do you sometimes imagine or have daydreams about hitting or hurting 0 1 2

somebody that you don’t like?

4. Do you sometimes have daydreams or nightmares about running away from 0 1 2

someone who is trying to catch you and hurt you, or do something bad to you?

5. Do you sometimes imagine or daydream about using powerful weapons to 0 1 2

destroy your enemies?

6. Do you sometimes daydream or imagine rape scenes, or forcing someone to 0 1 2

have sex?

7. Do you ever daydream about people getting killed? 0 1 2

(All items were either added or modified by Nadel, Spellmann, Alvarez-Canino, Lausell-Bryant &

Landsberg, 1996)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for all items are added, with totals ranging from 0 to 14. A high score indicates a high level of

aggressive fantasies. A low score indicates a low level of aggressive fantasies.

This scale measures levels of aggressive fantasy, validated against peer nominations of aggression. It

was originally constructed for elementary school children, but modified for adolescents.
70 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

B1. Rutgers Teenage Risk and Prevention Questionnaire

1a. Are there any adults who you admire and would want to be like?

■ Yes ■ No

1b. If yes, please check any of the following categories that include adults you admire.

■ Mother or stepmother

■ Father or stepfather

■ Older sister

■ Older brother

■ Other female relative

■ Other male relative

■ Other female adult in community

■ Other male adult in community

■ Sports or entertainment star

■ Other _______________________

2a. If you needed some information or advice about something, is there someone you could talk with?

■ Yes ■ No

2b. If yes, please check any of the categories that include persons you could go to for advice.

■ Mother or stepmother

■ Father or stepfather

■ Older sister

■ Older brother

■ Other female relative

■ Other male relative

■ Other female adult in community

■ Other male adult in community

■ Sports or entertainment star

■ Other _______________________

These items measure the extent to which there are adults in the home or community that the youth

admires and goes to for guidance. Youths are asked to check the response that corresponds to their beliefs.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 71

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

3a. If you were having trouble at home, is there someone you could talk to?

■ Yes ■ No

3b. If yes, please check any of the categories that include persons you could talk to.

■ Mother or stepmother

■ Father or stepfather

■ Older sister

■ Older brother

■ Other female relative

■ Other male relative

■ Other female adult in community

■ Other male adult in community

■ Sports or entertainment star

■ Other _______________________

4a. If you got an award or did something well, is there someone you would tell?

■ Yes ■ No

4b. If yes, please check any of the categories that include persons you would tell.

■ Mother or stepmother

■ Father or stepfather

■ Older sister

■ Older brother

■ Other female relative

■ Other male relative

■ Other female adult in community

■ Other male adult in community

■ Sports or entertainment star

■ Other _______________________

5. Of all the teachers you have known, how many have you liked?

a. None of them

b. A few

c. Half of them

d. Most of them

e. All of them

(Items 2-5 were added by the Institute of Behavioral Science, 1990.)

Scoring and Analysis

Items should be considered separately, since they do not constitute a scale.
72 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

B2. Attachment to Teacher—Rochester Youth Development Study 

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree disagree Disagree

1. If you needed advice on something other than 4321

school work, you would go to one of your teachers.

2. You feel very close to at least one of your teachers. 4321

3. You don’t care what your teachers think of you. 4321

4. You have lots of respect for your teachers. 4321

5. Thinking of the teacher you like the most, would you like to be like him or her?

■ In some ways ■ In most ways ■ Not at all 

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 1-4 are assigned as indicate above. For item 5, point values are assigned as follows:

In some ways = 1

In most ways = 2

Not at all = 3

Point values are summed for each respondent and then divided by the number of items. Higher scores

indicate a greater attachment to the teacher.

These items measure youths’ agreement about how much they like and respect their teachers.

Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with several statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 73

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

C1. Peer Relations Assessment

Six of the short stories are presented below, followed by a standard set of eight questions.

Recess Line

Your teacher has asked the class to line up quietly to go out for recess. As you are standing in the line

waiting to go, the student behind you bumps you so hard that you almost fall down.

Now imagine that you really are standing in the line and another student bumps into you really hard from

behind.

Playing Baseball on the Yard

You are on the playground at recess. Some of the other students have started to play baseball. You are

standing by third base just watching the game. Suddenly the third base player runs into you, knocking you

back so hard that you almost fall down. Just as you get your balance back the bell rings to end recess.

Now imagine that you really were watching the game and a player almost knocked you down.

Making Plans on the Weekend

Suppose you and another kid in your class make plans to meet on a Saturday afternoon to do something

fun, like go to a movie or to the mall or a video arcade—anything that you think would be fun. The two of

you agree to meet at the playground at noon. You’re there right on time, but the other kid is not. You wait a

long time. You look at your watch and see that it is two o’clock. You decide to leave. As you are walking off

the yard, the other kid comes running around the corner and comes up to you. The kid says, “I’m sorry to be

so late. When I was on my way here I passed the record store, and they’re having a raffle today at three

o’clock. The prize is two free tickets to that concert we really want to go hear. I stood in line for almost two

hours to get us two free chances for the drawing. Let’s go back over there and see if we win.”

Now imagine that you really had waited to meet someone who was late for almost two hours.

Homework Paper

One morning you are coming to school. As you come into the gate and onto the schoolyard, you happen

to look down and see that your shoelace is untied. You set your notebook down on the ground so that you can

tie your shoelace. While your notebook is sitting on the ground, an important homework paper that you

worked on for a long time flies out. Just then another student from your class walks by and stomps on your

homework paper, leaving a muddy footprint right in the middle. The other student laughs really hard and

says, “Too bad for your homework.”

Now imagine that someone really stomped on your homework and laughed about it.

This assessment measures attributional bias and preference for reactive aggression. It is administered

in small groups (2-3) or individually for younger children and those with reading difficulties. Students are

asked to read along as several short stories are read aloud. They then must answer several questions about

how they would think or feel if the stories had truly happened to them.
74 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Cassette Tape

Imagine that you lent your favorite cassette tape to someone you know at school. You told the person to

bring it back the next day, but they were not in school. Then school let out for Christmas vacation, and you

didn’t see the tape or the person for the whole two weeks of vacation. You really needed the tape to practice

your routine for the school talent show. On the first day back at school after vacation you see the person with

your tape. The students walks up to you, hands you the tape, and says, “I’m very sorry that I kept the tape. We

went away on vacation, and my parents didn’t give me a chance to come over to your house before we left.”

Now imagine that someone really kept your favorite tape over the Christmas vacation, even though you

asked them to return it.

Lunchtime

Imagine that you are in the lunch line. When you get to the window, you pick up a tray with food for your

lunch. When you are turning around to look for your friends, another student walks up from behind. The

student bumps into the edge of your tray, and part of your lunch spills on the ground.

Now imagine that someone really bumped into the edge of your tray as you turned around, and your

lunch spilled.

Standard Set of Questions Corresponding to Each Vignette

1. Do you think the other kid meant to do that to you?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

2. Do you think the other kid did it on purpose?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

3. Do you think it’s the other kid’s fault that this happened?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

4. Would you feel mad at this other kid?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

5. Would you want to say thank you to this other kid?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 75

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

6. Would you feel angry toward this other kid?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

7. Would you blame the other kid for what happened to you?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

For sure no Maybe For sure yes

8. In the list below are some things other kids have said they would do if this story happened to them. Think about

what you would do. Put an X next to the one statement that tells the first thing you would do.

■ Do something nice for the other kid.

■ Tell an adult.

■ Just forget it and do nothing at all.

■ Do something to get even.

■ Have it out with the other kid right then and there.

■ Ask the other kid why he did that.

Scoring and Analysis

This instrument has three subscales. The Bias subscale (items 1, 2, 3 and 7) is scored by summing the

individual scores for each item and deriving a mean. The range is 1-7, with a high score indicating a high

level of bias. The Anger subscale (items 4 and 6) is also scored by summing the individual scores for each

item and deriving a mean. Again, a high score (in the range of 1-7) indicates a high level of anger. The score

for the Behavior subscale (item 8) is scored as follows:

Do something nice for the other kid = 1

Tell an adult = 2

Just forget it and do nothing at all = 3

Do something to get even = 4

Have it out with the other kid

right then and there = 5

Ask the other kid why he did that = 6

A high score (6) indicates a high level of aggressiveness, while a low score (1) indicates a low level of

aggressiveness (and a high prosocial attitude).
76 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

C2. Home Interview (Vignettes)

I. Imagine that you are sitting at the lunch table at school, eating lunch. You look up and see another child

coming over to your table with a carton of milk. You turn around to eat your lunch, and the next thing that

happens is that the child spills milk all over your back. The milk gets your shirt all wet.

A. Why did the child get milk all over your back?

1. The child slipped on something.

2. The child just does stupid things like that to you.

3. The child wanted to make fun of you.

4. The child wasn’t looking and didn’t see you.

B. Do you think the child:

1. Tried to pour milk on you?

2. Poured milk on you by accident?

C. What would you do next after the child poured milk on you?

1. Ignore it.

2. Leave the lunchroom.

3. Ask the teacher to get a towel or something.

4. Pour milk on the child’s back the next day.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?

II. Imagine that you are standing on the playground, playing catch with a lot of other kids. You throw the

ball to another child and the child catches it. You turn around, and the next thing you know the child has

thrown the ball and hit you in the middle of your back. The ball hits you hard, and it hurts a lot.

A. Why did the child hit you in the back?

1. The ball slipped and hit you.

2. The child was being mean.

3. The child was mad at you for something.

4. You shouldn’t have turned around.

This scale measures children’s attributions of hostile or benign intent to the provocateur in

hypothetical vignettes. Children are shown some pictures (pages 81-86) that correspond to each vignette.

The vignette is read to the child and then the child is asked to select only one answer to each question.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 77

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

B. Do you think the child hit you:

1. On purpose?

2. By accident?

C. What would you do next after the child hit you?

1. Do nothing.

2. Quit playing.

3. Hit the child with the ball.

4. Get some ice for the pain.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?

III. Imagine that you are walking to school and you’re wearing your brand new sneakers. You really like your

new sneakers and this is the first day you have worn them. All of a sudden, you are bumped from behind

by another child. You stumble and fall into a mud puddle and your new sneakers get muddy.

A. Why did the child bump you from behind?

1. The child was being mean.

2. The child was fooling around and pushed too hard by accident.

3. The child was running down the street and didn’t see you.

4. The child was trying to push you down.

B. Do you think the child:

1. Bumped you on purpose?

2. Bumped you by accident?

C. What would you do next after the child bumped you?

1. Clean up your sneakers.

2. Run away.

3. Forget about it.

4. Push the child in the mud.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?
78 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

IV. Imagine that you have finished an art project for school. You’ve worked on it for a long time and you’re

really proud of it. Another child comes over to look at your project. The child is holding a jar of paint.

You turn away for a minute and when you look back the child has spilled paint all over your art project.

You worked on the project for a long time and now it’s messed up.

A. Why did the child spill paint on your project?

1. The child is mean.

2. The child dropped the paint by accident.

3. The child is kind of clumsy.

4. The child wanted to mess up your project.

B. Do you think the child spilled the paint:

1. On purpose?

2. By accident?

C. What would you do next after the child spilled paint on your project?

1. Try to fix the project.

2. Act like nothing happened.

3. Spill paint on the child.

4. Avoid being near the child in the future.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?

V. Imagine that you are on the playground. You and some other kids are having a race. Another child is

standing on the side, bouncing a basketball. The next thing you know the child has bounced the ball and it

rolled under your feet, making you fall. You skin your knee and someone else wins the race.

A. Why did the child bounce the ball under your feet?

1. The child wanted to get back at you for something.

2. The child didn’t see you coming.

3. It accidentally got away from the child.

4. The child wanted you to lose the race.

B. Do you think the child:

1. Made you fall on purpose?

2. Made you fall by accident?
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 79

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

C. What would you do next after the child made you fall?

1. Go off by yourself and probably cry.

2. Try to forget it.

3. Get back at the child because you’d be really mad.

4. Take care of your knee.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?

VI. Imagine that you brought your new toy to school today. You saved up your money to buy the toy and you

want to show it to the other kids at school. You let another child play with it for a few minutes while you

go get a drink of water. When you get back you see that the child has broken your brand new toy.

A.Why did the child break your toy?

1. The toy wasn’t made well.

2. It was an accident.

3. The child was mad at you.

4. The child was jealous of you.

B. Do you think the child broke it:

1. On purpose?

2. By accident?

C. What would you do next after the child broke your toy?

1. Not play with the child again.

2. Try to figure out what’s wrong with the toy.

3. Break something that belongs to that child.

4. Do nothing.

D. Do you think the child should be:

1. Punished a lot?

2. Punished a little?

3. Not punished?

(Fitzgerald & Asher, 1987, added the graphics presentation and modified the wording for sensitive and

effective use with multiracial/multiethnic populations.)
80 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

For each vignette, only the “why” questions (I-A, II-A, III-A, etc.) are scored. The child’s response to the

“why” questions are coded to either a hostile (1) or non-hostile (0) response, and then averaged. Hostile and

non-hostile responses are coded as follows:

Vignette I:

A: 1,4 = non-hostile

2,3 = hostile

Vignette II:

A: 1,4 = non-hostile

2,3 = hostile

Vignette III:

A: 2,3 = non-hostile

1,4 = hostile

Vignette IV:

A: 2,3 = non-hostile

1,4 = hostile

Vignette V:

A: 2,3 = non-hostile

1,4 = hostile

Vignette VI:

A: 1,2 = non-hostile

3,4 = hostile
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 81

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

I
82 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 83

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

III
84 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

IV
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 85

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

V
86 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

VI
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 87

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

D1. DSM Screener for Depression

In the past two weeks... Hardly ever Almost

or never Sometimes Often every day

1. Have you been very sad? ■ ■ ■ ■

2. Have you been grouchy or irritable, or in a bad mood, ■ ■ ■ ■

so that even little things would make you mad?

3. Were there times when nothing was fun for you, ■ ■ ■ ■

even things you used to like?

4. Were there times when you just weren’t interested ■ ■ ■ ■

in anything and felt bored or just sat around most 

of the time?

5. Have you felt like not eating? ■ ■ ■ ■

6. Have you wanted to eat more than usual? ■ ■ ■ ■

7. Have you had more trouble sleeping than usual ■ ■ ■ ■

(falling asleep or staying asleep or waking up too early)?

8. Have you slept a lot more than usual? ■ ■ ■ ■

9. Have you talked or moved around a lot less than usual? ■ ■ ■ ■

10. Have you been very restless, when you just had to keep ■ ■ ■ ■

walking around?

11. Have you been so down that it was hard for you to do ■ ■ ■ ■

your schoolwork?

12. Have you had trouble looking after yourself or your ■ ■ ■ ■

things, like keeping yourself clean or picking up 

after yourself?

This scale measures depression, incorporating diagnostic criteria for DSM disorders for children and

adolescents. It can be analyzed as either depression “caseness,” using DSM III-R criteria, or as a scale.

Respondents are asked to mark the response that best describes them during the past two weeks.
88 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Hardly ever Almost

or never Sometimes Often every day

13. Have you felt more tired than usual, so that you sat ■ ■ ■ ■

around and didn’t do much of anything?

14. Have you felt like you had much less energy than usual, ■ ■ ■ ■

so that it was a big effort to do anything?

15. Have you felt less good about yourself than usual and ■ ■ ■ ■

blamed yourself a lot for things that happened in the past?

16. Have you been more down on yourself than usual, ■ ■ ■ ■

when you felt that you couldn’t do anything right?

17. Have you felt bad about the way you look? ■ ■ ■ ■

18. Have you felt like you were about to cry or were ■ ■ ■ ■

in tears?

19. Have you had more trouble than usual paying attention ■ ■ ■ ■

to your schoolwork, or keeping your mind on other 

things you were doing?

20. Have you been unable to concentrate or to think as ■ ■ ■ ■

clearly or as quickly as usual?

21. Have you felt that things never seem to work out all ■ ■ ■ ■

right for you?

22. Were there times it was harder for you to make up ■ ■ ■ ■

your mind about things or to make decisions?

23. Have you felt that life was hopeless and that there ■ ■ ■ ■

was nothing good for you in the future?

24. Have you thought more than usual about death ■ ■ ■ ■

or dying?

25. Did you wish you were dead? ■ ■ ■ ■

26. Have you thought about suicide or killing yourself? ■ ■ ■ ■
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 89

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

The assessment can be scored as a summated scale. Point values are assigned as follows:

Hardly ever or never = 0

Sometimes = 1

Often = 2

Almost every day = 3

Scores will range from 0 to 78, with a high score indicating severe depression.
90 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

D2. Modified Depression Scale

In the last 30 days, how often ...

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

1. Were you very sad? a b c d e

2. Were you grouchy or irritable, or in a bad mood? a b c d e

3. Did you feel hopeless about the future? a b c d e

4. Did you feel like not eating or eating more than usual? a b c d e

5. Did you sleep a lot more or a lot less than usual? a b c d e

6. Did you have difficulty concentrating on your a b c d e

school work?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Scores are calculated by summing all responses, with a possible range of 6 to 30. Higher scores indicate

more depressive symptoms.

This scale measures the frequency of depressive symptoms. Respondents are asked to indicate how

they have been feeling during the past 30 days.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 91

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

D3. Depression—Rochester Youth Development Study

In the past 30 days, how often did you ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. Feel you had trouble keeping your mind on what 4321

you were doing?

2. Feel depressed or very sad? 4321

3. Feel hopeful about the future? 4321

4. Feel bothered by things that don’t usually bother you? 4321

5. Not feel like eating because you felt upset about 4321

something?

6. Feel that everything you did was an effort? 4321

7. Think seriously about suicide? 4321

8. Feel scared or afraid? 4321

9. Toss and turn when you slept? 4321

10. Feel that you talked less than usual? 4321

11. Feel nervous or stressed? 4321

12. Feel lonely? 4321

13. Feel people disliked you? 4321

14. Feel you enjoyed life? 4321

(Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 14 were taken directly from the CES-D Scale developed by Radloff, 1977.

Items 5, 9 and 10 were adapted from the CES-D Scale, and items 7, 8 and 11 were added by the Rochester

Youth Development Study.)

These items measure the frequency of depressive symptoms. Respondents are asked to indicate how

often they have felt certain symptoms in the past month.
92 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed, with a possible range

of 14 to 56. Higher scores indicate more depressive symptoms.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 93

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

E1. Distress—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

Somewhat Somewhat

False false Not sure true True

1. I’m not very sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I usually think of myself as a happy person. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I really don’t like myself very much. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I’m the kind of person who has a lot of fun. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I worry too much about things that aren’t important. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I often feel sad or unhappy. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I usually feel I’m the kind of person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5

Not Almost

Never often Sometimes Often always

8. I get into such a bad mood that I feel like just 1 2 3 4 5

sitting around and doing nothing.

9. I feel very happy. 1 2 3 4 5

10. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or 1 2 3 4 5

worried about things than I have needed to.

11. I feel nervous or afraid that things won’t work 1 2 3 4 5

out the way I would like them to.

12. I feel lonely. 1 2 3 4 5

These items measure global psychological distress including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and

low well-being. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which each statement reflects their current

feelings.
94 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use, contact:

Daniel A. Weinberger, Ph.D.

Wellen Center

P.O. Box 22807

Beachwood, OH 44122

Tel: (440) 734-7861 #

Fax: (440) 378-5930

dweinbergerphd@aol.com

Items 1-7 are scored on the following 5-point scale, with items 2, 4 and 7 reverse coded:

False = 1

Somewhat false = 2

Not sure = 3

Somewhat true = 4

True = 5

Items 8-12 are scored on the following 5-point scale, with item 9 reverse coded:

Never = 1

Not often = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Almost always = 5

This inventory can be scored by summing the point values of the responses from a participant. If between

one and four responses are left blank, the average of the point values for the remaining items should be

multiplied by 12 to calculate a pro-rated score. The inventory should generally not be scored if more than four

responses are left blank. The maximum obtainable score of 60 indicates a high level of emotional distress. A

minimum score of 12 indicates a low level.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 95

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

E2. Seattle Personality Questionnaire

1. Do you talk in class a lot when you are not supposed to? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

2. Do you feel afraid a lot of the time? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

3. Do you worry about what other kids might be saying about you? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

4. Is it easy for you to express your feelings? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

5. Are you afraid to try new things? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

6. Do you get a lot of pains in your body? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

7. Do you worry a lot that other people might not like you? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

8. Is it easy for you to solve problems with friends on your own? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

9. Do you like everyone you know? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

10. Do you often take things that aren’t yours? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

11. Would it be hard for you to ask kids you didn’t know to join ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

them in a game?

12. Is it easy for you to understand other people’s feelings? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

13. Do you have a lot of scary dreams or nightmares? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

14. Do you get a lot of headaches? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

15. Are you always good? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

16. Do you worry what others think about how you behave? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

17. Do you get a lot of tummy aches? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

18. Do you get into a lot of fights? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

This assessment measures self-reported psychological symptomatology. Respondents are asked to

indicate the extent to which each statement reflects their current feelings.
96 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

19. Do you ever feel mad? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

20. Do you work well with other kids? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

21. Is it hard for you to listen and follow directions? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

22. Do you tell a lot of lies? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

23. Do you feel like throwing up a lot? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

24. Is it easy for you to share with others? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

25. Do you argue a lot with other people? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

26. Do you worry about what other people think of you? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

27. Do you often tease or make fun of other kids? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

28. Do you like working together with your friends? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

29. Do you worry about being teased? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

30. Do you sometimes break things on purpose? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

31. Do you feel unhappy a lot of the time? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

32. Are you helpful to others? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

33. Do you feel like crying a lot of the time? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

34. Do you feel upset about things? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

35. Do you have trouble paying attention in class? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

36. Do you listen to what other people think? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

37. Do you feel that you do things wrong a lot? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

38. Do you feel that most things are not that much fun? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

39. Do you feel sorry for yourself? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 97

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

40. Can you tell other people what you think ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

without being bossy?

41. Do you have trouble falling or staying asleep? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

42. Do you feel tired a lot of the time? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

43. Do you often feel like not eating even though it is meal time? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

44. Are you friendly towards others? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

45. Do you want to be by yourself a lot? ■ No ■ Yes ■ Don’t know

(Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and 44 were added by Aber, Brown, Jones & Samples, 1995, for use

in a self-report format. Items 1, 6, 10 and 12 were modified to aid administration.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

No = 1

Yes = 2

Don’t know = 3

Four subscales are used: Anxiety (items 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 26, 29); Conduct Problems (items 1, 10, 18, 21, 22,

27 and 30); Somatization (items 6, 13, 14, 17 and 23); and Depression (items 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41,

42, 43 and 45). Items for each subscale are averaged to derive an overall score. A high number indicates a

high level of personality disorder.
98 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

E3. PTSD Interview (PTSD-I)

Instructions

The examiner should read question A-1 (and A-2, if necessary) to the interviewee and fill in the

appropriate blanks. The examiner also completes A-3. He should then give the interviewee a copy of the

rating key. The examiner should read each B, C, D, and E item to the interviewee verbatim and ask him to

rate himself, using the key. The examiner then records each response before reading the next item. Finally, the

examiner completes the Summary Section.

A-1. Have you ever experienced something that is both very uncommon and so horrible that would be very

distressing to almost anyone—such as substantial military combat, rape, seeing someone killed, etc.?

Interviewee says “yes.” ________

If “yes,” what was it?

If interviewee answers “yes” to A-1, skip A-2 and go to A-3.

A-2. Interviewee says “no.” ______________ Then ask,

“What was the most horrible or frightening thing that you have experienced?”

A-3. If an event listed in either A-1 or A-2 is both unusual (“outside the range of usual human experience”)

and severe (“likely to evoke significant stress symptoms in almost anyone”), it is defined as a trauma. If

either or both criteria cannot be met, assume that the interviewee has not experienced a trauma.

Has the interviewee experienced a trauma? Yes ______ No ______

How old was the interviewee when the event happened? Age _________ Date _________

(Now give the interviewee a copy of the rating key. Read him/her the questions and ask him/her to choose the

correct response.)

These items measure post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Three introductory and filter questions

are used to assess symptomotology.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 99

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Rating Key

1 = No or never

2 = Very little or very rarely

3 = A little or sometimes

4 = Somewhat or commonly

5 = Quite a bit or often

6 = Very much or very often

7 = Extremely or always

B-1. Have upsetting memories of (cite the stressor listed in A-1 or A-2) frequently pushed themselves into

your mind at times?

B-2. Have you had recurring unpleasant dreams about (the stressor)?

B-3. Have you ever suddenly acted or felt as if (the stressor) were happening again? This includes flashbacks,

illusions, hallucinations or other “re-livings” of the event, even if they occur when you are intoxicated or

just waking up.

B-4. Have things that reminded you of (the stressor) sometimes upset you a great deal?

C-1. Have you ever tried to avoid thinking about (the stressor) or feelings you associate with it?

C-2. Have you sometimes avoided activities or situations that remind you of (the stressor)?

C-3. Have you found you sometimes couldn’t remember important things about (the stressor)?

C-4. Have you lost a lot of interest in things that were very important to you before (the stressor)?

C-5. Have you felt more cut off emotionally from other people at some period than you did before (the stressor)?

C-6. Have there been times when you felt that you did not express your emotions as much or as freely as you

did before (the stressor)?

C-7. Have there been periods since (the stressor) when you felt that you won’t have much of a future—that

you may not have a rewarding career, a happy family, or a long, good life?

D-1. Have you had more difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep at times than you did before (the stressor)?

D-2. Have you gotten irritated or lost your temper more at times than you did before (the stressor)?

D-3. Have there been periods since (the stressor) when you had more trouble concentrating than you had

before it?
100 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

D-4. Have there been times when you were more overly alert, watchful, or super-aware of menacing noises or

other stimuli than you were before (the stressor)?

D-5. Have there been times since (the stressor) when unexpected noise, movement, or touch startled you

more than they did before?

D-6. Have things which reminded you of (the stressor) made you sweat, tense up, breathe hard, tremble, or

overrespond in some other physical way?

E-1. Have you had these problems at least a few times a week for at least a month sometime since (the stressor)?

E-2. Have you had these problems at least a few times each week over the past month?

When did these feelings or problems first occur (month and year)? __________

Scoring and Analysis

Does the interviewee meet the DSM-III-R criteria for:

Section A. History of trauma (“yes” response to item A-3)? ■ Yes ■ No

Section B. Trauma reexperiencing (at least one “4” or higher response

to items B-1, B-2, B-3 and/or B-4)? ■ Yes ■ No

Section C. Avoidance of stimuli associated with trauma (at least three “4” or higher

responses to items C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6 and/or C-7)? ■ Yes ■ No

Section D. Increased arousal (at least two “4” or higher responses to items D-1, D-2, 

D-3, D-4, D-5 and/or D-6)? ■ Yes ■ No

A lifetime PTSD diagnosis (“yes” responses to Summary Sections A, B, C and D, 

and to item E-1). ■ Yes ■ No

A current PTSD diagnosis (“yes” responses to Summary Sections A, B, C, D, 

and to item E-2). ■ Yes ■ No

PTSD-I Overall Frequency/Severity score (sum of items B-1 through D-6). Score: ________
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 101

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

F1. Multigroup Ethnic Identity

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and

customs.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my own ethnic group.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by the ethnic group I belong to.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

7. I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn’t try to mix together.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

8. I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity in my life.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

9. I often spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

10. I really have not spent much time trying to learn more about the culture and history of my ethnic group.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

11. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

This assessment measures aspects of ethnic identification, ethnic practices, and belonging.

Respondents are asked to indicate how they feel about or react to their ethnicity or their ethnic group.
102 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

12. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me, in terms of how to relate to my

own group and other groups.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

13. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other people about my culture.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

14. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

15. I don’t try to become friends with people from other ethnic groups.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

16. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

17. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic groups.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

18. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

19. I enjoy being around people from ethnic groups other than my own.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

20. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Somewhat agree = 3

Somewhat disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

The total score is derived by reversing the negative items (8 and 10), summing across items, and

obtaining a mean. Subscales are as follows: Affirmation and Belonging (items 6, 11, 14, 18 and 20), Ethnic

Identity Achievement (items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13), and Ethnic Behaviors (items 2 and 16). A high score

indicates a strong level of ethnic identity; a low score indicates a weak level of ethnic identity.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 103

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

F2. Ethnic Identity

1. I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and

customs.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. I think a lot about how my life will be affected by the ethnic group I belong to.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didn’t try to mix together.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

7. In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other people about my AfricanAmerican culture.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

8. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

9. I don’t try to become friends with people from other ethnic groups.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

10. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic background.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

11. I feel anger towards many white people.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

This assessment measures the importance of African-American ethnic pride. Respondents are

presented with questions about their ethnicity and asked how they feel about it or react to it.
104 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

12. It is so hard for African-Americans to succeed in this country that I sometimes wonder what is the use in

even trying.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

13. Whites are usually fair to people regardless of race.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

14. I have a strong commitment to improve life in my ethnic community.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

15. African-Americans have the opportunity to succeed in this society.

■ Strongly agree ■ Somewhat agree ■ Somewhat disagree ■ Strongly disagree

(Items 11-15 were developed by Flewelling et al., 1993.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 13-15 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 6, 9, 11 and 12 are reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the

number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a greater sense of ethnic

pride and a positive outlook on one’s future in a multiracial society.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 105

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

F3. Ethnic Identity—Teen Conflict Survey

How often would you make the following statements?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

1. I am proud to be a member of my racial/cultural group. a b c d e

2. I am accepting of others regardless of their race, a b c d e

culture, or religion.

3. I would help someone regardless of their race. a b c d e

4. I can get along well with most people. a b c d e

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Scores are calculated by summing all responses, with a possible range of 4 to 20. Higher scores indicate

higher respect for diversity and higher self-ethnic pride.

These items measure ethnic pride and respect for differences. Respondents are asked to indicate how

often they would make each statement.
106 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

G1. Fatalism

1. If a person is not a success in life, it is his own fault.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. Even with a good education, I’ll have a hard time getting the right kind of job.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. People like me don’t have much of a chance in life.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. Whether I get into trouble is just a matter of chance.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I can pretty much decide what will happen in my life.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

(Items 4 and 5 were added by Flewelling, et al., 1993.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 1, 3 and 4 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 2 and 5 are reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number

of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a more fatalistic view of one’s

future (i.e., less control over that future).

These items measure confidence in one’s ability to influence the future. Respondents are asked the

extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 107

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

H1. Future Aspirations—Peer Leader Survey

How important is it to you that in the future ...

Very Somewhat Not at all

important Important important important

1. You will graduate from high school? 4321

2. You will go to college? 4321

3. You will have a job that pays well? 4321

4. You will stay in good health? 4321

5. You will do community work or 4321

volunteer work?

6. You will have good friends you can 4321

count on?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are summed for each respondent, then divided by the total number of responses. Blank items

should not be counted in the number of responses. Higher mean scores (ranging from 1 to 4) indicate stronger

aspirations in a variety of education, career, and social domains. Lower mean scores indicate lower and less

diverse future aspirations.

These items measure future and career orientation and aspirations. Respondents are asked to indicate

how important it is that they achieve six future goals.
108 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

H2. Positive Outlook—Individual Protective Factors Index

1. I will probably die before I am thirty. YES! yes no NO!

2. I think I will have a nice family when I get older. YES! yes no NO!

3. I am afraid my life will be unhappy. YES! yes no NO!

4. Bad things happen to people like me. YES! yes no NO!

5. I think I can have a nice house when I grow up. YES! yes no NO!

6. I will probably never have enough money. YES! yes no NO!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 3, 4 and 6 are scored as follows:

YES! = 1

yes = 2

no = 3

NO! = 4

Items 2 and 5 are reverse coded. To score, point values for all six items are added. Blank items are

excluded, with the score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are blank. The

maximum obtainable score of 24 indicates a high positive outlook. A minimum score of 6 indicates a

relatively negative outlook.

These items measure one’s outlook for the future. Students are asked to indicate how closely several

statements match their feelings. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is

somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 109

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

H3. Achievement Motivation—Denver Youth Survey

How important is it to...

1. Have a college education?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

2. Own your own home?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

3. Have a great deal of money?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

4. Have a good paying job?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

5. Have a good reputation in the community?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

6. Have a happy family life?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

7. Study hard for good grades?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

8. Work hard to get ahead?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

These items measure motivation to achieve future outcomes associated with job, family, and

community. Youths are asked to indicate the extent to which each statement reflects their current feelings.
110 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

9. Save money for the future?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

10. Be careful what you spend?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

11. Be popular?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

12. Get a job to help out your family?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

13. Help out around the house?

■ Very ■ Quite ■ Somewhat ■ Not too ■ Not at all

important important important important important

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very important = 5

Quite important = 4

Somewhat important = 3

Not too important = 2

Not at all important = 1

Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number of items. The intended range of

scores is 1-5, with a higher score indicating greater motivation to achieve in conventional areas (home,

school, community).
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 111

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

I1. Children’s Hopelessness

1. I want to grow up because I think things will be better. ■ YES ■ NO

2. I might as well give up because I can’t make things better for myself. ■ YES ■ NO

3. When things are going badly, I know that they won’t be bad all of the time. ■ YES ■ NO

4. I can imagine what my life will be like when I’m grown up. ■ YES ■ NO

5. I have enough time to finish the things I really want to do. ■ YES ■ NO

6. Someday, I will be good at doing the things that I really care about. ■ YES ■ NO

7. I will get more of the good things in life than most other kids. ■ YES ■ NO

8. I don’t have good luck and there’s no reason to think I will when I grow up. ■ YES ■ NO

9. All I can see ahead of me are bad things, not good things. ■ YES ■ NO

10. I don’t think I will get what I really want. ■ YES ■ NO

11. When I grow up, I think I will be happier than I am now. ■ YES ■ NO

12. Things just won’t work out the way I want them to. ■ YES ■ NO

13. I never get what I want, so it’s dumb to want anything. ■ YES ■ NO

14. I don’t think I will have any real fun when I grow up. ■ YES ■ NO

15. Tomorrow seems unclear and confusing to me. ■ YES ■ NO

16. I will have more good times than bad times. ■ YES ■ NO

17. There’s no use in really trying to get something I want because I probably ■ YES ■ NO

won’t get it.

This assessment measures a child’s negative (hopeless) expectations for the future. “No” responses

indicate hopelessness; “yes” responses indicate lack of hopelessness.
112 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for most of the items in this scale are assigned as follows: Yes = 1; No = 0. Eight positivelyworded items are reverse coded: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 16. Responses are added to derive an overall score. A

maximum score of 17 indicates high hopelessness. A minimum score of 0 indicates low hopelessness.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 113

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

I2. Children’s Hopelessness (Modified Version)

1. I have enough time to finish the things I really want to do.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. All I can see ahead of me are bad things, not good things.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. When I grow up, I think I will be happier than I am now.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. I don’t think I will have any real fun when I grow up.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I will have more good times than bad times.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. There’s no use in really trying to get something I want because I probably won’t get it.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for items 2, 4 and 6 are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 1, 3 and 5 are reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the

number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating more hopelessness.

This modified version of the Children’s Hopelessness scale measures negative future expectations. It

is a subset of the items in the previous scale, with one additional item. Youths are asked the extent to

which they agree or disagree with the following statements.
114 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

J1. Hostility—SCL-90

How often do you ...

Once in a Fairly Most of

Never while often the time

1. Feel easily annoyed or irritated? 1234

2. Have temper outbursts you cannot control? 1234

3. Have urges to beat, injure, or harm someone? 1234

4. Have urges to break or smash things? 1234

5. Get into frequent arguments? 1234

6. Shout or throw things? 1234

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Values are summed for each respondent and divided by the

number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating more hostility.

These items measure symptoms of underlying hostility, reflecting qualities such as aggression,

irritability, rage, and resentment. Youths are asked to indicate how often they feel irritable or engage

in the following behaviors.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 115

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

K1. Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form (SRM-SF)

1. Think about when you’ve made a promise to a friend of yours. How important is it for people to keep

promises, if they can, to friends?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

2. What about keeping a promise to anyone? How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can,

even to someone they hardly know?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

3. What about keeping a promise to a child? How important is it for parents to keep promises to their children?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

4. In general, how important is it to tell the truth?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

This assessment measures moral reasoning and moral judgement. It is conducted in a one-on-one

interview. Respondents are to identify things they think are important for people to do, and explain why

they think these things are important.
116 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

5. Think about when you’ve helped your mother or father. How important is it for children to help their parents?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

6. Let’s say a friend of yours needs help and may even die, and you’re the only person who can save him or

her. How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own life) to save the life of a friend?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

7. What about saving the life of anyone? How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own

life) to save the life of a stranger?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

8. How important is it for a person to live even if that person doesn’t want to?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

9. How important is it for people not to take things that belong to other people?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 117

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

10. How important is it for people to obey the law?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

11. How important is it for judges to send people who break the law to jail?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use and scoring information, contact:

John C. Gibbs, Ph.D.

Psychology Department

The Ohio State University

137 Townshend Hall

1885 Neil Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43210

Tel: (614) 292-7918

Fax: (614) 292-4537

gibbs.1@osu.edu
118 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

L1. Likelihood of Violence and Delinquency

Within the next month, how likely is it that you will...

1. Get into a physical fight?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

2. Carry a gun?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

3. Carry a knife?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

4. Get injured in a fight?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

5. Injure someone else in a fight?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

6. Drink an alcoholic beverage?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

7. Get drunk?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

8. Get high on drugs?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

9. Have sexual intercourse?

■ Very likely ■ Somewhat likely ■ Not very likely ■ Not at all likely

These items measure perceived likelihood of engaging in violence and other high risk behaviors.

Youths are asked to indicate how likely they are to engage in various behaviors over the next 30 days.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 119

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very likely = 4

Somewhat likely = 3

Not very likely = 2

Not at all likely = 1

Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number of items. The intended range of

scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a greater likelihood for violent or other delinquent behaviors.
120 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

L2. Perception of Problem Behavior—Pittsburgh Youth Study

Is it all right for you ...

No Yes

1. To miss school if you are not sick? 0 1

2. To keep things that you find in the street? 0 1

3. To yell and argue to solve a conflict? 0 1

4. To carry matches or a lighter with you? 0 1

5. To choose your own friends, even if your parents don’t like them? 0 1

6. To take a drink of alcohol? 0 1

7. To not tell your parents what you are doing? 0 1

8. To drive a car on your own before age 16? 0 1

9. To fight kids who call you names? 0 1

10. To have friends your parents do not approve of? 0 1

11. To smoke? 0 1

12. To take something from people who would not miss it? 0 1

13. To experiment with drugs? 0 1

14. To steal under certain circumstances? 0 1

15. To get into fist fights with your friends? 0 1

16. To tell a little lie? 0 1

17. To rebel against your parents? 0 1

18. To use your fists to resolve a conflict? 0 1

These items measure willingness to engage in problem behavior. Youth are asked to indicate whether

or not they feel it is acceptable for them to engage in 18 “risky” behaviors.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 121

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above, then summed to derive a total score. Higher scores indicate

greater willingness to engage in problem behavior.
122 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

L3. Violent Intentions—Teen Conflict Survey

The next time you find yourself really angry at someone or something, how likely is it that you would ...

Very Very

likely Likely Unlikely unlikely

1. Ignore the situation? a b c d

2. Ignore the situation and get the person later? a b c d

3. Try to talk it out? a b c d

4. Suggest peer mediation? a b c d

5. Channel your anger into something constructive? a b c d

6. Laugh it off? a b c d

7. Try to reduce your anger? a b c d

8. Try to see the other person’s point of view? a b c d

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very likely = 4

Likely = 3

Unlikely = 2

Very unlikely = 1

Item 2 is reverse scored. Responses are summed, with a possible range of 8 to 32. High scores indicate a

stronger intention to use non-violent strategies.

These items measure intentions to use nonviolent strategies to control anger and conflict. Respondents

are asked to indicate how likely they would be to adopt certain nonviolent behaviors the next time they

get angry.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 123

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

L4. Peer Reactions to Delinquency—Rochester Youth Development Study

Think about all the people you hung around with over the past 30 days, not just your three best friends. What

would the people in this group say if you ...

Say it Not say Say it 

was okay anything was wrong

1. Used a weapon or force to get money or things from people? 3 2 1

2. Hit someone with the idea of hurting them? 3 2 1

3. Stole something worth $50? 3 2 1

4. Damaged or destroyed someone else’s property on purpose? 3 2 1

5. Took a car or motorcycle for a ride or drive without 3 2 1

the owner’s permission?

6. Skipped classes without an excuse? 3 2 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values all responses are summed and then divided by the

total number of items. Higher scores indicate greater acceptance of delinquency among peers.

These items measure peer reactions to delinquency. Respondents are asked to think about all of the

people they have spent time with over the past 30 days, not just their closest friends, and to indicate what

their friends’ reactions might be to certain delinquent acts.
124 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

M1. Twenty Statements

Directions

Think about the words you might use if you had to talk about yourself to someone who had never met

you before. Imagine someone came from a foreign country and wanted to learn about what you are like. What

would you tell that person about yourself? What kinds of things would you say about yourself so that the

other person would know about you? How would you describe yourself? Write only one thing on each line.

You don’t have to spell these right. Write something different on each line that tells what you are like. Don’t

write your name on any of the lines. You do not have to fill all the lines, just fill as many as you think are right

with words that you might use to tell someone about yourself.

Coding Instructions

STEP 1

Read all the statements. Then, decide whether the statements are either codable or uncodable as defined

below. Put a “U” next to each uncodable response.

1. Codable responses are those that are legible, understandable, relevant statement. Examples of codable

responses are: “I am smart,” “I like baseball.” Even statements that use an assumed subject and verb

are codable such as “boy,” “nice,” or “Mexican.”

2. Uncodable responses are those that are not understandable. Examples of uncodable responses are:

i) isolated word or words out of context (e.g., entire response consists of “while,” “stick up for, “ or “I

am”)

ii) response is about someone else (e.g., “you are nice,” “my cousin lives with me”)

iii) response is a question posed to another (e.g., “Do you like me?”)

iv) response is unreadable, usually because of spelling errors or handwriting (e.g., “I am peute”)

v) response duplicates another (e.g., “I am nice,” “I am nice”)

Do not give any codes to uncodable responses.

Evaluate the responses using the following coding scheme.

A.Decide in which of these three categories the response fits:

1. External*

Responses that reference physical characteristics such as name, hair color, age, etc. Possessions and

general information are included. Examples are: “I have a doll,” “I am a Boy Scout,” or “I was born in

Chicago.” Descriptions of one’s appearance are included (e.g., “I am pretty” or “I am fat”).

This scale measures an individual’s concept of self. Each respondent is asked to list 20 statements that

describe himself or herself; responses are coded by complexity and consensual/subconsensual statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 125

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

2. Behavioral*

Responses that reference behavior. The behavior refers to one in a specific context or in general (e.g.,

“I like to swim” or “I play”). These should NOT refer to a global context or behavioral trait (e.g.,

“playful” or “helpful”). Trait names are included if they are discussed in behavioral terms.

3. Internal*

Responses that reference feelings, beliefs, thoughts, or knowledge (e.g., “I am sad” or “I know my

division”). Personality traits and temperament are included (e.g., “care,” “share,” “angry,” “careful,”

and “smart”) as well as any behavior expressed in terms of a trait (e.g., “I am good at basketball” or “I

am fun to be with”).

B. Within each of the above categories, decide whether the response is:

1. Non-evaluative—These responses include no descriptors and require no interpretation. They indicate

common knowledge. (Code as 0 in the Evaluative category.)

2. Evaluative—These responses are ambiguous, and therefore require interpretation. They are often in the

form of a judgement and may include a descriptor such as “a lot,” “very,” or “good.” Evaluative

statements are responses which have a range of meanings (e.g., sad, mad, or hurt). (Code as 1 in the

Evaluative category.)

3. Preferential—Responses that reference likes and dislikes (e.g., “I like roller- blading”). Note: Both

“love” and “hate” should be evaluated in terms of reference and context. For example, “I hate my

sister” is not a preference, whereas “I hate chocolate pudding” seems to be a statement which refers not

to preferring chocolate pudding. These responses are also evaluative.

4. Comparative-Evaluative—These responses are an evaluation of a comparative statement. They must state

a clear comparison; do NOT include implied comparisons. They are statements requiring interpretation

and may include a descriptor or modifier. Examples are “I am the prettiest girl in my class,” “I have more

friends than my brother,” or “I like playing cards the best.” These responses are often evaluative.

5. Qualified-Evaluative—These responses include a qualifier, modifier, or descriptor that refers to

variability in time, situation, or quantity (e.g., “sometimes I get mad at people,” “I am kinda tall,” or “I

have a lot of dolls”). These responses are often evaluative.

6. Speculative—These responses include a speculation about why something is the way it is. They tend to

speculate about the causes of stated strengths or weaknesses. A clear reason for a response must be

stated (e.g., “I help people because I am nice” or “I get mad when I’m pushed”).

C. Record the code (0=No or 1=Yes) for each child’s response on a coding worksheet. For example, if the

first statement is speculative, code it as “1” on the coding worksheet underneath the speculative

heading. If a statement is NOT speculative, then code as “0” underneath the speculative heading. All

spaces must be filled with either a 0 or 1.

STEP 2

Count the number of codable statements which reference group affiliation and put the total number in

Section II on the worksheet.* These responses refer to organized activities and those pertaining to groups.

Examples are “Boy Scout,” “I play softball,” “I’m on the track team,” or “I’m in a gang.”
126 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

STEP 3

Count the number of codable statements that fall into the following defined categories. These statements

must refer to aggressive or pro-social personality traits or behaviors which inhibit or promote interaction with

others. Be careful not to assume the converse is true for a statement (e.g., if it is not aggressive, don’t assume

it’s automatically pro-social). Record the totals in Section III on the worksheet.* Note that many statements

will NOT fall into either category; also, do NOT include general preferential statements.

AGGRESSIVE responses refer to aggressive personality traits or behaviors. These statements specify

hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior. They will tend to inhibit satisfactory relations with others.

Examples are “I get into a lot of fights,” “hateful,” “mean,” “tough,” and “I hurt people.” Responses

referencing emotional states are NOT aggressive (e.g., “angry” or “mad”). Aggressive responses do NOT

include statements about NOT being aggressive (e.g., “I don’t get into fights” or “I don’t hit people”).

PRO-SOCIAL responses refer to pro-social personality traits or behavior promoting interaction which

benefits others (e.g., “I am helpful,” “I’m considerate,” “I share,” or “I am nice to other people”).

Responses such as “thankful,” “I am fun to be with,” and “I am not bossy” are NOT pro-social.

STEP 4

Count the number of codable statements that fall into the following categories. Record the totals in

Section IV on the worksheet.* Many statements will not fall into either category.

POSITIVE responses are those that are generally positive in nature (e.g., “a good person,” “friendly,”

“nice,” and “smart”).

NEGATIVE responses are those that are generally negative in nature (e.g., “mean,” “ugly,” “fat,” and

“stupid”).

STEP 5

Count the total number of codable responses and record in Section V on the worksheet.*

STEP 6

Count the total number of uncodable responses and record in Section VI on the worksheet.*

STEP 7

Add the numbers from step 6 and step 7 and record the total in Section VII on the worksheet.*

* On your worksheet, include the following sections:

I. External, Behavioral, and Internal (with responses in each of these three categories designated as non-evaluative, evaluative, preferential,

comparative-evaluative, qualified-evaluative, or speculative).

II. Co-curricular

III. Aggressive and Prosocial

IV. Positive and Negative

V. Number of codable responses

VI. Number of uncodable responses

VII. Total number of responses

For more information, see Kuhn & McPartland, 1954.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 127

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Example Coding Sheet

Code the following responses as: I=Internal E=External B=Behavioral

* All responses referencing a preference are EVALUATIVE.

* All responses with “very,” “a lot,” “sometimes,” “sorta,” “some,” “mostly,” etc. are 

EVALUATIVE/QUALIFIED.

* Behaviors expressed as INTERNAL traits include: “good reader,” “bike rider,” “card collector,” and

“drawer.”

* Examples of PROSOCIAL responses are: “considerate,” “share,” “helpful,” “caring,” and “I am nice to

people.”

* AGGRESSIVE responses include: “hateful,” “mean,” “tough,” “I pick fights,” “dangerous.”

nice I likeable I on the track team E

mad I fat E boy scout E

sharing I bossy I play softball B

pretty E good I pick fights B

Christian E kind I know my division I

dark E protector I play B

light E shareful I work B

playful I thankful I watch TV B

stingy I wavy E slanted eyes E

dark skinned E small E brown hair E

fair B big E black (race) E

not mean I rude I white (race) E

wishful I cute E collect cards B

fat E weird I ride a bike B

bad I fun I 5’5” E

undangerous I lovely I 110 pounds E

dangerous I helpful I play baseball B

cool I angry I dance B

mean I crazy I

hateful I strong E

bad I

Evaluative Non-Evaluative
128 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

N1. Personal Safety—Joyce Foundation Youth Survey

How often would you say the following statements about yourself?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

1. I have been affected personally by violence. a b c d e

2. I live in a safe neighborhood. a b c d e

3. I worry about my safety getting to and from a b c d e

school.

4. I worry about my safety in school. a b c d e

5. I see gang activity in my neighborhood. a b c d e

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Item 2 is reverse coded, then scores are calculated by summing all responses. Possible range is 5 to 25,

with higher scores indicating more concern for personal safety, or the student’s perception that his or her

personal safety is at risk.

These items measure how safe a youth feels in his or her neighborhood and school, and going to and

from school. Students are asked to think about themselves and circle the answer that best reflects their

opinion or feelings about each statement.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 129

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

N2. Sense of Safety

Never Sometimes Always

1. I feel safe on my way to school in the morning. 0 1 2

2. I feel safe on the school grounds before school starts. 0 1 2

3. I feel safe in my class at school. 0 1 2

4. I feel safe at lunch in school. 0 1 2

5. I feel safe in gym class at school. 0 1 2

6. I feel safe after school before I go home. 0 1 2

7. I feel safe on my way home from school. 0 1 2

8. I feel safe at the park closest to my house. 0 1 2

9. I feel safe outside of my house. 0 1 2

10. I feel safe playing on my block. 0 1 2

11. I feel safe walking around my neighborhood. 0 1 2

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Scores are based on the mean item response of non-missing

items up to a threshold of 2/3 of the items being non-missing. Six (6) items must be present to calculate a

score. A higher score indicates a greater sense of feeling safe.

These items measure feelings of safety at home, in or on the way to school, and in the neighborhood.

Respondents are asked to indicate how frequently they feel safe in these situations.
130 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

O1. Social Responsibility

1. It is hard to get ahead without breaking the law now and then.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. If I want to risk getting into trouble, that is my business and nobody else’s.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. I don’t owe the world anything.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. What I do with my life won’t make much difference one way or another.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. I really care about how my actions might affect others.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

6. I have a responsibility to make the world a better place.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

(Items 2-6 were added by Flewelling, et al., 1993.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 1

Agree = 2

Disagree = 3

Strongly disagree = 4

Items 5 and 6 are reverse coded. Point values are summed for each respondent and divided by the number of

items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a greater sense of social responsibility.

These items measure civic responsibility and awareness. Youths are asked the extent to which they

agree or disagree with the following statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 131

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P1. Self-Efficacy

Strongly Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree agree

1. I will graduate from high school. 1234

2. I will finish college. 1234

3. I will get a job I really want. 1234

4. I am confident in my ability to stay out of fights. 1234

5. If someone called me a bad name, I would ignore them 1234

or walk away.

6. I don’t need to fight because there are other ways to deal 1234

with anger.

7. I can get along well with most people. 1234

(Item 7 was added by DeJong, Spiro, Brewer-Wilson, et al., 1992.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Values are summed for each respondent and divided by the

number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a greater confidence in

one’s ability to finish school, get a job, and avoid violent encounters. Items 4-7 can be treated as a separate

scale.

These items measure one’s confidence in attaining educational and career goals and in avoiding

fights. Youths are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following

statements.
132 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P2. Control—Individual Protective Factors Index

Self-Efficacy

1. Other people decide what happens to me. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

2. It is important to think before you act. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

3. If I study hard, I will get better grades. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

4. When I try to be nice, people notice. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

5. If you work hard, you will get what you want. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

6. To make a good decision, it is important to think. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

7. I am responsible for what happens to me. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

Self-Control

8. Sometimes you have to physically fight to get what you want. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

9. I get mad easy. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

10. I do whatever I feel like doing. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

11. When I am mad, I yell at people. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

12. Sometimes I break things on purpose. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

13. If I feel like it, I hit people. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

This assessment measures sense of control and has two subscales: self-efficacy and self-control.

Students are asked to indicate how closely several statements match their feelings. A “YES!” is checked if

the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if

it is very false.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 133

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are scored as follows:

YES! = 1

yes = 2

no = 3

NO! = 4

All other items are reverse coded. To score the scale, point values for all 13 items are added. Blank items

are excluded, with the scale score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are

blank. The maximum obtainable score of 52 indicates a high sense of self-control. A minimum score of 13

indicates a relatively low sense of control.
134 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P3. Restraint—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

Somewhat Somewhat

False false Not sure true True

1. Doing things to help other people is more 1 2 3 4 5

important to me than almost anything else.

2. I’m the kind of person who will try anything once, 1 2 3 4 5

even if it’s not that safe.

3. I should try harder to control myself when I’m 1 2 3 4 5

having fun.

4. I do things that are against the law more often 1 2 3 4 5

than most people.

5. I often go out of my way to do things for other 1 2 3 4 5

people.

6. People who get me angry better watch out. 1 2 3 4 5

Not Almost

Never often Sometimes Often always

7. I think about other people’s feelings before I do 1 2 3 4 5

something they might not like.

8. I do things without giving them enough thought. 1 2 3 4 5

9. When I have the chance, I take things I want that 1 2 3 4 5

don’t really belong to me.

10. If someone tries to hurt me, I make sure I get even 1 2 3 4 5

with them.

This inventory measures self-restraint. It includes items pertaining to suppression of aggression,

consideration of others, impulse control, and responsibility. It can be administered in classrooms to groups

of students.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 135

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Not Almost

Never often Sometimes Often always

11. I enjoy doing things for other people, even when I 1 2 3 4 5

don’t receive anything in return.

12. I become “wild and crazy” and do things other 1 2 3 4 5

people might not like.

13. I do things that are really not fair to people I 1 2 3 4 5

don’t care about.

14. I will cheat on something if I know no one will 1 2 3 4 5

find out.

15. When I’m doing something for fun (for example, 1 2 3 4 5

partying, acting silly), I tend to get carried away 

and go too far.

16. I make sure that doing what I want will not cause 1 2 3 4 5

problems for other people.

17. I break laws and rules I don’t agree with. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I like to do new and different things that many 1 2 3 4 5

people would consider weird or not really safe.

19. Before I do something, I think about how it will 1 2 3 4 5

affect the people around me.

20. If someone does something I really don’t like, 1 2 3 4 5

I yell at them about it.

21. People can depend on me to do what I know 1 2 3 4 5

I should.

22. I lose my temper and “let people have it” when 1 2 3 4 5

I’m angry.

23. I do things that I know really aren’t right. 1 2 3 4 5
136 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Not Almost

Never often Sometimes Often always

24. I say the first thing that comes into my mind 1 2 3 4 5

without thinking enough about it.

25. I pick on people I don’t like. 1 2 3 4 5

26. I try very hard not to hurt other people’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

27. I stop and think things through before I act. 1 2 3 4 5

28. I say something mean to someone who has 1 2 3 4 5

upset me.

29. I make sure I stay out of trouble. 1 2 3 4 5

30. When someone tries to start a fight with me, I 1 2 3 4 5

fight back.

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use, contact:

Daniel A. Weinberger, Ph.D.

Wellen Center

P.O. Box 22807

Beachwood, OH 44122

Tel: (440) 734-7861 #

Fax: (404) 378-5930

dweinbergerphd@aol.com

Items 1 and 5 are scored on the following 5-point scale:

False = 1

Somewhat false = 2

Not sure = 3

Somewhat true = 4

True = 5
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 137

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Items 2, 3, 4 and 6 are recoded as follows:

False = 5

Somewhat false = 4

Not sure = 3

Somewhat true = 2

True = 1

Items 7, 11, 16, 19, 21, 26, 27 and 29 are scored on the following 5-point scale:

Never = 1

Not often = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Almost always = 5

Items 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 30 are recoded as follows:

Never = 5

Not often = 4

Sometimes = 3

Often = 2

Almost always = 1

Within each subscale the score is calculated by summing the point values of the responses from a

participant. If 25% or less of the responses are left blank, the average of the point values for the remaining

items should be multiplied by the total number of items in the scale to calculate a pro-rated score. The scale

should generally not be scored if more than 25% of the responses are left blank.

The maximum obtainable score of 150 indicates a high level of emotional restraint. A minimum score of

30 indicates a low level.

A short version of the restraint scale is based on the sum of the following 12 items: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14,

15, 16, 19, 22 and 23. The maximum obtainable score of 60 indicates a high level of emotional restraint. A

minimum score of 12 indicates a low level.

Four subscales are based on the following items:

Suppression of Aggression—6, 10, 20, 22, 25, 28 and 30

Impulse Control—2, 3, 8, 12, 15, 18, 24 and 27

Consideration of Others—1, 5, 7, 11, 16, 19 and 26

Responsibility—4, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 23 and 29

In each case, the maximum obtainable score (of 35 or 40) indicates a high level of suppression of

aggression. A minimum score of 7 or 8 indicates a low level.
138 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P4. Children’s Desire for Control

1. I’d rather give orders than receive orders.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

2. When it comes to watching TV, I want to choose the shows I watch.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

3. It’s important to me that I can have my friends over whenever I want.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

4. I like to be the boss when I am with my friends.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

5. If people at home would listen to me more, things would be better.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

6. I like it when my parents let me decide what to do.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

7. My parents should decide what I get to eat for snacks.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

8. My parents should check my homework to make sure it’s done.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

9. I like it when my parents tell me what clothes to wear.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

10. I like it when the gym teacher picks the teams for the games.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

11. It’s okay when other people boss me around.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

12. I like it when other kids tell me what to do.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

This scale measures the desire for control and endorsement of aggressive strategies for gaining

control. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they feel certain statements about

controlling behavior are true for them.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 139

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

13. I’d rather be a follower than a leader.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

14. My friends usually know what’s best for me.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

15. I’d rather do my own homework and make mistakes than listen to someone else’s ideas.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

16. I try to avoid situations where someone else tells me what to do.

■ Not at all true ■ Not very true ■ Sort of true ■ Very true

Scoring and Analysis

This measure produces a Total Desire for Control scale. Point values are assigned as follows:

Not at all true = 1

Not very true = 2

Sort of true = 3

Very true = 4

Items signifying desire to be controlled by others are reverse scored (4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16). The

final scale is created by averaging responses to 16 items. A maximum score of 4 indicates increased desire for

self-control. A minimum score of 1 indicates decreased desire for self-control.
140 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P5. Self-Efficacy—Teen Conflict Survey

Very Somewhat Not very Not at all

confident confident Unsure confident confident

1. Stay out of fights? a b c d e

2. Understand another person’s point of view? a b c d e

3. Calm down when you are mad? a b c d e

4. Talk out a disagreement? a b c d e

5. Learn to stay out of fights? a b c d e

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very confident = 5

Somewhat confident = 4

Unsure = 3

Not very confident = 2

Not at all confident = 1

Scores are calculated by summing all responses. Possible range is 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating

more confidence.

These items measure an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to control anger and resolve

conflicts nonviolently. Respondents are asked to indicate how likely they would be to use certain

nonviolent strategies.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 141

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

P6. Minimization

Not like me Like me

1. I don’t worry ahead of time about problems that are probably going to happen. 0 1

2. I feel that things are not as bad as they seem to others. 0 1

3. When I get angry, I try to hide my feelings. 0 1

4. I feel that problems have a way of taking care of themselves. 0 1

5. I have to be very sick to see a doctor. 0 1

6. I do not worry about things in the future because I am sure that everything will 0 1

turn out all right.

7. When something bothers me, I can ignore it. 0 1

8. I feel there is very little that is worth worrying about. 0 1

9. No matter how bad things seem, I do not let it upset me. 0 1

10. I’m not afraid to take risks, because when your number’s up, it’s up. 0 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. Responses are summed to derive a total score, with possible scores

ranging from 0 to 10. A higher score indicates a high use of minimization as a coping strategy. A lower score

indicates less frequent use of minimization.

These items measure the use of minimization as a coping strategy. Respondents are asked to indicate

the extent to which certain statements describe them.
142 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q1. Low Self-Esteem—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

Somewhat Somewhat

False false Not sure true True

1. I’m not very sure of myself. 12345

2. I really don’t like myself very much. 12345

3. I sometimes feel so bad about myself that I wish I 12345

were somebody else.

Not Almost

Never often Sometimes Often always

4. I usually feel I’m the kind of person I want to be. 12345

5. I feel I can do things as well as other people can. 12345

6. I feel that I am a special or important person. 12345

7. I feel that I am really good at things I try to do. 12345

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use, contact:

Daniel A. Weinberger, Ph.D.

Wellen Center

P.O. Box 22807

Beachwood, OH 44122

Tel: (440) 734-7861 #

Fax: (440) 378-5930

dweinbergerphd@aol.com

This subscale measures an individual’s perception of his or her value. Some of the items are from

Weinberger’s Distress Scale. Youths are asked to indicate how true various statements are for them.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 143

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Items 1-3 are scored as indicated above. Items 4-7 are reverse coded. The scale can be scored by

summing the point values of the responses from a participant. If one or two responses are left blank, the

average of the point values for the remaining items should be multiplied by 7 to calculate a pro-rated score.

The scale should generally not be scored if more than two responses are left blank. The maximum obtainable

score of 35 indicates a low level of self-esteem. A minimum score of 7 indicates a high level.
144 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q2. Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale

Strongly Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree agree

Peer

1. I am not as popular as other people my age. 1234

2. Other people think I am a lot of fun to be with. 1234

3. I wish I were a different kind of person because 1234

I’d have more friends.

Home

4. My parents are proud of the kind of person I am. 1234

5. No one pays much attention to me at home. 1234

6. I often feel unwanted at home. 1234

7. My parents believe that I will be a success in 1234

the future.

School

8. In the kinds of things we do in school, I am at 1234

least as good as other people in my classes.

9. I often feel worthless in school. 1234

10. I am an important person in my classes. 1234

This scale measures adolescents’ feelings about their worth and importance among peers, as students,

and as family members. Students are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 10

statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 145

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 4

Agree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 are reverse coded. Values are summed and divided by the total number of items (10)

for each respondent. The intended range is 1-4, with a high score indicating a greater feeling of self-worth.
146 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q3. How I Think Questionnaire

The How I Think Questionnaire is copyrighted. For permission to use and scoring information, contact:

Research Press

2612 North Mattis Avenue

Champaign, IL 61822

Tel: (800) 519-2707

Fax: (217) 352-1221

www.researchpress.com

A few sample items are provided below in four categories of cognitive distortion.

Self-Centered

If I see something I like, I take it.

If I lie to people, that’s nobody’s business but my own.

If I really want to do something, I don’t care if it’s legal or not.

When I get mad, I don’t care who gets hurt.

Minimizing/Mislabeling

If you know you can get away with it, only a fool wouldn’t steal.

Everybody lies. It’s no big deal.

You have to get even with people who don’t show you respect.

People need to be roughed up once in a while.

Assuming the Worst

You might as well steal. If you don’t take it, somebody else will.

I might as well lie—when I tell the truth, people don’t believe me anyway.

People are always trying to hassle me.

You should hurt people first, before they hurt you.

Blaming Others

If somebody is careless enough to lose a wallet, they deserve to have it stolen.

People force me to lie when they ask me too many questions.

When I lose my temper, it’s because people try to make me mad.

If people don’t cooperate with me, it’s not my fault if someone gets hurt.

This scale measures an adolescent’s cognitive distortions with respect to the social world. It can be

administered quickly despite the large number of items. Respondents are asked to read a statement, then

ask themselves, "Is it fair to say that this statement describes how I think about things?"
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 147

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q4. Modified Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Inventory (a)

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

agree somewhat somewhat disagree

1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an 3 2 1 0

equal par with others.

2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3 2 1 0

3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I’m a failure. 3 2 1 0

4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 3 2 1 0

5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 3 2 1 0

6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 3 2 1 0

7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 3 2 1 0

8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 3 2 1 0

9. I certainly feel useless at times. 3 2 1 0

10. At times I think that I am no good at all. 3 2 1 0

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above, with the exception of items 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10. These items should be

reverse coded so that a higher score indicates a greater self-esteem. To score this scale, the point values of the

responses from a participant should be summed. Alternatively, the score could be calculated by summing the

responses and dividing by the total number of responses. A high score indicates a high level of self-esteem; a

low score indicates a low level of self-esteem.

This scale measure an individual’s perception of self-worth, ability, self-satisfaction, and self-respect.

Respondents are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with several statements.
148 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q5. Modified Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (b)

How often would you say the following statements?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

1. I am popular as other people my age. a b c d e

2. I wish I were a different person. a b c d e

3. I feel like people pay attention to me at home. a b c d e

4. After high school, I will get a job I really want. a b c d e

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Item 2 is reverse coded. Scores are calculated by summing all responses, with a possible range of 4 to 20.

Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem.

These items measure an individual’s perception of self. Respondents are asked to indicate how often

the following statements are true for them.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 149

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q6. Self-Concept—Individual Protective Factors Index

Self-Concept

1. I like the way I act. YES! yes no NO!

2. People usually like me. YES! yes no NO!

3. I can be trusted. YES! yes no NO!

4. My life is all mixed up. YES! yes no NO!

5. I can do most things I try. YES! yes no NO!

6. I like the way I look. YES! yes no NO!

Self-Confidence

7. I will always have friends. YES! yes no NO!

8. I get along well with other people. YES! yes no NO!

9. I like being around people. YES! yes no NO!

10. It is hard for me to make friends. YES! yes no NO!

11. My friends respect me. YES! yes no NO!

12. I often feel lonely. YES! yes no NO!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

All other items are reverse coded. To score, point values for all 12 items are added. Blank items are excluded,

with the score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or fewer items are blank. The maximum

obtainable score of 48 indicates a strong self-concept. A minimum score of 12 indicates a weak self-concept.

These items measure an individual’s sense of self-concept and self-confidence. Students are asked to

indicate how closely several statements match their feelings. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very

true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
150 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Q7. Self-Esteem—Rochester Youth Development Study

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree disagree Disagree

1. In general, you are satisfied with yourself. 4321

2. At times you think you are no good at all. 4321

3. You feel that you have a number of good qualities. 4321

4. You can do things as well as most other people. 4321

5. You feel you do not have much to be proud of. 4321

6. You feel useless at times. 4321

7. You feel that you are at least as good as other people. 4321

8. You wish you could have more respect for yourself. 4321

9. Sometimes you think of yourself as a bad person. 4321

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 should be reverse coded. Point values for

all responses are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate a greater

sense of self-esteem.

These items measure a youth’s sense of self-esteem. Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent

they agree or disagree with several statements about themselves.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 151

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

R1. Presence of Caring—Individual Protective Factors Index

1. There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

2. There is not an adult I can turn to for guidance in times of stress. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

3. If something went wrong, no one would come to my assistance. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

4. There is an adult I could talk to about important decisions in my life. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

5. There is a trustworthy adult I could turn to for advice if I were ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

having problems.

6. There is no one I can depend on for help if I really need it. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

7. There is no adult I can feel comfortable talking about my problems ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

with.

8. There are people I can count on in an emergency. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

9. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

All other items are reverse coded. To score, point values for all 9 items are added. Blank items are

excluded, with the score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are blank. The

maximum obtainable score of 36 indicates a strong presence of caring. A minimum score of 9 indicates a

weak presence.

These items measure an individual’s sense of support from an adult. Respondents are asked to

indicate how closely several statements match their feelings. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very

true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
152 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

R2. Vaux Social Support Record

Not at all Some A lot

1. At school, there are adults I can talk to, who care about my feelings and 0 1 2

what happens to me.

2. At school, there are adults I can talk to, who give good suggestions and 0 1 2

advice about my problems.

3. At school, there are adults who help me with practical problems, like 0 1 2

helping me get somewhere or helping with a project.

4. There are people in my family I can talk to, who care about my feelings 0 1 2

and what happens to me.

5. There are people in my family I can talk to, who give good suggestions 0 1 2

and advice about my problems.

6. There are people in my family who help me with practical problems, 0 1 2

like helping me get somewhere or help me with a job or project.

7. I have friends I can talk to, who care about my feelings and what 0 1 2

happens to me.

8. I have friends I can talk to, who give good suggestions and advice 0 1 2

about my problems.

9. I have friends who help me with practical problems, like how to get 0 1 2

somewhere, or help me with a job.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values, as indicated above, are summed. A high score indicates a high level of social support. A low

score indicates a low level of social support.

These items measure satisfaction with perceived emotional advice, guidance, and practical social

support. Youths are asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with a series of statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 153

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

R3. Sense of School Membership

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1. I feel proud of belonging to my middle school.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. I am treated with as much respect as other students.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. I feel very different from most other students here.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. The teachers here respect me.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. There’s at least one teacher or other adult in this school I can talk to if I have a problem.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 5

Agree = 4

Neither = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Item 3 is reverse coded. Scores are derived by summing across all items, with a possible range from 5 to

25. Higher scores indicate a higher sense of belonging.

These items measure a student’s sense of belonging to his or her middle school. Youths are asked to

indicate how much they agree or disagree with a series of statements.
154 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

R4. Empathy—Teen Conflict Survey

How often would you make the following statements?

1. I can listen to others.

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Always

2. Kids I don’t like can have good ideas.

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Always

3. I get upset when my friends are sad.

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Always

4. I trust people who are not my friends.

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Always

5. I am sensitive to other people’s feelings, even if they are not my friends.

■ Never ■ Seldom ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Always

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Scores are derived by summing all responses, with possible scores ranging from 5 to 25. Higher scores

indicate higher empathy.

These items measure an individual’s ability to listen, care, and trust others. Youths are asked to

indicate how often they would make several statements.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 155

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

S1. Social Consciousness

1. The problems of other people don’t really bother me.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

2. If I was mean to someone, I would feel bad about it later.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

3. If I knew for sure I wouldn’t get caught, I would probably steal something that I really wanted.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

4. People usually have a good reason for fighting.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

5. Telling a lie makes me feel uncomfortable.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 1

Agree = 2

Disagree = 3

Strongly disagree = 4

Items 2 and 5 are reverse coded. Values are summed and divided by the total number of items (5) for each

respondent. The intended range is 1-4, with a high score indicating a greater sense of how one’s behavior may

affect others.

These items measure perceptions of how one’s behavior affects others. Youths are asked to indicate

the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statements.
156 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

References

Aber JL, Brown JL, Jones S, Samples F. Adapting

measures of children’s beliefs, attributions and skills

for use in the evaluation of violence prevention

projects, New York, NY: National Center for

Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 1995.

(Unpublished)

Barriga AQ, Gibbs JC. Measuring cognitive

distortion in antisocial youth: development and

preliminary validation of the “How I Think

Questionnaire.” Aggressive Behavior 1996;

22(5):333-343.

Basinger KS, Gibbs JC, Fuller D. Context and the

measurement of moral judgement. International

Journal of Behavioral Development 1995;18(3):

537-556. 

Beck AT, Weissmann A, Lester D, Trexler L. The

measurement of pessimism: The Hopelessness

Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology 1974;42(6):861-865.

Bosworth K, Espelage D. Teen Conflict Survey.

Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies,

Indiana University, 1995. (Unpublished)

Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research and

the Comer School Development Program, Middle

School Project. Adolescent Attitude Survey.

Houston, TX: 1995. (Unpublished)

Cummings S. Family socialization and fatalism

among black adolescents. Journal of Negro

Education 1977;63:62-75.

DeJong W, Spiro A, Brewer-Wilson R, VinceWhitman C, Prothrow-Stith D, Cross TP. Evaluation

of a violence prevention curriculum for inner-city

adolescents. Boston, MA: Harvard University, 1992.

(Unpublished)

Derogatis LR, Rickels K, Rock AF. SCL-90 and the

MMPI: a step in the validation of a new self-report

scale. British Journal of Psychiatry 1976;128:280-289.

Dodge KA. Social cognition and children’s

aggressive behavior. Child Development

1980;51(1):162-170.

Feldman SS, Weinberger DA. Self-restraint as a

mediator of family influences on boys’ delinquent

behavior: a longitudinal study. Child Development

1994;65(1):195-211.

Fitzgerald PD, Asher SR. Aggressive-reflected

children’s attributional biases about liked and

disliked peers. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Psychological Association,

New York, NY: August 1987.

Flewelling RL, Paschall MJ, Ringwalt CL. SAGE

Baseline Survey. Research Triangle Park, NC:

Research Triangle Institute, 1993. (Unpublished)

Gabriel RM. Self Enhancement, Inc. Violence

prevention program, grades 7, 8 and 9: year 1

evaluation report. Portland, OR: RMC Research

Corporation, 1994. (Unpublished)

Gibbs JC, Barriga AQ, Potter G. The How I Think

Questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Psychology

Department, The Ohio State University, 1992.

(Unpublished)

Gibbs JC, Basinger KS, Fuller D. Moral maturity:

measuring the development of sociomoral reflection.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,

1992.

Goodenow C. The psychological sense of school

membership among adolescents: scale development

and educational correlates. Psychology in the

Schools 1993;30(1):79-90.

Greenberg MT. Manual for the Seattle Personality

Inventory-Revised: a self-report measure of child

symptomatology. Seattle, WA: Department of

Psychology, University of Washington, 1994.

(Unpublished)
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 157

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Greenberg MT, Kusche CA. Manual for the Seattle

Personality Questionnaire. Seattle, WA: Department

of Psychology, University of Washington, 1990.

(Unpublished)

Guerra NG, Crawshaw VB, Huesmann LR. Sense of

control and aggression in urban children.

Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, 1993.

(Unpublished)

Henry D. Initial report of the Pilot Study for the

Evaluation of the SAFE TO LEARN Demonstration

Project. Technical Report, Child Health Data Lab.

Chicago: Children’s Memorial Hospital, 2000.

Houston Community Demonstration Project. Peer

Leader Survey. Houston, TX: City of Houston

Health and Human Services Department, 1993.

(Unpublished)

Hudley C, Graham S. An attributional intervention

to reduce peer directed aggression among AfricanAmerican boys. Child Development 1993;

64:124-138.

Huesmann LR, Eron LD. Television and the

aggressive child. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Publishers, 1986.

Institute of Behavioral Science. Youth Interview

Schedule: Denver Youth Survey. Boulder, CO:

University of Colorado, 1990. (Unpublished)

Kazdin AE, French NH, Unis AS, Esveldt-Dawson

K, Sherick RB. Hopelessness, depression, and

suicidal intent among psychiatrically disturbed

inpatient children. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 1983;51(4):504-510.

Kazdin AE, Rodgers A, Colbus D. The

Hopelessness Scale for Children: psychometric 

characteristics and concurrent validity. Journal 

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

1986;54(2):241-245.

Kuhn MH, McPartland TS. An empirical

investigation of self-attitudes. American

Sociological Review 1954:68-76.

LH Research, Inc. A survey of experiences,

perceptions, and apprehensions about guns among

young people in America. Boston, MA: Harvard

School of Public Health, 1993.

Loeber R, Farrington DP, Stouthamer-Loeber M,

Van Kammen WB. Antisocial behavior and mental

health problems: explanatory factors in childhood

and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1998.

Nadel H, Spellmann M, Alvarez-Canino T, LausellBryant L, Landsberg G. The cycle of violence and

victimization: a study of the school-based

intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence

prevention program. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine 1996;12(5 Suppl):109-119.

Nakkula MJ, et al. Teenage risk prevention

questionnaire and interview: an integrative

assessment of adolescent high-risk behavior.

Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University, Graduate

School of Applied and Professional Psychology,

1990. (Unpublished)

Nedwek BP. Political socialization and policy

evaluation: the case of youth employment and

training program. Evaluation and Program Planning

1987;10:35-42.

Orpinas P. Skills training and social influences for

violence prevention in middle schools: a curriculum

evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation. Houston, TX:

University of Texas Health Science Center at

Houston, School of Public Health, 1993.

(Unpublished)
158 II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

Paschall MJ, Flewelling RL. Measuring

intermediate outcomes of violence prevention

programs targeting African-American male youth:

an exploratory assessment of the psychometric

properties of six psychosocial measures. Health

Education Research 1997;12(1):117-128.

Phillips J, Springer F. Extended National Youth

Sports Program 1991-92 evaluation highlights, part

two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI) and

risk assessment study. Report prepared for the

National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates, 1992.

(Unpublished)

Phinney JS. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity

measure: a new scale for use with diverse groups.

Journal of Adolescent Research 1992;7(2):156-176.

Plutchik R, Van-Praag H. The measurement of

suicidality, aggressivity and impulsivity. Progress in

Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological

Psychiatry 1989;13(Suppl)S23-S34.

Prothrow-Stith D. Violence prevention curriculum

for adolescents. Newton, MA: Education

Development Center, 1987. (Unpublished)

Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report

depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement

1977;1:385-401.

Roberts RE. DSM screener for depression. Houston,

TX: University of Texas Health Science Center,

School of Public Health, 1993. (Unpublished)

Roberts RE, Roberts CR, Chen YW. Ethnicity as a

risk factor for adolescent depression. Presented at

the World Psychiatric Association Meeting - Search

for the Causes of Psychiatric Disorders:

Epidemiological Approaches; New York, NY: World

Psychiatric Association, May 1995.

Rosenberg M. Society and adolescent self-image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Rosenfeld E, Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Torney-Purta

JV. Measuring patterns of fantasy behavior in

children. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 1982;42(2):347-366.

Schwab Stone ME, Ayers TS, Kasprow W, Voyce C,

Barone C, Shriver T, Weissberg RP. No safe haven: a

study of violence exposure in an urban community.

Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry 1995;34:13431352.

Shoemaker AL. Construct validity of area specific

self-esteem: The Hare Self-Esteem Scale.

Educational and Psychological Measurement

1980;40(2):495-501.

Smith C, Lizotte AJ, Thornberry TP, Krohn MD.

Resilient youth: identifying factors that prevent

high-risk youth from engaging in delinquency and

drug use. In: Hagan J (ed.), Delinquency and

disrepute in the life course. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press, 1995:217-247.

Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth

M, Jang SJ. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and

delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of

interactional theory. Criminology 1994;32:47-83.

Vaux A. Social support: theory, research, and

intervention. New York, NY: Praeger, 1988.

Watson C, Juba M, Manifold V, Kucala T, Anderson

P. The PTSD Interview: rationale, description,

reliability, and concurrent validity of a DSM-IIIbased technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology

1991;47(2):179-188.

Weinberger DA, Schwartz GE. Distress and restraint

as superordinate dimensions of adjustment: a

typological perspective. Journal of Personality

1990;58(2):381-417.
II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments 159

II. Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments 161

III. Behavior Assessments

Section III

Behavior

Assessments

The assessments in this section measure behaviors

related to youth violence:

A. Aggressive and Violent Behavior

B. Concentration

C. Conflict Resolution Skills

D. Dating Violence

E. Delinquent and Disciplinary Behavior

F. Drug and Alcohol Use

G. Exposure to Gangs

H. Handgun Access

I. Impulsivity

J. Leisure Activity

K. Parental Control

L. Safety and Threats

M. Social Competence

N. Social Problem Solving Skills

O. Victimization

P. Weapon Carrying
162 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggressive and

Violent Behavior

A1. Aggression

Scale; 11 items

Measures frequency of selfreported aggressive

behaviors (e.g., hitting,

pushing, name-calling,

threatening).

Students in grades

3-8.

Internal consistency:

.88 to .90. 

(Orpinas, Horne &

Staniszewski, 2003).

Orpinas & Frankowski,

2001 

A2. Modified

Aggression

Scale; 22 items

Composed of four

subscales: fighting, bullying,

anger, cooperative/ caring

behavior. Modified version

of the Aggression Scale

(A1).

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency: 

Fighting .73; Bullying

.83; Anger .75;

Caring/cooperative

behavior .60.

Orpinas, 1993

Modified by Bosworth &

Espelage, 1995

A3. Aggression/

Victimization

Scale; 12 items 

Measures the frequency of

being victimized or showing

self-reported aggressive

behaviors during the

previous week. 

Combines longer versions

of an Aggression Scale (A1)

and a Victimization Scale

(O1).

Students in grades 4

and 5.

Internal consistency:

Aggression .86;

Victimization .84.

Orpinas & Frankowski,

2001

A4. PeerNomination of

Aggression; 24

items

Composed of six subscales:

aggression, popularity,

rejection, victimization,

hyperactivity, prosocial

behavior. Childhood peernominations of aggression

have been shown to be

highly predictive of

adolescent and young adult

aggression.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

.98. One year stability:

.62. Aggression: .97;

Popularity .91;

Rejection NA;

Victimization .85;

Hyperactivity .95;

Prosocial behavior .94

(Huesmann, Eron,

Lefkowitz & Walder,

1984; Huesmann,

Eron & Guerra, 1992;

Huesmann, Eron,

Guerra & Crawshaw,

1994).

Eron, Walder &

Lefkowitz, 1971

Copyright 1960

A5. Physical

Fighting—Youth

Risk Behavior

Survey; 4 items

Measures frequency of

physical fighting and injuries

from fights within the past

year.

National population

sample of students

in grades 9-12.

Kappas range from

50.5% to 68.2%. High

stability over time

(Brener, Collins, Kann,

Warren & Williams,

1995).

Division of Adolescent

and School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993,

2003

A6. Fighting To

and From

School—NYC

Youth Violence

Survey; 4 items

Measures frequency of

physical fighting while going

to or from school.

Students in grades

9-12.

Not available. Division of Adolescent

and School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993
III. Behavior Assessments 163

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggressive

and Violent

Behavior

(Continued)

A7. Aggressive

Behavior—SAGE

Baseline Survey;

12 items

Measures self-reported

recency of aggressive and

other high risk behaviors.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency: Beliefs

supporting aggression .66;

Aggressive conflict-resolution

style .80. Strongly associated

with psychosocial measures

such as beliefs supporting

aggression, conflict resolution

style, hostility, and ethnic

identity (Rosenbaum et al.,

1991; Paschall & Flewelling,

1997).

Straus, 1979

Modified by Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt,

1993

A8. Aggression—

Problem Behavior

Frequency Scale;

18 items

Measures the frequency of

physical aggression, nonphysical aggression, and

relational aggression.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

Physical aggression. 80;

Nonphysical aggression .79;

Relational aggression .72.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004 

Adapted from Crick &

Bigbee, 1998; Farrell,

Kung, White & Valois,

2000; Orpinas &

Frankowski, 2001

A9. Seriousness of

Violence

Classification—

Pittsburgh Youth

Study; 5 items

Measures the highest level

of violence a youth reached

during the assessment

period of 6 months or 1

year.

Male students

initially in grades 1,

4 and 7 in 1987 or

1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Not applicable. Loeber, Farrington,

Stouthamer-Loeber &

Van Kammen, 1998

A10. Nonphysical

Aggression—

Pittsburgh Youth

Study; 16 items

Measures non-physical

aggressive behavior in

terms of arguing, bragging,

seeking attention,

disobeying parents and

teachers, etc.

Male students

initially in grades 1,

4 and 7 in 1987 or

1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency: .85. Loeber, Farrington,

Stouthamer-Loeber &

Van Kammen, 1998

A11. Aggressive

Behavior—Joyce

Foundation Youth

Survey; 6 items

Measures whether

respondent or anyone in

household has recently (in

the past month) been a

victim or perpetrator of

violence.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8; adults 18 and

older.

Internal consistency: .72. LH Research, Inc.,

1993

Items added by

Houston Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

A12.

Reactive/Proactive

Aggression—

FastTrack; 

26 items

Measures frequency of

proactive and reactive

aggressive behavior.

Male students,

aged 7-16.

Internal consistency:

Reactive aggression .84 to

.90; Proactive aggression .86

to .91.

Dodge & Coie, 1987

Raine, Dodge, Loeber,

et al., unpublished

A13.

Reactive/Proactive

Aggression—

FastTrack (Teacher

Checklist); 6 items

Measures teachers’

perceptions of a child’s

proactive and reactive

aggressive behavior.

Teachers of

children and

adolescents, aged

4-18.

Internal consistency: Reactive

aggression .94; Proactive

aggression .90 (Corrigan,

2003).

Dodge & Coie, 1987

A14. Aggression

Towards

Parents—High

Risk Behavioral

Assessment; 9

items

Measures the frequency

with which peers or friends

shout, curse, or hit their

parents or are recipients of

these behaviors from

parents.

African-American

students aged 

8-18.

Not available. Dolan, 1989

Adapted by Church,

1994
164 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

A. Aggressive and

Violent Behavior

(Continued)

A15. Fighting—High

Risk Behavioral

Assessment; 10

items

Measures the frequency of

peer fighting, punching,

kicking, knife, and gun

use.

African-American

students aged 

8-18.

Not available. Dolan, 1989

Adapted by Church,

1994

B. Concentration B1. Social Health

Profile; 10 items

Measures teachers’

perceptions of children’s

concentration skills.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Not available. Werthamer-Larsson,

Kellam & Wheeler,

1991

C. Conflict

Resolution Skills

C1. Conflict

Resolution—

Individual Protective

Factors Index; 12

items

Measures two conflict

resolution skills: selfcontrol and cooperation (6

items each).

Low-income

students in grades 

7-11.

Internal consistency:

.65 and .65 (Gabriel,

1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992

C2. Conflict

Resolution Style; 5

vignettes

Measures styles of

handling conflict

situations.

African-American

males aged 

12-16.

Not available. Slaby & Guerra, 1988

D. Dating/Partner

Violence

D1. Victimization in

Dating Relationships; 

18 items

Measures self-reported

victimization of physical

violence within dating

relationships.

Students in grades 

8-9.

Internal consistency:

.90.

Foshee, Linder,

Bauman, et al., 1996

D2. Perpetration in

Dating Relationships; 

18 items

Measures self-reported

perpetration of physical

violence within dating

relationships.

Students in grades 

8-9.

Internal consistency:

.93.

Foshee, Linder,

Bauman, et al., 1996

D3. Conflict Tactics

Scales (CTS2); 78

items

Measures psychological

and physical attacks

between partners and the

use of negotiation to deal

with conflict.

Partners in dating,

cohabiting, and

marital relationships.

Internal Consistency:

Psychological

aggression .79;

Physical assault .86;

Sexual coercion .87;

Injury .95;

Negotiation .86

(Straus, Hamby,

Boney-McCoy &

Sugarman, 1996).

Straus, Hamby,

Boney-McCoy &

Sugarman, 1996

Copyright 1996

Straus, Hamby &

Warren, 2003

E. Delinquent 

and Disciplinary

Behavior

E1. Self-Reported

Delinquency—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

36 items

Measures the selfreported frequency of 36

delinquent acts.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Not available. Thornberry, Krohn,

Lizotte, Smith &

Tobin, 2003

E2. Self-Reported

Delinquency—

Problem Behavior

Frequency Scale; 8

items

Measures the frequency of

delinquency behaviors

such as suspension,

stealing, shoplifting, and

cheating.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal consistency:

.76. 

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004

Adapted from Jessor &

Jessor, 1977

E3. Disciplinary and

Delinquent

Behavior—SAGE

Baseline Survey; 9

items

Measures self-reported

recency of delinquent

behaviors and school

disciplinary actions.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Not available. Straus, 1979

Modified by

Rosenbaum, et al.,

1991; and Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt,

1993
III. Behavior Assessments 165

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

E. Delinquent 

and Disciplinary

Behavior

(Continued)

E4. Friend’s

Delinquent

Behavior—Denver

Youth Survey; 8

items

Measures respondent’s

knowledge of their friends’

involvement in vandalism,

violence, and drug use

during the past year.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal

consistency: .89.

Institute of Behavioral

Science, 1987

E5. Friends’

Delinquent 

Behavior—Peer

Deviancy Scale; 10

items

Measures youth reports of

friends’ involvement in

delinquent activity, and

parents’ perceptions of

their child’s friends and

their involvement in

delinquent activity.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8, and their

parents.

Internal

consistency:

Youth .85; Parents

.84.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project, 2004

Adapted from Conduct

Problems Prevention

Research Group, 2000

E6. Delinquent

Peers—Rochester

Youth Development

Study; 8 items

Measures the youth’s

report of how many of

his/her friends are involved

in delinquent activities.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal

consistency: .88.

Thornberry, Lizotte,

Krohn, Farnworth &

Jang, 1994

E7. Disciplinary

Behavior—High Risk

Behavioral

Assessment; 8 items

Measures the frequency of

youth suspensions,

tardiness, and skipping or

cutting school.

African-American

students aged 

8-18.

Not available. Dolan, 1989

Adapted by Church, 1994

E8. Delinquent

Behavior—High Risk

Behavioral

Assessment; 

5 items

Measures the frequency

with which respondents

have witnessed or been

subjects of stealing and

property damage.

African-American

students aged 

8-18.

Not available. Dolan, 1989

Adapted by Church, 1994

F. Drug and

Alcohol Use

F1. Drug & Alcohol

Use—Youth Risk

Behavior Survey; 18

items

Measures the frequency of

self-reported alcohol and

drug use.

National population

sample of students,

grades 9-12.

Kappas range from

36.1% to 87.5%

(Brener, Collins,

Kann, et al., 1995).

Division of Adolescent

and School Health

(DASH), CDC, 2003

F2. Drug & Alcohol

Use—SAGE Baseline

Survey; 7 items

Measures self-reported

recency of drug and alcohol

use.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Not available. Straus, 1979

Modified by Rosenbaum et

al., 1991; and Flewelling,

Paschall & Ringwalt, 1993

F3. Drug and Alcohol

Use—Problem

Behavior Frequency

Scale; 6 items

Measures the frequency of

drug and alcohol use in the

past month.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal

consistency:

.84.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project, 2004

Adapted from Farrell, Kung,

White & Valois, 2000; and

Kandel 1975

F4. Drug & Alcohol

Use—Teen Conflict

Survey; 12 items

Measures age of onset and

frequency of substance

use.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal

consistency: .83.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

F5. Drug & Alcohol

Use—High Risk

Behavioral

Assessment; 5 items

Measures involvement of

friends in the use and sale

of drugs or alcohol.

African-American

students aged 

8-18.

Not available. Dolan, 1989

Adapted by Church, 1994

G. Exposure to

Gangs

G1. Exposure to

Gangs—Houston

School Cohort

Survey; 6 items

Measures exposure to

gangs and gang

membership.

Middle school

students, grades 

6-8.

Internal

consistency: .52.

Houston Community

Demonstration Project,

1993
166 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

H. Handgun

Access

H1. Handgun

Access—NYC Youth

Violence Survey; 6

items

Measures possession of,

access to, and risk of

carrying a handgun.

Students in grades 

9-12.

Not available. Division of

Adolescent and

School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993

I. Impulsivity I1. Impulsivity —

Teen Conflict Survey;

4 items

Measures the frequency of

impulsive behaviors (e.g.,

lack of self-control,

difficulty sitting still,

trouble finishing things).

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.62.

Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

J. Leisure Activity J1. Leisure

Activity—Teen

Conflict Survey; 10

items

Measures the amount of

time a student spends

every day in a number of

leisure activities (e.g.,

reading, watching TV,

homework).

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Not available. Bosworth & Espelage,

1995

K. Parental Control K1. Parental Control;

10 items

Measures the amount and

kind of television parents

allow their children to

watch; also measures the

extent to which parents

know their children’s

friends and taste in music.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.73.

Houston Community

Demonstration

Project, 1993

L. Safety and

Threats

L1. Safety and

Threats—NYC Youth

Violence Survey; 9

items

Measures frequency of

being threatened or

harmed by someone while

going to and from school

or in other places.

Students in grades 

9-12.

Not available. Division of

Adolescent and

School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993

M. Social

Competence

M1. Social

Competence; 

19 items

Measures teachers’

perceptions of a child’s

social competence.

Includes two subscales:

prosocial behavior and

emotion regulation.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Not available. Conduct Problems

Prevention Research

Group, 1991

M2. Social

Competence—

Teacher

Post-Ratings; 10

items

Measures teachers’

perceptions of the degree

of change in students’

prosocial and cooperative

behaviors over the course

of the school year.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Not available. Conduct Problems

Prevention Research

Group, 1991

M3. Prosocial

Behaviors of

Children; 19 items

Measures teachers’

perceptions of their

students’ prosocial skills.

Includes ratings of both

adaptive behaviors and

interpersonal social

competence.

Elementary school

children, grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

.95 (Fifield, 1987).

McConnell, Strain,

Kerr, et al., 1984
III. Behavior Assessments 167

III. Behavior Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENTS

M. Social

Competence

(Continued)

M4. Parent/Child

Social

Competencies—

Conflict Behavior

Questionnaire; 20

items

Measures social

competencies at home

between children and their

caregivers. True-False

questionnaire (long and

short form) for child to

complete. Matching

survey for parent to

complete.

Elementary school

children, grades 3-5.

Internal consistency:

.92 to .93 for fathers

and mothers.

Eberly, Montemayor

& Flannery, 1993

M5. Parental Report

of Helping Behavior;

15 items

Measures

cooperativeness,

cheerfulness, and

responsiveness of the

child to household chores.

Parents of children in

grades 3-5.

Internal consistency:

.93 to .92 for mothers

and fathers.

Eberly, Montemayor

& Flannery, 1993

N. Social Problem

Solving Skills

N1. Social Problem

Solving Measure; 8

items

Measures children’s

aggressive and competent

interpersonal negotiation

strategies in proactive

situations.

Urban elementary

school children,

grades 1-6.

Internal consistency:

Aggressive strategy

.67; Competent

strategy .60 (Aber,

Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995).

Dodge, Bates & Pettit,

1990

Adapted by Aber,

Brown, Jones &

Samples, 1995

O. Victimization O1. Victimization; 10

items

Measures the frequency of

being teased, pushed, or

threatened during the

week prior to the survey.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

.85. Significant

correlation (r=.51)

with the Aggression

Scale (A1) .

Orpinas & Kelder,

1995

O2. Victimization—

Problem Behavior

Frequency Scale; 12

items

Measures the frequency of

relational and overt

victimization in the past

month.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

Overt victimization

.84; Relational

victimization .84.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004

Adapted from Crick &

Bigbee, 1998; Orpinas

& Frankowski, 2001;

Sullivan, Esposito &

Farrell, 2003

P. Weapon

Carrying

P1. Weapon

Carrying—Youth

Risk Behavior

Survey/ NYC Youth

Violence Survey; 

8 items

Measures the frequency of

weapon carrying

anywhere, to/from school,

and on school property.

National population

sample of students,

grades 9-12; city

sample of students,

grades 9-12.

Kappas range from

65.1% to 76.3%.

High stability over

time (Brener, Collins,

Kann, Warren &

Williams, 1995).

Division of

Adolescent and

School Health

(DASH), CDC, 1993,

2003
168 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

SCALES AND ASSESSMENTS

A1. Aggression Scale

Please answer the following questions thinking of what actually happened to you during the last 7 days.

For each question, indicate how many times you did something during the last 7 days.

Number of times

1. I teased students to make them angry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

2. I got angry very easily with someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

3. I fought back when someone hit me first. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

4. I said things about other kids 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

to make other students laugh.

5. I encouraged other students to fight. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

6. I pushed or shoved other students. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

7. I was angry most of the day. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

8. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

9. I slapped or kicked someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

10. I called other students bad names. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

11. I threatened to hurt or to hit someone. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is scored by adding all responses. Possible range is between 0 and 66 points. Each point represents

one aggressive behavior the student reported engaging in during the week prior to the survey. If four or more

items are missing, the score cannot be computed. If three or less items are missing, these values are replaced

by the respondent’s average.

This scale measures frequency of self-reported aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting, pushing, namecalling, threatening). Respondents are presented with a series of behaviors, and are asked to mark with a

circle the number of times they did that behavior during the last 7 days.
III. Behavior Assessments 169

III. Behavior Assessments

A2. Modified Aggression Scale

Choose how many times you did this activity or task in the last 30 days. In the last 30 days....

No 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or more

opportunity Never times times times

Fighting

1. I hit back when someone hit me first. a b c d e

2. I encouraged other students to fight. a b c d e

3. I pushed, shoved, slapped, or kicked other students. a b c d e

4. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. a b c d e

5. I walked away from a fight. a b c d e

Bullying

6. I teased other students. a b c d e

7. I said things about other students to make other a b c d e

students laugh (made fun of them).

8. I called other students names. a b c d e

9. I threatened to hit or hurt another student. a b c d e

Anger

10. I frequently get angry. a b c d e

11. I was angry most of the day. a b c d e

12. I got into a physical fight because I was angry. a b c d e

13. I was mean to someone when I was angry. a b c d e

This scale is composed of four subscales: fighting, bullying, anger, cooperative/caring behavior. It is a

modified version of the Aggression Scale (A1). Respondents are presented with a series of behaviors, and

are asked to mark with a circle the number of times they did that behavior during the last 30 days.
170 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

No 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or more

opportunity Never times times times

14. I took my anger out on an innocent person. a b c d e

Caring/Cooperative Behavior

15. I helped someone stay out of a fight. a b c d e

16. I told other students how I felt when they did a b c d e

something I liked.

17. I cooperated with others. a b c d e

18. I told other students how I felt when they a b c d e

upset me.

19. I protected someone from a “bully.” a b c d e

20. I gave someone a compliment. a b c d e

21. I helped other students solve a problem. a b c d e

22. I avoided getting in trouble at home, school, a b c d e

or in the community.

(Items 5, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 22 were added by Bosworth & Espelage, 1995. Item 6 was modified.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

No opportunity = 1

Never = 1

1 or 2 times = 2

3 or 4 times = 3

5 or more times = 4

The Fighting subscale is calculated by reverse coding Item 5 and summing across all five items. A total of

20 points is possible and a high score indicates more aggression or fighting. The other three subscales are

calculated similarly, by summing across all responses. The Bullying subscale has a total of 16 points; the

Anger subscale has a total of 20 points; and the Caring/Cooperative Behavior subscale has a total of 32

points. High scores indicate more bullying behavior, more anger, and more caring/cooperative behavior.
III. Behavior Assessments 171

III. Behavior Assessments

A3. Aggression/Victimization Scale

Number of times 

Victimization

1. How many times did a kid from your school tease you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

2. How many times did a kid from your 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

school push, shove, or hit you?

3. How many times did a kid from your 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

school call you a bad name? 

4. How many times did kids from your 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

school say that they were going to hit you?

5. How many times did other kids leave you out on purpose? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

6. How many times did a student make up something 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

about you to make other kids not like you anymore?

Aggression

7. How many times did you tease a kid from your school? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

8. How many times did you push, shove, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

or hit a kid from you school?

9. How many times did you call a kid 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

from your school a bad name? 

10. How many times did you say that you 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

would hit a kid from your school?

11. How many times did you leave out 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

another kid on purpose?

These items measure the frequency of being victimized or showing self-reported aggressive behaviors

during the previous week. It combines longer versions of an Aggression Scale (A1) and a Victimization

Scale (O1), and asks respondents to think about how many times specific behaviors occurred during the

past 7 days.
172 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Number of times 

12. How many times did you make up something about other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

students to make other kids not like them anymore?

(Adapted by Pamela Orpinas for upper elementary school students from the Aggression Scale: Orpinas &

Frankowski, 2001.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for all items are added. Intended range is between 0 and 72 points. Each point represents one

instance of victimization or aggression reported by the student during the week prior to the survey. If four or

more items are missing, the score cannot be computed. If three or less items are missing, these values are

replaced by the respondent’s average. Higher scores indicate higher levels of victimization and aggression.
III. Behavior Assessments 173

III. Behavior Assessments

A4. Peer-Nomination of Aggression

1. Who are you?

2. Who are the children who always sit around you?

3. Who would you like to sit next to in class?

4. Who likes to share with others?

5. Who does not obey the teacher?

6. Who often says “Give me that!”?

7. Who gets along well with others?

8. Who are the children who are usually chosen last to join in group activities?

9. Who gets picked on by other kids?

10. Who gets out of their seat a lot?

11. Who gives dirty looks or sticks out their tongue at other children?

12. Who makes up stories and lies to get other children in trouble?

13. Who does things that bother other children?

14. Who helps other kids?

15. Who are the children you would like to have for your best friends?

16. Who are the children that you really don’t like?

17. Who wiggles or moves around in their seat a lot?

This scale is composed of six subscales: aggression, popularity, rejection, victimization, hyperactivity,

and prosocial behavior. Students are given a list of the names of the children in their class, separated by

gender, and are asked to mark the names of everyone who fit each question as it is read aloud. “No Boy” and

“No Girl” are included as acceptable responses. Students ratings are then compared with teacher ratings.
174 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

18. Who gets hit and pushed by other kids?

19. Who starts a fight over nothing?

20. Who pushes or shoves other children?

21. Who is always getting into trouble?

22. Who says mean things?

23. Who takes other children’s things without asking?

24. Who does nice things to help other people?

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use, please contact:

L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D.

Research Center for Group Dynamics

5030 Institute for Social Research

426 Thompson Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248

Tel: (734) 764-8385

Fax: (734) 763-1202

huesmann@umich.edu

The scale taps six domains. Scores on each scale range from 0 to 1. Each score represents the total

proportion of times the child has been nominated on behaviors in that domain. The Aggression scale is

calculated by summing the number of times a child is nominated by peers on 10 aggression items (5, 6,

11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22 and, 23) and dividing by the total number of nominators. A maximum score of 1

signifies that the child has been nominated on every aggressive behavior by every nominator. A minimum

score of 0 signifies that the child has not been nominated by anyone for any behavior.

The Prosocial scale is calculated similarly, using 4 prosocial items (4, 7, 14 and 24). The score indicates

the proportion of times the child was nominated on these items by the nominator out of all possible times the

child could have been nominated.

The Popularity scale is based on items 3 and 15, with a higher score indicating greater popularity. The

Rejection scale uses items 8 and 16, and a higher score means that the child is rejected more for social contact

by his or her peers. With the Victimization scale (items 9 and 18), a higher score means more victimization.

And with the Hyperactivity scale (items 10 and 17), higher scores indicate greater hyperactivity.
III. Behavior Assessments 175

III. Behavior Assessments

A5. Physical Fighting—Youth Risk Behavior Survey

1. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

2. The last time you were in a physical fight, with whom did you fight?

a. I have never been in a physical fight

b. A total stranger

c. A friend or someone I know

d. A boyfriend, girlfriend, or date

e. A parent, brother, sister, or other family member

f. Someone not listed above

g. More than one of the persons listed above

3. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight in which you were injured and

had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?

a. 0 times

b. 1 times

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or more times

4. During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

These items measure frequency of physical fighting and injuries from fights within the past year.

Respondents are asked to circle one response for each question.
176 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

(The Youth Risk Behavior Survey has been administered every other year since 1991. Item 2, above, was

included in the 1993 survey.)

Scoring and Analysis

Individual items can be scored by assigning point values to correspond to response categories. For items with

a range, a midpoint value can also be assigned. Incidence rates for items 1, 3 and 4, and standard errors for

these estimates are calculated as follows:

Incidence Rate = ∑

n

i=1

PiCi Standard Error = √∑Ci2(Var(Pi)

P = the proportion of subjects

i = (1,2,3....n) levels of the variable of interest

C = frequency of behavior

Incidence Rate = the proportion of subjects with the behavior of interest (Pi) multiplied by the frequency of

that behavior (Ci), or use a midpoint if there is a range.

Standard Error = the square root of the sum of the frequency of the behavior squared (Ci2

) multiplied by the

variance of each proportion (Var(Pi)).

Example: Incidence Rate of Physical Fighting Among White Females

i = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (1 time, 2.5 times, 4.5 times, 6.5 times, 8.5 times, 10.5 times, 12+ times)

j = 1,2,3 (White, Black, Hispanic)

k = 1,2 (Female, Male)

For white females (j=1,k=1) the incidence rate can be designated as IRjk or IR11 and calculated as follows:

IR11 = ∑

7

i=1

Pi11Ci
III. Behavior Assessments 177

III. Behavior Assessments

A6. Fighting To and From School—NYC Youth Violence Survey

1. During the past 12 months, while going to or from school, how many times were you in a physical fight?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

2. Where did most of the fights occur?

a. I did not fight going to or from school during the past 12 months

b. Housing project

c. Subway

d. Playground

e. Street

f. Other

3. Who did you fight with most often?

a. I did not fight going to or from school during the past 12 months

b. A stranger

c. A friend or someone I know

d. A boyfriend, girlfriend, or date

e. A group of youths (gang or posse members)

f. Other

4. During the past 12 months, while going to or from school, how many times were you in a physical fight

in which you were injured and had to be treated by a doctor or nurse?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

These items measure frequency of physical fighting while going to and from school. Respondents are

asked to circle one response for each question.
178 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Individual items can be scored by assigning point values to correspond to response categories. For items with

a range, a midpoint value can also be assigned. Incidence rates for items 1 and 4, and standard errors for these

estimates are calculated as follows:

Incidence Rate = ∑

n

i=1

PiCi Standard Error = √∑Ci2(Var(Pi)

P = the proportion of subjects

i = (1,2,3....n) levels of the variable of interest

C = frequency of behavior

Incidence Rate = the proportion of subjects with the behavior of interest (Pi) multiplied by the frequency of

that behavior (Ci), or use a midpoint if there is a range.

Standard Error = the square root of the sum of the frequency of the behavior squared (Ci2

) multiplied by the

variance of each proportion (Var(Pi)).

Example: Incidence Rate of Physical Fighting To and From School Among Black Males

i = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (1 time, 2.5 times, 4.5 times, 6.5 times, 8.5 times, 10.5 times, 12+ times)

j = 1,2,3 (White, Black, Hispanic)

k = 1,2 (Female, Male)

For black males (j=2,k=2) the incidence rate can be designated as IRjk or IR22 and calculated as follows:

IR22 = ∑

7

i=1

Pi22Ci
III. Behavior Assessments 179

III. Behavior Assessments

A7. Aggressive Behavior—SAGE Baseline Survey

When was the last time you ...

1. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved someone?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

2. Hit or punched someone?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

3. Kicked someone?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

4. Were hurt in a fight?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

5. Hurt someone else in a fight?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

6. Threatened to hurt someone?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

7. Threatened someone with a knife or gun?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

8. Used a knife or gun to injure someone?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

These items measure self-reported recency of aggressive and other high risk behaviors. Respondents

are asked to indicate the last time they engaged in the following behaviors.
180 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

9. Watched a fight?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

10. Carried a gun?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

11. Carried a knife?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

12. Needed medical care for an intentionally caused injury (such as being punched, pushed, attacked, or

shot)?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

Scoring and Analysis

Items can be considered separately or as an index of violence-related behavior within a given time period. To

create an index for past-year violent or violence-related behavior, a point should be given for each item with a

check in one of the first three response categories, thus creating a possible range of 1-12.
III. Behavior Assessments 181

III. Behavior Assessments

A8. Aggression—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

In the last 30 days, how many times have you ...

Number of times

Physical Aggression

1. Thrown something at someone to hurt them? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

2. Been in a fight in which someone was hit? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

3. Threatened to hurt a teacher? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

4. Shoved or pushed another kid? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

5. Threatened someone with a weapon 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

(gun, knife, club, etc.)?

6. Hit or slapped another kid? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

7. Threatened to hit or physically harm another kid? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

Non-Physical Aggression

8. Insulted someone’s family? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

9. Teased someone to make them angry? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

10. Put someone down to their face? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

11. Gave mean looks to another student? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

12. Picked on someone? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

These items measure the frequency of physical aggression, non-physical aggression, and relationship

aggression. Respondents are asked to indicate how often a particular problem behavior has occurred in the

past month.
182 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Number of times

Relational Aggression

13. Didn’t let another student be in your group 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

anymore because you were mad at them?

14. Told another kid you wouldn’t like them unless 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

they did what you wanted them to do?

15. Tried to keep others from liking another kid 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

by saying mean things about him/her?

16. Spread a false rumor about someone? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

17. Left another kid out on purpose when it was 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

time to do an activity?

18. Said things about another student to make 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

other students laugh?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for each subscale are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

1-2 times = 2

3-5 times = 3

6-9 times = 4

10-19 times = 5

6-20 or more times = 6

Point values are summed for each subscale. High scores indicate higher levels of aggressive behavior.
III. Behavior Assessments 183

III. Behavior Assessments

A9. Seriousness of Violence Classification—Pittsburgh Youth Study

In the past six months ...

No Yes

1. Have you been involved in a gang fight? 0 1

2. Have you used a weapon, force, or strong-arm methods 0 1

to get money or things from people?

3. Have you attacked someone with a weapon or with the idea 0 1

of seriously hurting or killing them?

4. Have you physically hurt or threatened to hurt someone to 0 1

get them to have sex with you?

5. Have you had or tried to have sexual relations with someone 0 1

against their will?

Scoring and Analysis

The construct has a starting value of 0.

If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” set the construct to 1.

If the answer to Question 2 is “yes,” set the construct to 2.

If the answer to Question 3, 4 or 5 is “yes,” set the construct to 3.

High scores indicate more serious violence (gang fighting, forcible theft, attack, forced sex, or coerced

sex).

These items measure the highest level of violence a youth reached during the previous 6 months or 1

year. Youth are asked to indicate if they have been involved in a gang fight, used weapons, physically hurt

someone, etc.
184 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

A10. Nonphysical Aggression—Pittsburgh Youth Study

Not Sometimes Very

true true true

1. You argue a lot. 0 1 2

2. You brag. 0 1 2

3. You try to get a lot of attention. 0 1 2

4. You disobey your parents. 0 1 2

5. You disobey at school. 0 1 2

6. You don’t get along with other kids. 0 1 2

7. You are jealous of others. 0 1 2

8. You scream a lot. 0 1 2

9. You show off or clown. 0 1 2

10. You are stubborn. 0 1 2

11. You swear or use dirty language. 0 1 2

12. You tease others a lot. 0 1 2

13. You have a hot temper. 0 1 2

14. You threaten to hurt people. 0 1 2

15. You are louder than other kids. 0 1 2

16. You sulk or pout a lot. 0 1 2

These items measure non-physical aggressive behavior. Youth are asked about the extent to which

they engage in 16 non-physical aggressive behaviors such as arguing, bragging, seeking attention,

disobeying parents or teachers, not getting along with others, swearing, and sulking.
III. Behavior Assessments 185

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

For the purposes of this construct, all positive responses are equivalent. Responses of 2 “very true” are

recoded to 1 “sometimes true.” All scores are summed to derive a total. Higher scores indicate more

aggressive behavior.
186 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

A11. Aggressive Behavior—Joyce Foundation Youth Survey

1. Within the past 30 days, have you ...

a. Been punched or beaten by another person? ■ Yes ■ No

b. Been threatened with or actually cut with a knife? ■ Yes ■ No

c. Been threatened with a gun or shot at? ■ Yes ■ No

2. Within the past 30 days, has anyone you live with ...

a. Been punched or beaten by another person? ■ Yes ■ No

b. Been threatened with or actually cut with a knife? ■ Yes ■ No

c. Been threatened with a gun or shot at? ■ Yes ■ No

3. Within the past 30 days, have you ...

a. Become violent while under the influence of alcohol or drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

b. Become violent while buying or selling drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

c. Punched or beaten another person? ■ Yes ■ No

d. Used a knife or gun against another person? ■ Yes ■ No

4. Within the past 30 days, has anyone you live with ...

a. Become violent while under the influence of alcohol or drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

b. Become violent while buying or selling drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

c. Punched or beaten another person? ■ Yes ■ No

d. Used a knife or gun against another person? ■ Yes ■ No

Over the past 30 days, how often have you (circle one for each question) ...

5. Hit someone because you did not like something they said or did?

Never Once or twice 3-4 times 5-9 times 10 or more times

12345

6. Gotten involved in a gang fight?

Never Once or twice 3-4 times 5-9 times 10 or more times

12345

(Items 5 and 6 were added by Houston Community Demonstration Project, 1993.)

These items measure whether the respondent or anyone in the household has recently, in the past

month, been a victim or perpetrator of violence.
III. Behavior Assessments 187

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1-6 can be considered a single scale, which can be scored by adding the point values of the responses

and dividing the total by the number of responses. Blank items should not be counted in the number of

responses. Higher mean scores indicate higher levels of exposure to or participation in violent or aggressive

behavior. Lower mean scores indicate lower levels of exposure to or participation in violent or aggressive

behavior.
188 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

A12. Reactive-Proactive Aggression—FastTrack

How often have you ...

Always 

Hardly Some- or almost

Never ever times Often always

1. Yelled at others when they have annoyed you? 01234

2. Had fights with others to show who was on top? 01234

3. Reacted angrily when provoked by others? 01234

4. Taken things from other students? 01234

5. Had temper tantrums? 01234

6. Vandalized something for fun? 01234

7. Damaged things because you felt mad? 01234

8. Had a gang fight to be cool? 01234

9. Gotten angry when frustrated? 01234

10. Hurt others to win a game? 01234

11. Become angry or mad when you lost a game? 01234

12. Used physical force to get others to do what you want? 01234

13. Gotten angry or mad when you lost a game? 01234

14. Threatened and bullied someone? 01234

These items measure reactive and proactive aggression. Respondents are presented with a series of

behaviors and are asked to circle the number that best represents the frequency with which they did that

behavior. When administered to young children, the teacher reads each statement and circles the students’

response.
III. Behavior Assessments 189

III. Behavior Assessments

Always 

Hardly Some- or almost

Never ever times Often always

15. Gotten angry when others threatened you? 01234

16. Used force to obtain money or things from others? 01234

17. Damaged things because you felt angry? 01234

18. Made obscene phone calls for fun? 01234

19. Felt better after hitting or yelling at someone? 01234

20. Gotten others to gang up on someone else? 01234

21. Hit others to defend yourself? 01234

22. Carried a weapon to use in a fight? 01234

23. Gotten angry or mad or hit others when teased? 01234

24. Threatened or forced someone to have sex? 01234

25. Set fire to things because you felt angry? 01234

26. Yelled at others so they would do things for you? 01234

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Two subscales are included: Reactive Aggression (items 1, 3, 5,

7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 22) and Proactive Aggression (items 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23).

Point values for each subscale are summed, then subscale scores are added to derive the Total Aggression

score. Higher scores indicate higher frequencies of aggressive behavior.
190 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

A13. Reactive/Proactive Aggression—FastTrack (Teacher Checklist)

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Almost

true true true true always true

1. When this child has been teased or threatened, 12345

he or she gets angry easily and strikes back.

2. This child always claims that other children 12345

are to blame in a fight and feels that they 

started the trouble.

3. When a peer accidentally hurts the child 12345

(such as bumping into him or her), this child 

assumes that the peer meant to do it, and then 

overreacts with anger/fighting.

4. This child gets other kids to gang up on a 12345

peer that he or she does not like.

5. This child uses physical force (or threatens 12345

to use force) in order to dominate other kids.

6. This child threatens or bullies others in order 12345

to get his or her own way.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. The measure has two subscales: Reactive Aggressive Behavior (items 1-

3) and Proactive Aggressive Behavior (items 4-6). Items for each scale are averaged, with high scores

indicating high reactive (or proactive) aggressive behavior.

These items measure teachers’ reports of a child’s proactive and reactive aggressive behavior.

Teachers are asked to indicate how often each child exhibits certain aggressive behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 191

III. Behavior Assessments

A14. Aggression Towards Parents—High Risk Behavioral Assessment

1. A. Do you know of kids who shout or curse at their parents? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

2. A. Have any of your friends shouted, cursed, or hit their parents? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

3. Why do you think your friends strike out at their parents?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

4. A. Have you ever shouted, cursed, or hit your parents? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why did you shout, curse, or hit your parents?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

5. A. Why do you think parents shout or hit their children?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

B. Do you know of any adults who hit or yell at their children? ■ Yes ■ No

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

6. A. Have any of your friend’s parents hit or yelled at their children? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

This assessment measures the frequency with which peers or friends shout, curse, or hit their parents;

or are recipients of these behaviors from their parents. Questions are asked during a one-on-one interview.
192 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

7. A. Why do you think some kids run away from home?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

B. Do you know of any kids who have run away from home? ■ Yes ■ No

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

8. A. Have any of your friends run away from home? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

9. A. Have you ever run away from home? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why did you run away from home?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

Scoring and Analysis

The number of “A” items to which the respondent answered “yes” are summed. Opened ended questions are

not scored. For those respondents who scored at least 1, the frequency is calculated by averaging the answers

for the “B” or “C” items (How often?). Point values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Occasionally = 2

Regularly = 3

A high score indicates a high level of exposure to aggressive family behavior.
III. Behavior Assessments 193

III. Behavior Assessments

A15. Fighting—High Risk Behavioral Assessment

1. A. Why do you think people fight?

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

B. Have you seen others get into a “yelling” fight where they only used their words and didn’t hit?

■ Yes ■ No

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

2. A. Have your friends gotten into “yelling” fights?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

3. A. Have you gotten into “yelling” fights?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why do you get into these yelling fights?

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

4. A. Have you seen others get into fights where they had to punch or kick to defend themselves?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

5. A. Have you seen your friends get into fights where they had to punch or kick to defend themselves?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

This assessment measures the frequency of peer fighting, punching, kicking, knife, and gun use.

Questions are asked during a one-on-one interview.
194 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

6. A. Have you gotten into fights where you had to punch or kick to defend yourself?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

7. A. Have you seen others get into fights where they had to use a knife or gun to defend themselves?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

8. A. Have you seen your friends get into fights where they had to use a knife or gun to defend themselves?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

9. A. Have you gotten into fights where you had to use a knife or gun to defend yourself?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

10. A. Have you ever been in a situation where you were scared and couldn’t defend yourself?

■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

Scoring and Analysis

The number of “A” items to which the respondent answered “yes” are summed. Then for those respondents

who scored at least 1, the frequency is calculated by averaging the answers for the “B” items (How often?).

Point values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Occasionally = 2

Regularly = 3

A high score indicates a high level of exposure to interpersonal conflict.
III. Behavior Assessments 195

III. Behavior Assessments

B1. Social Health Profile

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often Always

1. Self-reliant 123456

2. Works hard 123456

3. Learns up to ability 123456

4. Easily distracted 123456

5. Concentrates 123456

6. Completes assignments 123456

7. Shows poor effort 123456

8. Eager to learn 123456

9. Mind wanders 123456

10. Works well alone 123456

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. Items 4, 7 and 9 are reverse coded, then a total score is calculated by

summing individual items. Scores range from 10 to 60, with a maximum score of 60 indicating a high level of

concentration and learning skills.

These items measure a teacher’s perception of children’s concentration skills. Teachers are asked to

indicate how often each child exhibits certain skills and behaviors.
196 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

C1. Conflict Resolution—Individual Protective Factors Index

Self-Control

1. Sometimes you have to physically fight to get what you want. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

2. I get mad easily. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

3. I do whatever I feel like doing. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

4. When I am mad, I yell at people. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

5. Sometimes I break things on purpose. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

6. If I feel like it, I hit people. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

Cooperation

1. I like to help around the house. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

2. Being part of a team is fun. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

3. Helping others makes me feel good. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

4. I always like to do my part. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

5. It is important to do your part in helping at home. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

6. Helping others is very satisfying. ■ YES! ■ yes ■ no ■ NO!

These items measure two conflict resolution skills: self-control and cooperation (6 items each).

Respondents are asked to indicate how closely several statements match their feelings. A “YES!” is

checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false;

and “NO!” if it is very false.
III. Behavior Assessments 197

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

The items listed under Self-Control are scored as follows:

YES! = 1

yes = 2

no = 3

NO! = 4

The Cooperation items are reverse coded. To score, point values for all 12 items are added. Blank items

are excluded, with the score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are blank.

The maximum obtainable score of 48 indicates a high level of conflict resolution skills. A minimum score of

12 indicates a low level.
198 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

C2. Conflict Resolution Style

1. Imagine that you’re in line for a drink of water. Someone your age comes along and pushes you out of line.

What would you probably do if this happened to you? (check all that apply)

■ Say something nasty to him.

■ Ask him why he pushed you.

■ Nothing, just walk away.

■ Tell him it’s your place in line.

■ Push him out of line.

2. You’re walking to the store. Someone your age walks up to you and calls you a name.

What would you probably do if this happened to you? (check all that apply)

■ Call him a name.

■ Ask him what’s going on.

■ Walk away from him.

■ Tell him to cut it out.

■ Hit him.

3. You see your friend fighting with another boy his age.

What would you probably do if this happened to you? (check all that apply)

■ Cheer for your friend to win.

■ Find out why your friend and the other kid are fighting.

■ Go away and let your friend and the other kid fight it out.

■ Try to get both of them to calm down and stop fighting.

■ Join your friend fighting against the other kid.

4. You see another guy trying to kiss and put his arm around your girlfriend.

What would you probably do if this happened to you? (check all that apply)

■ Say something rude to him.

■ Ask him why he’s messing with your girlfriend.

■ Nothing, just ignore the situation.

■ Let him know that she’s your girlfriend.

■ Push him away from your girlfriend.

These items measure adolescents’ styles of handling conflict situations. Respondents are asked to

select the response that best corresponds to the way they would react or behave.
III. Behavior Assessments 199

III. Behavior Assessments

5. Suppose that you were with your girlfriend at a party. She was dancing real close and acting sexy, but now

she doesn’t want to make out with you.

What would you probably do if this happened to you? (check all that apply)

■ Say something mean or insulting to her.

■ Ask her why she doesn’t want to make out.

■ Ignore her and go talk to someone else.

■ Tell her that you’re really in the mood for making out with her.

■ Start kissing her and making out anyway.

(Items 4 and 5 were added and minor modifications in wording were made by Flewelling, et al., 1993.)

Scoring and Analysis

A point should be given for each selection of a verbally and/or physically aggressive response choice. The

first responses are the verbally aggressive choices; the last responses are the physically aggressive choices.

Possible ranges are 1-5 or 1-10. Higher scores indicate higher aggressive tendencies.
200 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

D1. Victimization in Dating Relationships

How many times has any person that you have been on a date with done the following things to you?

Only include it when the dating partner did it to you first. In other words, don’t count it if they did it to you

in self-defense. Please circle one number on each line.

10 or 4 to 9 1 to 3

more times times times Never

1. Scratched me 3 2 1 0

2. Slapped me 3 2 1 0

3. Physically twisted my arm 3 2 1 0

4. Slammed me or held me against a wall 3 2 1 0

5. Kicked me 3 2 1 0

6. Bent my fingers 3 2 1 0

7. Bit me 3 2 1 0

8. Tried to choke me 3 2 1 0

9. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved me 3 2 1 0

10. Dumped me out of a car 3 2 1 0

11. Threw something at me that hit me 3 2 1 0

12. Forced me to have sex 3 2 1 0

13. Forced me to do other sexual things that I did not 3 2 1 0

want to do

14. Burned me 3 2 1 0

This scale measures self-reported victimization of physical violence within dating relationships.

Respondents are asked to indicate the number of times they have experienced certain violent acts while on

a date.
III. Behavior Assessments 201

III. Behavior Assessments

10 or 4 to 9 1 to 3

more times times times Never

15. Hit me with a fist 3 2 1 0

16. Hit me with something hard besides a fist 3 2 1 0

17. Beat me up 3 2 1 0

18. Assaulted me with a knife or gun 3 2 1 0

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. The score is calculated by summing the point values of the responses

from a participant. Alternatively, the score can be derived by summing the point values and dividing by the

number of responses. A high score indicates a high level of victimization in dating relationships; a low score

indicates a low level of victimization.
202 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

D2. Perpetration in Dating Relationships

How many times have you ever done the following things to a person that you have been on a date with?

Only include when you did it to him/her first. In other words, don’t count it if you did it in self-defense.

Please circle one number on each line.

10 or 4 to 9 1 to 3

more times times times Never

1. Scratched them 3 2 1 0

2. Slapped them 3 2 1 0

3. Physically twisted their arm 3 2 1 0

4. Slammed or held them against a wall 3 2 1 0

5. Kicked them 3 2 1 0

6. Bent their fingers 3 2 1 0

7. Bit them 3 2 1 0

8. Tried to choke them 3 2 1 0

9. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved them 3 2 1 0

10. Dumped them out of a car 3 2 1 0

11. Threw something at them that hit them 3 2 1 0

12. Forced them to have sex 3 2 1 0

13. Forced them to do other sexual things that they did 3 2 1 0

not want to do

The scale measures self-reported perpetration of physical violence within dating relationships.

Respondents are asked to indicate the number of times they have ever performed certain violent acts to

their date.
III. Behavior Assessments 203

III. Behavior Assessments

10 or 4 to 9 1 to 3

more times times times Never

14. Burned them 3 2 1 0

15. Hit them with my fist 3 2 1 0

16. Hit them with something hard besides my fist 3 2 1 0

17. Beat them up 3 2 1 0

18. Assaulted them with a knife or gun 3 2 1 0

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are as indicated above. The score is calculated by summing the point values of the responses

from a participant. Alternatively, the score can be derived by summing the point values and dividing by the

total number of responses. A high score indicates a high level of perpetration in dating relationships; a low

score indicates a low level of perpetration.
204 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

D3. Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2)

CTS2 has five subscales: Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, Physical Assault, Sexual Coercion, and

Injury. Sample items for each subscale are:

Negotiation

1. I said I cared about my partner even though we disagreed.

2. I suggested a compromise to a disagreement.

Psychological Aggression

3. I shouted or yelled at my partner.

4. I stomped out of the room or house or yard during a disagreement.

Physical Assault

5. I slapped my partner.

6. I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt.

Sexual Coercion

7. I insisted on sex when my partner did not want to (but did not use physical force).

8. I used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex.

Injury

9. I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with my partner.

10. I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner, but I didn’t.

The full scale consists of 39 items, each of which is asked twice, first for what the respondent did and then for

what the partner did.

This instrument measures the extent to which partners in dating, cohabiting, or marital relationships

engage in psychological and physical attacks on each other and also their use of reasoning or negotiation

to deal with conflicts. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of times in the past year they or their

partner engaged in a particular behavior.
III. Behavior Assessments 205

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is copyrighted. For permission to use and specific scoring information, contact:

Western Psychological Services (WPS)

12031 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Tel: (800) 648-8857

Fax: (310) 478-7838

www.wpspublish.com

The full CTS may be purchased from WPS at www.wpspublish.com. If the sample items above are

reproduced, written permission must first be obtained by writing to Susan Weinberg at WPS

(weinberg@wpspublish.com) or calling the toll free number 1-800-648-8857.
206 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

E1. Self-Reported Delinquency—Rochester Youth Development Study

In the past 30 days, have you ...

1. Run away from home? Yes No

2. Skipped classes without an excuse? Yes No

3. Lied about your age to get into someplace or to buy something Yes No

(for example, lying about your age to get into a movie or to buy alcohol)?

4. Hitchhiked a ride with a stranger? Yes No

5. Carried a hidden weapon? Yes No

6. Been loud or rowdy in a public place where somebody complained and Yes No

you got in trouble?

7. Begged for money or things from strangers? Yes No

8. Made obscene telephone calls, such as calling someone and saying dirty things? Yes No

9. Been drunk in a public place? Yes No

10. Damaged, destroyed or marked up somebody else’s property on purpose? Yes No

11. Set fire on purpose or tried to set fire to a house, building, or car? Yes No

12. Avoided paying for things, like a movie, taking bus rides, using a computer, Yes No

or anything else (including video games)?

13. Gone into or tried to go into a building to steal or damage something? Yes No

14. Tried to steal or actually stolen money or things worth $5 or less? Yes No

15. How about between $5 and $50? Yes No

16. How about between $50 and $100? Yes No

This index measures the self-reported frequency of 36 delinquent acts. Respondents are asked to

indicate if they have engaged in a variety of problem or delinquent behaviors in the past month.
III. Behavior Assessments 207

III. Behavior Assessments

17. How about over $100? Yes No

18. Shoplifted or taken something from a store on purpose (including Yes No

anything you already told me about)?

19. Stolen someone’s purse or wallet or picked someone’s pocket? Yes No

20. Stolen something from a car that did not belong to you? Yes No

21. Tried to buy or sell things that were stolen? Yes No

22. Taken a car or motorcycle for a ride without the owner’s permission? Yes No

23. Stolen or tried to steal a car or other motor vehicle? Yes No

24. Forged a check or used fake money to pay for something? Yes No

25. Used or tried to use a credit card, bank card, or automatic teller card Yes No

without permission?

26. Tried to cheat someone by selling them something that was not what you Yes No

said it was or that was worthless?

27. Attacked someone with a weapon or with the idea of seriously hurting or Yes No

killing them?

28. Hit someone with the idea of hurting them (other than what you have Yes No

already mentioned)?

29. Been involved in gang or posse fights? Yes No

30. Thrown objects such as rocks or bottles at people (other than what you Yes No

have already mentioned)?

31. Used a weapon or force to make someone give you money or things? Yes No

32. Been paid for having sexual relations with someone? Yes No

33. Physically hurt or threatened to hurt someone to get them to have sex Yes No

with you?
208 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

34. Had or tried to have sexual relations with someone against their will Yes No

(other than what you have already mentioned)?

35. Sold marijuana, reefer or pot? Yes No

36. Sold hard drugs such as crack, heroin, cocaine, LSD or acid? Yes No

Scoring and Analysis

“Yes” responses are assigned a point value of 1, then summed. Higher scores indicate a greater level of

delinquency.
III. Behavior Assessments 209

III. Behavior Assessments

E2. Self-Reported Delinquency—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

In the last 30 days, how many times have you ...

Number of times

1. Been on suspension? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

2. Stolen something from another student? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

3. Snuck into someplace without paying such as 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

movies, onto a bus or subway?

4. Skipped school? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

5. Cheated on a test? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

6. Taken something from a store without paying 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

for it (shoplifted)?

7. Written things or sprayed paint on walls or 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

sidewalks or cars where you were not 

supposed to?

8. Damaged school or other property that did not 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

belong to you?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

1-2 times = 2

3-5 times = 3

6-9 times = 4

10-19 times = 5

20 or more times = 6

Point values for all responses are summed. High scores indicate higher levels of delinquency.

These items measure the frequency of delinquency behaviors. Respondents are asked to indicate how

often in the past month they have been suspended, stolen something or shoplifted, cheated, or damaged

the property of others.
210 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

E3. Disciplinary and Delinquent Behavior—SAGE Baseline Survey

When was the last time you ...

1. Stole something?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

2. Stole something worth more than $50?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

3. Damaged or destroyed property that didn’t belong to you?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

4. Were detained or arrested by the police?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

5. Were required to appear in court for something you had done?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

6. Were sent to the principal or counselor for disciplinary reasons?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

7. Skipped class?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

8. Were suspended or expelled from school?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

These items measure self-reported recency of delinquent behaviors and school disciplinary actions.

Respondents are asked to indicate the last time they engaged in the following behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 211

III. Behavior Assessments

9. Were fired from a job?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

Scoring and Analysis

Items can be considered separately or as an index of violence-related behavior within a given time period. To

create an index for past-year violent or violence-related behavior, a point should be given for each item with a

check in one of the first three response categories, thus creating a possible range of 1-9.
212 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

E4. Friends’ Delinquent Behavior—Denver Youth Survey

During the last year how many of your friends have ...

1. Purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to them?

■ All of the ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

2. Hit or threatened to hit someone?

■ All of the ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

3. Used alcohol?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

4. Sold drugs?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

5. Gotten drunk once in a while?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

6. Carried a knife or a gun?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

7. Got into a physical fight?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

8. Been hurt in a fight?

■ All of them ■ Most of them ■ Some of them ■ Very few them ■ None of them

These items measure respondents’ knowledge of their friends’ involvement in vandalism, violence,

and drug use during the past year. Respondents are asked to indicate how many of their close friends have

engaged in delinquent and high risk behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 213

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

All of them = 4

Most of them = 3

Some of them = 2

Very few of them = 1

None of them = 0

Values are summed and divided by the total number of items (8) for each respondent. Intended range is

0-4, with a higher score indicating greater association with (or exposure to) delinquent behavior by close

friends.
214 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

E5. Friends’ Delinquent Behavior—Peer Deviancy Scale

How many friends would you consider to be close friends? These are friends who you see more than once a

week. These are friends who you spend time with and enjoy doing things with. _________(Record number of

friends).

Now, in the last 3 months, how many of these friends have ...

None of Very few Some of Most of All of

them of them them them them

1. Skipped school without an excuse? 0 1 2 34

2. Stolen something worth less than $100? 0 1 2 34

3. Gone into or tried to go into a building to 0 1 2 34

steal something?

4. Gone joyriding, that is, taken a motor vehicle 0 1 2 34

such as a car or motorcycle for a ride or drive

without the owner’s permission?

5. Hit someone with the idea of really hurting 0 1 2 34

that person?

6. Attacked someone with a weapon or other 0 1 2 34

thing to really hurt that person?

7. Use a weapon, force, or strong arm methods 0 1 2 34

to get money or things from people?

8. Drank alcohol? 0 1 2 34

9. Been in a gang fight? 0 1 2 34

10. Hit or slapped a boyfriend/girlfriend? 0 1 2 34

These items measure youth reports of friends’ involvement in delinquent activity. Students are asked

how many friends they would consider to be close friends. They are then presented with 10 problem

behaviors and asked how many of their friends have done these behaviors in the past 3 months.
III. Behavior Assessments 215

III. Behavior Assessments

(A corresponding scale can be administered to parents. All items are identical, but the lead-in statement is

amended to read: “How many friends of your child would you consider to be close friends? These are friends

who your child sees more than once a week. These are friends who your child spends time with and enjoys

doing things with. _________(Record number of friends). Now, in the last 3 months, how many of these

friends do you think have ...”)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed. Higher scores

indicate higher levels of problem behaviors among peers.
216 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

E6. Delinquent Peers—Rochester Youth Development Study

In the past 30 days, how many of your friends ...

Most Some A few None

of them of them of them of them

1. Used a weapon or force to get money or things 4321

from people?

2. Attacked someone with a weapon or with the idea 4321

of seriously hurting them?

3. Hit someone with the idea of hurting them? 4321

4. Stole something worth more than $100? 4321

5. Stole something worth more than $5 but less than $50? 4321

6. Damaged or destroyed someone else’s property on 4321

purpose?

7. Took a car for a ride or drive without the owner’s 4321

permission?

8. Skipped classes without an excuse? 4321

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed. Higher scores

indicate higher levels of delinquency among peers.

These items measure youths’ reports of how many of their friends are involved in delinquent

activities. Respondents are asked to indicate how many of their friends have exhibited delinquent behavior

in the past month.
III. Behavior Assessments 217

III. Behavior Assessments

E7. Disciplinary Behavior—High Risk Behavioral Assessment

1. A. Have you seen other students get suspended from school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

2. A. Have any of your friends been suspended? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

3. A. Have you ever been suspended? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

4. A. Have you seen other students skip or cut school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

5. A. Have any of your friends skipped or cut school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

6. A. Have you ever skipped or cut school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. What did you do instead?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

7. A. Have any of your friends been late to school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

This assessment measures the frequency of youth suspensions, tardiness, and skipping or cutting

school. Questions are asked during a one-on-one interview.
218 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

8. A. Have you ever been late to school? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why were you late?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Scoring and Analysis

The number of “A” items to which the respondent answered “yes” are summed. Then for those respondents

who scored at least 1, the frequency is calculated by averaging the answers for the “B” items (How often?).

Point values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Occasionally = 2

Regularly = 3

A high score indicates a high level of risky school behavior.
III. Behavior Assessments 219

III. Behavior Assessments

E8. Delinquent Behavior—High Risk Behavioral Assessment

1. A. Have you witnessed any stealing? ■ Yes ■ No

B. What kinds of things have you seen get stolen?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

D. Why do you think people steal?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

2. A. Have you had things stolen from you? ■ Yes ■ No

B. What kinds of things have been stolen from you?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

D. Why were these things stolen?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

This assessment measures the frequency with which respondents’ have witnessed or been subjects of

stealing and property damage. Questions are asked during a one-on-one interview.
220 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

3. A. Have you ever stolen from anybody else? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why did you steal?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

4. A. Have you witnessed others damage property? ■ Yes ■ No

B. What was damaged?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

5. A. What kinds of activities make you feel happy?

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

B. How often do you do these activities?

■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

Scoring and Analysis

The number of “A” items to which the respondent answered “yes” are summed. Then for those respondents

who scored at least 1, the frequency is calculated by averaging the answers for the “B” or “C” items (How

often?). Point values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Occasionally = 2

Regularly = 3

A high score indicates a high level of involvement in stealing and property damage.
III. Behavior Assessments 221

III. Behavior Assessments

F1. Drug and Alcohol Use—Youth Risk Behavior Survey

1. How old were you when you had your first drink of alcohol other than a few sips?

a. I have never had a drink of alcohol other than a few sips

b. 8 years old or younger

c. 9 or 10 years old

d. 11 or 12 years old

e. 13 or 14 years old

f. 15 or 16 years old

g. 17 years old or older

2. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol?

a. 0 days

b. 1 or 2 days

c. 3 to 9 days

d. 10 to 19 days

e. 20 to 39 days

f. 40 to 99 days

g. 100 or more days

3. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol?

a. 0 days

b. 1 or 2 days

c. 3 to 5 days

d. 6 to 9 days

e. 10 to 19 days

f. 20 to 29 days

g. All 30 days

4. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is,

within a couple of hours?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 days

d. 3 to 5 days

e. 6 to 9 days

f. 10 to 19 days

g. 20 or more days

These items measure the frequency of self-reported alcohol and drug use. Respondents are asked to

circle one response for each question.
222 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

5. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of alcohol on school property?

a. 0 days

b. 1 or 2 days

c. 3 to 5 days

d. 6 to 9 days

e. 10 to 19 days

f. 20 to 29 days

g. All 30 days

6. How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time?

a. I have never tried marijuana

b. 8 years old or younger

c. 9 or 10 years old

d. 11 or 12 years old

e. 13 or 14 years old

f. 15 or 16 years old

g. 17 years old or older

7. During your life, how many times have you used marijuana?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 to 99 times

g. 100 or more times

8. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

9. During the past 30 days, on how times did you use marijuana on school property?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times
III. Behavior Assessments 223

III. Behavior Assessments

10. During your life, how many times have you used any form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or freebase?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

11. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use any form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or freebase?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

12. During your life, how many times have you sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or

inhaled any paints or sprays to get high?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

13. During the past 30 days, how many times have you sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray

cans, or inhaled any paints or sprays to get high?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

14. During your life, how many times have you used heroin (also called smack, junk, or China White)?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times
224 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

15. During your life, how many times have you used methamphetamines (also called speed, crystal, crank, or

ice)?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

16. During your life, how many times have you used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

17. During your life, how many times have you taken steroid pills or shots without a doctor’s prescription?

a. 0 times

b. 1 or 2 times

c. 3 to 9 times

d. 10 to 19 times

e. 20 to 39 times

f. 40 or more times

18. During your life, how many times have you used a needle to inject any illegal drug into your body?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or more times

19. During the past 12 months, has anyone offered, sold, or given you an illegal drug on school property?

a. Yes

b. No
III. Behavior Assessments 225

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Individual items can be scored by assigning point values to correspond to response categories. For items with

a range, a midpoint value can also be assigned. Incidence rates for items 2 through 18, and standard errors for

these estimates, are calculated as follows:

Incidence Rate = ∑

n

i=1

PiCi Standard Error = √∑Ci2(Var(Pi)

P = the proportion of subjects

i = (1,2,3....n) levels of the variable of interest

C = frequency of behavior

Incidence Rate = the proportion of subjects with the behavior of interest (Pi) multiplied by the frequency of

that behavior (Ci), or use a midpoint if there is a range.

Standard Error = the square root of the sum of the frequency of the behavior squared (Ci2

) multiplied by the

variance of each proportion (Var(Pi)).

Example: Incidence Rate of Marijuana Use Among White Males

i = 1,2,3,4,5 (1.5 times, 6 times, 14.5 times, 29.5 times, 40+ times)

j = 1,2,3 (White, Black, Hispanic)

k = 1,2 (Female, Male)

For white males (j=1,k=2) the incidence rate can be designated as IRjk or IR12 and calculated as follows:

IR12 = ∑

5

i=1

Pi12Ci
226 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

F2. Drug and Alcohol Use—SAGE Baseline Survey

When was the last time you ...

1. Sold any amount of illicit drugs?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

2. Drank alcohol, including beer, wine, or hard liquor?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

3. Had five or more alcoholic drinks at one time?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

4. Smoked a cigarette?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

5. Used marijuana?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

6. Used cocaine?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

7. Used crack?

■ Within the ■ Between 1 and ■ Between 6 months ■ Over 1 ■ Never

past month 6 months ago and 1 year ago year ago

These items measure self-reported recency of drug and alcohol use. Youths are asked to indicate the

last time they engaged in the following behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 227

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Items can be considered separately or as an index of violence-related behavior within a given time period. To

create an index for past-year violent or violence-related behavior, a point should be given for each item with a

check in one of the first three response categories, thus creating a possible range of 1-7.
228 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

F3. Drug and Alcohol Use—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

In the last 30 days, how many times have you ...

Number of times

1. Drunk beer (more than a sip or taste)? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

2. Drunk wine or wine coolers 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

(more than a sip or taste)?

3. Smoked cigarettes? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

4. Been drunk? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

5. Drunk liquor (like whiskey or gin)? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

6. Used marijuana (pot, hash, reefer)? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

1-2 times = 2

3-5 times = 3

6-9 times = 4

10-19 times = 5

20 or more times = 6

Point values for all responses are summed. High scores indicate higher levels of drug use.

These items measure self-reported frequency of drug and alcohol use. Respondents are asked to

indicate how often in the past month they have smoked cigarettes, used marijuana, or drunk beer, wine or

other liquor.
III. Behavior Assessments 229

III. Behavior Assessments

F4. Drug and Alcohol Use—Teen Conflict Survey

Without your parents’ permission, when did you first (if you ever have) ...

Never 8th grade 7th grade 6th grade Before 6th

1. Use tobacco? a b c d e

2. Drink beer, wine, or liquor? a b c d e

3. Get drunk? a b c d e

4. Use marijuana? a b c d e

5. Use inhalants? a b c d e

6. Use other drugs? a b c d e

Without your parents’ permission, in the last 30 days, how often (if at all) did you do the following?

5 or more

Never 1 time 2 or 3 times 4 times times

7. Use tobacco? a b c d e

8. Drink beer, wine, or liquor? a b c d e

9. Get drunk? a b c d e

10. Use marijuana? a b c d e

11. Use inhalants? a b c d e

12. Use other drugs? a b c d e

These items measure the age of onset and frequency of substance use. Respondents are asked to

indicate when they first used specific substances without their parents’ permission and how often in the

last 30 days they used specific substances.
230 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

For the first set of questions, point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

8th grade = 2

7th grade = 3

6th grade = 4

Before 6th = 5

Scores are derived by summing across all responses. A total of 30 points is possible, with high scores

indicating more drug use and earlier onset.

For the second set of questions, point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

1 time = 2

2 or 3 times = 3

4 times = 4

5 or more times = 5

Scores are derived by summing across all responses. A range of 6 to 30 points is possible, with high scores

indicating higher drug/alcohol activity in the last 30 days.
III. Behavior Assessments 231

III. Behavior Assessments

F5. Drug and Alcohol Use—High Risk Behavioral Assessment

1. A. Have your friends tried drugs or alcohol? ■ Yes ■ No

B. Why do you think others try drugs and alcohol?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

C. What kind of drugs did they try?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

D. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

2. A. Have you ever tried drugs or alcohol? ■ Yes ■ No

B. Why did you try drugs and/or alcohol?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

C. What kind of drugs have you tried?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

D. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

3. A. Why do you think people sell drugs?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

This assessment measures involvement of friends in use and sale of drugs or alcohol. Questions are

asked during a one-on-one interview.
232 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

B. Have you seen other people sell drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

C. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

4. A. Have you seen any of your friends sell drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

5. A. Have you been involved in selling drugs? ■ Yes ■ No

B. How often? ■ Rarely ■ Occasionally ■ Regularly

(1-3/year) (1-2/month) (daily or 1-2/week)

C. Why did you sell drugs?

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Scoring and Analysis

The number of “A” items to which the respondent answered “yes” are summed. Then for those respondents

who scored at least 1, the frequency is calculated by averaging the answers for the “How Often” items. Point

values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Occasionally = 2

Regularly = 3

A high score indicates a high level of involvement with drugs and/or alcohol.
III. Behavior Assessments 233

III. Behavior Assessments

G1. Exposure to Gangs—Houston School Cohort Survey

1. Are there gangs in your neighborhood? ■ Yes ■ No

2. Are gang members troublemakers? ■ Yes ■ No

3. Do you have friends who are gang members? ■ Yes ■ No

4. Are there gang members in this school? ■ Yes ■ No

5. Would you like to be a gang member? ■ Yes ■ No

6. Are you a gang member? ■ Yes ■ No

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Yes = 1

No = 0

Item 2 should be reverse coded, then the scale can be scored by adding all point values and dividing by

the total number of responses. Blank items are not counted in the number of responses. Higher mean scores

indicate higher levels of exposure to and favorability of gangs and gang membership. Lower mean scores

indicate lower levels of exposure to or favorability of gangs and gang membership.

These items measure exposure to gangs and gang membership.
234 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

H1. Handgun Access—NYC Youth Violence Survey

1. Where do most students who carry handguns get them from?

a. Parent or other family member’s handgun taken from home

b. Purchased from a store that sells handguns

c. Purchased “on the street”

d. Borrowed from a friend or someone they know

e. Stolen

f. Other

2. Could you get a handgun if you wanted to?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

3. During the past 30 days, the last time you carried a handgun, from where did you get the handgun?

a. I did not carry a handgun during the past 30 days

b. Parent or other family member’s handgun taken from home

c. Purchased from a store that sells handguns

d. Purchased “on the street”

e. Borrowed from a friend or someone I know

f. Stolen

g. Other

4. Does your school use metal detectors to look for weapons carried by students?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

5. Do you think that metal detectors should be used to find weapons carried by students at your school?

a. Yes

b. No

c. Don’t know

These items measure possession of, access to, and risk of carrying a handgun. Respondents are asked

to indicate where they can obtain handguns and why they might carry one.
III. Behavior Assessments 235

III. Behavior Assessments

6. What is the single most important reason some students carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?

a. For protection against attacks by other people

b. Because their friends carry weapons

c. Because it makes them feel important

d. To “show off” and impress their friends

e. Because they want to hurt someone

f. Other

Scoring and Analysis

These are individual items and should be scored accordingly.
236 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

I1. Impulsivity—Teen Conflict Survey

How often would you make the following statements?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always

1. I have a hard time sitting still. a b c d e

2. I start things but have a hard time a b c d e

finishing them.

3. I do things without thinking. a b c d e

4. I need to use a lot of self-control to keep a b c d e

out of trouble.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Seldom = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Always = 5

Scores are derived by summing across all responses. A range of 4 to 20 points is possible, with high

scores indicating higher self-reported impulsivity.

These items measure the frequency of impulsive behaviors (e.g., lack of self-control, difficulty sitting

still, trouble finishing things). Respondents are asked to indicate how often they perform certain impulsive

behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 237

III. Behavior Assessments

J1. Leisure Activity—Teen Conflict Survey

On an average school day, I...

0 mins 1-30 mins 30-60 mins 1-2 hrs 2-4 hrs

1. Watch TV or videos. a b c d e

2. Read for fun. a b c d e

3. Listen to radio, records, tapes, or CDs. a b c d e

4. Do homework. a b c d e

5. Play computer or video games. a b c d e

6. Talk to or do activities with family. a b c d e

7. Talk to or do activities with friends. a b c d e

8. Do chores around the house. a b c d e

9. Spend time without an adult around. a b c d e

10. Participate in extracurricular activities. a b c d e

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

0 mins = 1

1-30 mins = 2

30-60 mins = 3

1-2 hrs = 4

2-4 hrs = 5

Scores are derived by summing all responses, with a possible range of 10 to 50. Higher scores indicate

higher involvement in constructive activities.

These items measure the amount of time a student spends every day in a number of leisure activities

(e.g., reading, watching TV, working at the computer, doing homework). Respondents are asked to 

indicate the extent to which they engage in certain activities on an average school day.
238 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

K1. Parental Control

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

a lot a little a little a lot

1. My parent(s) watch television programs and movies with me. 4 3 2 1

2. Parents should limit the amount of television their 4 3 2 1

children watch.

3. My parent(s) limit the amount of television I watch. 4 3 2 1

4. My parent(s) limit the kinds of television programs I watch. 4 3 2 1

5. I discuss with my parent(s) the difference between 4 3 2 1

what is real and what is pretend in stories that are on 

television and in the movies.

6. My parent(s) know the words of the music and rap 4 3 2 1

that I listen to.

7. My parent(s) permit me to listen to only certain kinds 4 3 2 1

of music/rap.

8. My parent(s) know who my friends are. 4 3 2 1

9. My parent(s) like my friends. 4 3 2 1

10. My parent(s) permit me to be friends with any one I choose. 4 3 2 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above, with item 10 reverse coded. Scores are derived by summing the

point values of the responses from a participant and dividing the total by the number of responses. Blank

items are not counted in the number of responses. Higher mean scores indicate higher levels of parental

involvement with and control over student’s exposure to television, music, and friends. Lower mean scores

indicate lower levels of parental involvement or control.

These items measure the amount and kind of television parents allow their children to watch. It also

measures the extent to which parents know their children’s friends and taste in music. Respondents are

asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of statements.
III. Behavior Assessments 239

III. Behavior Assessments

L1. Safety and Threats—NYC Youth Violence Survey

Threats Anywhere

1. During the past 12 months, while anywhere, how many times did someone threaten to hurt you?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

2. Where did most of the threats occur?

a. I was not threatened anywhere during the past 12 months

b. Housing project

c. Subway

d. Playground

e. Street

f. School

g. Home

h. Other

3. Who made most of the threats against you?

a. I was not threatened by anyone during the past 12 months

b. A stranger

c. A friend or someone I know

d. A boyfriend, girlfriend, or date

e. A parent, brother, sister, or other family member

f. A group of youths (gang or posse members)

g. Other

These items measure frequency of being threatened or harmed by someone while going to and from

school or in other places. Students are asked to circle one response for each question.
240 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Threats Going To and From School

4. How do you usually travel to and from school?

a. Walk

b. Bicycle

c. School bus

d. City bus or subway

e. Motorcycle or moped

f. Car

g. Other

5. During the past 30 days, how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would not be safe

going to or from school?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 or 3 days

d. 4 or 5 days

e. 6 or more days

6. During the past 12 months, while going to or from school, how many times did someone threaten to hurt

you?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

7. Where did most of the threats occur?

a. I was not threatened going to or from school during the past 12 months

b. Housing project

c. Subway

d. Playground

e. Street

f. Other
III. Behavior Assessments 241

III. Behavior Assessments

8. Who made most of the threats against you?

a. I was not threatened going to or from school during the past 12 months

b. A stranger

c. A friend or someone I know

d. A boyfriend, girlfriend, or date

e. A group of youths (gang or posse members)

f. Other

9. During the past 12 months, how many times has someone stolen or deliberately damaged your property

such as your car, clothing, or books on school property?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times

Scoring and Analysis

Individual items can be scored by assigning point values to correspond to response categories. For items with

a range, a midpoint value can also be assigned. Incidence rates for items 1, 5, 6 and 9, and standard errors for

these estimates are calculated as follows:

Incidence Rate = ∑

n

i=1

PiCi Standard Error = √∑Ci2(Var(Pi)

P = the proportion of subjects

i = (1,2,3....n) levels of the variable of interest

C = frequency of behavior

Incidence Rate = the proportion of subjects with the behavior of interest (Pi) multiplied by the frequency of

that behavior (Ci), or use a midpoint if there is a range.

Standard Error = the square root of the sum of the frequency of the behavior squared (Ci2

) multiplied by the

variance of each proportion (Var(Pi)).
242 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Example: Incidence Rate of Being Threatened Among Hispanic Males

i = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (1 time, 2.5 times, 4.5 times, 6.5 times, 8.5 times, 10.5 times, 12+ times)

j = 1,2,3 (White, Black, Hispanic)

k = 1,2 (Female, Male)

For Hispanic males (j=3,k=2) the incidence rate can be designated as IRjk or IR32 and calculated as follows:

IR32 = ∑

7

i=1

Pi32Ci
III. Behavior Assessments 243

III. Behavior Assessments

M1. Social Competence

Not A Moderately Very

at all little well Well well

1. Can accept things not going his/her way. 12345

2. Copes well with failure. 12345

3. Accepts legitimate imposed limits. 12345

4. Expresses needs and feelings appropriately. 12345

5. Thinks before acting. 12345

6. Resolves peer problems on his/her own. 12345

7. Can calm down when excited or all wound up. 12345

8. Can wait in line patiently when necessary. 12345

9. Is very good at understanding other people’s feelings. 12345

10. Is aware of the effect of his/her behavior on others. 12345

11. Works well in a group. 12345

12. Plays by the rules of the game. 12345

13. Controls temper when there is a disagreement. 12345

14. Shares materials with others. 12345

15. Cooperates with peers without prompting. 12345

16. Is helpful to others. 12345

17. Listens to others’ points of view. 12345

This assessment measures teachers’ perceptions of a child’s social competence. Teachers are asked

whether a child engages in certain prosocial behaviors and how well a child controls his or her emotions.
244 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Not A Moderately Very

at all little well Well well

18. Can give suggestions and opinions without being bossy. 12345

19. Acts friendly towards others. 12345

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Two subscales are used: Prosocial Behavior (items 4, 6, 9-11

and 14-19) and Emotion Regulation (items 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13). Items for each subscale are averaged.

Higher scores indicate higher prosocial behavior or emotion regulation.
III. Behavior Assessments 245

III. Behavior Assessments

M2. Social Competence—Teacher Post-Ratings

Much Somewhat A little A little Somewhat Much

worse worse worse improved improved improved

1. Ability to sound out unfamiliar words. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. Ability to read sentences and 1 2 3 4 5 6

paragraphs and answer questions 

about what they have just read.

3. Ability to stop and calm down 1 2 3 4 5 6

when excited or upset.

4. Ability to verbally label emotions 1 2 3 4 5 6

of self and others.

5. Ability to show empathy and 1 2 3 4 5 6

compassion for others’ feelings.

6. Ability to handle disagreements 1 2 3 4 5 6

with others in a positive way.

7. Ability to initiate interactions and 1 2 3 4 5 6

join in play with others in an 

appropriate and positive manner.

8. Ability to provide help, share materials, 1 2 3 4 5 6

and act cooperatively with others.

9. Ability to take turns, play fair, 1 2 3 4 5 6

and follow the rules of the game.

10. Self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Values are summed or averaged for each respondent. Higher

scores indicate improvement in social competence over the course of the school year.

This assessment measures teachers’ perceptions of the degree of change in students’ prosocial and

cooperative behaviors over the course of the school year. Teachers are asked to think about how a child was

behaving at the beginning of the school year and to rate the degree of change that has taken place since then.
246 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

M3. Prosocial Behaviors of Children

1. Other children seek the child out to involve him/her in activities.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

2. The child uses free time appropriately.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

3. The child shares laughter with peers.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

4. The child has good work habits (e.g., is organized, makes efficient use of class time).

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

5. The child compromises with peers when a situation calls for it.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

6. The child responds to teasing or name calling by ignoring, changing the subject, or some other 

constructive means.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

7. The child accepts constructive criticism from peers without becoming angry.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

8. The child plays or talks with peers for extended periods of time.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

9. The child initiates conversation with peers in informal situations.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

10. The child listens carefully to teacher instructions and directions for assignments.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

11. The child displays independent study skills (e.g., can work adequately with minimum teacher support).

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

These items measure teachers’ perceptions of their students’ prosocial skills. It includes ratings of both

adaptive behaviors and interpersonal social competence. Teachers are asked to indicate how often their

students exhibit certain behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 247

III. Behavior Assessments

12. The child appropriately copes without aggression from others (e.g., tries to avoid a fight, walks away,

seeks assistance, defends self).

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

13. The child interacts with a number of different peers.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

14. The child can accept not getting his/her own way.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

15. The child attends to assigned tasks.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

16. The child keeps conversations with peers going.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

17. The child invites peers to play or share activities.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

18. The child does seatwork assignments as directed.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

19. The child produces work of acceptable quality given her/his skill level.

■ Never ■ Rarely ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Frequently

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Rarely = 2

Sometimes = 3

Often = 4

Frequently = 5

Four subscale scores are computed by summing individual items: Prosocial Behavior and Social

Competence subscale (all 19 items); School Adjustment subscale (items 2, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18 and 19); Peer

Preferred Behavior subscale (items 1, 3, 8, 9, 13, 16 and 17); and Teacher Preferred Behavior subscale (items

5, 6, 7, 12 and 14). A high score on any subscale indicates a great amount of prosocial behavior.
248 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

M4. Parent/Child Social Competencies—Conflict Behavior Questionnaire

True False

1. My child is easy to get along with. A B

2. My child is well behaved in our discussions. A B

3. My child is receptive to criticism. A B

4. For the most part, my child likes to talk to me. A B

5. We almost never seem to agree. A B

6. My child usually listens to what I tell him or her. A B

7. At least three times a week, we get angry at each other. A B

8. My child says that I have no consideration of his or her feelings. A B

9. My child and I compromise during arguments. A B

10. My child often doesn’t do what I ask. A B

11. The talks we have are frustrating. A B

12. My child often seems angry at me. A B

13. My child acts impatient when I talk. A B

14. In general, I don’t think we get along very well. A B

15. My child almost never understands my side of an argument. A B

16. My child and I have big arguments about little things. A B

17. My child is defensive when I talk to him or her. A B

This assessment measures social competencies at home between children and their caregivers.

Children complete one True-False questionnaire and parents complete a matching questionnaire. Both

positive and negative behaviors are included.
III. Behavior Assessments 249

III. Behavior Assessments

True False

18. My child thinks my opinions don’t count. A B

19. We argue a lot about rules. A B

20. My child tells me he or she thinks I am unfair. A B

Scoring and Analysis

This 20-item measure contains both “positive” and “negative” statements regarding a child’s social

competence/conflictual behaviors. Items are rated by selecting either a 1 = true or 2 = false. To obtain an

overall measure of social competence, “false” items are recoded to a value of 1, while “true” responses are

recoded to a value of 0 (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9). Then all 20 items are summed to obtain an overall score

and measure of conflictual behaviors (range = 0-14). A non-zero score indicates some conflictual behaviors;

a high score indicates a great amount of conflict.
250 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

M5. Parental Report of Helping Behavior

Almost

Rarely Sometimes Usually always

1. How often has your child volunteered to help you A B C D

make something?

2. How often has your child helped you in fixing something A B C D

that has been broken?

3. When you were doing chores around the house, how often A B C D

has your child volunteered his or her assistance?

4. When you were with other people, how often has your A B C D

child helped you without being asked?

5. When you needed to get something, how often has your A B C D

child offered to get it for you?

6. When only you and your child are together, how often A B C D

has he or she helped you without being asked?

7. How often has your child volunteered to help you A B C D

carry something?

8. How often has your child done something for you without A B C D

expecting anything in return?

9. How often has your child made helpful suggestions which A B C D

made the task you were doing easier?

10. How often has your child done something that you needed A B C D

to have done and then did it again without being asked?

11. How often has your child offered to finish a task that you A B C D

had been working on so that you could do something else?

These items measure cooperativeness, cheerfulness, and general responsiveness of a child to

household chores. Parents are asked to determine how often their child has engaged in a series of helpful

behaviors.
III. Behavior Assessments 251

III. Behavior Assessments

Almost

Rarely Sometimes Usually always

12. How often has your child cleaned up a mess that A B C D

he or she didn’t make without you having to ask?

13. How often has your child helpfully reminded you of A B C D

something you needed to remember?

14. How often has your child offered to lend a hand so the A B C D

task could be finished quicker?

15. How often has your child offered to do something for A B C D

you when you were not around?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Rarely = 1

Sometimes = 2

Usually = 3

Almost always = 4

The 15 items are summed to obtain an overall helping behavior index (range = 15-60). A high score

indicates a great amount of helpful behavior in the home environment, while a low score indicates little

responsiveness of the child to household chores. Missing values are replaced by mean substitutions.
252 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

N1. Social Problem Solving Measure

1. Pretend this is YOU and that this is a boy or girl in your class. The other child has been on the swing for a

long, long time and doesn’t seem to want to share the swing with you. You would really like to play on the

swing.

What would you say or do so that YOU could play on the swing?

Would you:

A. say, “You’d better let me play?”

B. ask them to share the swing?

C. ask the teacher to make him get off the swing?

D. tell the teacher to not let them play anymore?

E. just leave?

2. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class. Let’s also pretend that this is

your first day at school and YOU would like to be friends with them, but they don’t say anything to you.

What would you say or do so that YOU could get to be friends with this boy or girl?

Would you:

A. wait until they talked to you?

B. let them ride your bike so that they’d be your friend?

C. ask the teacher to make them play with you?

D. say, “You’d better play with me?”

E. ask the teacher to make them sit alone?

3. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class. YOU just got a good spot near

the front of the line to go outside and someone pushes you out of line and takes your place.

What would you say or do so that YOU could get your place back in line?

Would you:

A. ask the teacher to make them give you your place back?

B. push them back?

C. go to the back of the line?

D. ask the teacher to make them go to the back of the line?

E. say, “Can I have my place back?”

These items assess children’s aggressive and competent interpersonal negotiation strategies in

proactive situations. Children are shown pictures (pages 256-263) that correspond to each vignette.

The vignette is read to the child and then the child is asked to select the best answer to each question.
III. Behavior Assessments 253

III. Behavior Assessments

4. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class, who is racing with other kids on

their bikes. YOU would like to play with them, but they haven’t asked you.

What would you say or do to get to play with them?

Would you:

A. ask your mom or dad to make them play with you?

B. tell them they’d better play with you?

C. ask them if you could play?

D. watch them play?

E. ask your mom or dad to make them stop racing?

5. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class. YOU are playing a game and

you realize that they have taken your turn.

What would you say or do so that YOU could get your turn?

Would you:

A. skip their turn?

B. just forget about it?

C. tell your mom or dad to let you win because they skipped your turn?

D. ask if they skipped your turn?

E. tell your mom or dad to make them give you your turn?

6. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class, who is playing tag with some

other kids. YOU would really like to play with them, but they haven’t asked you.

What would you say or do to get to play with them?

Would you:

A. tell the teacher to make them stop playing?

B. just start playing with them?

C. ask the teacher to make them play with you?

D. go sit by yourself?

E. call them bad names?

7. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class. YOU are both on the

playground and the person starts calling you names and making fun of you.

What would you say or do to get them to stop teasing you?

Would you:

A. cry?

B. call them names too?

C. ask them to stop?

D. tell the teacher to make them stop?

E. tell the teacher to make them sit alone?
254 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

8. Pretend that this is YOU and that this is another boy or girl in your class, who is choosing sides for

kickball with some other kids. YOU would really like to play with them, but they haven’t asked you.

What would you say or do to get to play kickball?

Would you:

A. offer to keep score if you could play the next game?

B. go sit with the teacher?

C. take the ball so that they couldn’t play?

D. ask the teacher to take the ball away?

E. ask the teacher to put you on a team?

(Aber, et al., 1995, adapted all responses for the multiple choice format. The pictures were also modified to

include a representation of racial and ethnic diversity among subjects portrayed.)

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Aggressive response = 0

Competent response = 1

Authority/punish response = 2

Authority/intervene response = 3

Passive/inept response = 4

Point values for each response category are given on the following page along with scoring information

for two subscales.
III. Behavior Assessments 255

III. Behavior Assessments

For each item, the point values are:

Item Response Value Item Response Value

1A 0 5 A 0

B1 B4

C3 C2

D2 D1

E4 E3

2A 4 6 A 2

B1 B1

C3 C3

D0 D4

E2 E0

3A 3 7 A 4

B0 B0

C4 C1

D2 D3

E1 E2

4A 3 8 A 1

B0 B4

C1 C0

D4 D2

E2 E3

Two subscales are created. The Aggressive Strategy subscale is scored by recoding items to either

aggressive response (1) or non-aggressive response (0), and then calculating an average. The Competent

Strategy subscale is scored by recoding items to either competent response (1) or non-competent response (0),

and then calculating an average.
256 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

1
III. Behavior Assessments 257

III. Behavior Assessments

2
258 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

3
III. Behavior Assessments 259

III. Behavior Assessments

4
260 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

5
III. Behavior Assessments 261

III. Behavior Assessments

6
262 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

7
III. Behavior Assessments 263

III. Behavior Assessments

8
264 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

O1. Victimization

Please answer the following questions thinking of what actually happened to you during the last 7 days. For

each question, indicate how many times another student did something to you during the last 7 days.

Number of times

1. A student teased me to make me angry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

2. A student beat me up. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

3. A student said things about me to make other students 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

laugh (made fun of me).

4. Other students encouraged me to fight. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

5. A student pushed or shoved me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

6. A student asked me to fight. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

7. A student slapped or kicked me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

8. A student called me (or my family) bad names. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

9. A student threatened to hurt me or to hit me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

10. A student tried to hurt my feelings. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Scoring and Analysis

This scale is scored by adding the responses; the range is between 0 and 66 points. Each point represents one

instance of victimization reported by the student during the week prior to the survey. If three or more items

are missing, the score cannot be computed. If two or less items are missing, these values are replaced by the

respondent’s average.

These items measure the frequency of being victimized during the week prior to the survey (e.g.,

being teased, pushed, threatened). Respondents are asked to indicate the number of times another student

did something to them during the past 7 days.
III. Behavior Assessments 265

III. Behavior Assessments

O2. Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

In the last 30 days, how many times have you ...

Number of times

Relational Victimization

1. Had a kid say they won’t like you unless 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

you do what he/she wanted you to do?

2. Had someone spread a false rumor about you? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

3. Been left out on purpose by other kids when 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

it was time to do an activity?

4. Had a kid try to keep others from liking you by 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

saying mean things about you?

5. Had a kid tell lies about you to make other kids 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

not like you anymore?

6. Had a kid who is mad at you try to get back at 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

you by not letting you be in their group anymore?

Overt Victimization

7. Been hit by another kid? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

8. Been pushed or shoved by another kid? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

9. Been yelled at or called mean names by 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

another kid?

10. Another student threatened to hit or physically 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

harm you?

11. Been threatened or injured by someone with 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

a weapon (gun, knife, club, etc.)?

12. Had a student asked you to fight? 0 1-2 3-5 6-9 10-19 20 or more

These items assess the frequency of relational and overt victimization. Respondents are asked to

indicate how often they have been subject to particular victimization behaviors during the past month.
266 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for each subscale are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

1-2 times = 2

3-5 times = 3

6-9 times = 4

10-19 times = 5

20 or more times = 6

Point values for each subscale are summed. High scores indicate higher levels of victimization.
III. Behavior Assessments 267

III. Behavior Assessments

P1. Weapon Carrying—Youth Risk Behavior Survey/

NYC Youth Violence Survey

Anywhere

1. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 or 3 days

d. 4 or 5 days

e. 6 or more days

2. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a gun?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 or 3 days

d. 4 or 5 days

e. 6 or more days

3. What is the single most important reason that you carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club during

the past 30 days?

a. I did not carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club during the past 30 days

b. For protection against attacks by other people

c. Because my friends carry weapons

d. Because it makes me feel important

e. To “show off” and impress my friends

f. Because I wanted to hurt someone

g. Other

4. During the past 30 days, the last time you carried a handgun, from where did you get the handgun?

a. I did not carry a handgun during the past 30 days

b. Parent or other family member’s handgun taken from home

c. Purchased from a store that sells handguns

d. Purchased “on the street”

e. Borrowed from a friend or someone I know

f. Stolen

g. Other

These items measure frequency of weapon carrying. Respondents are asked to indicate the number of

days they carried a weapon anywhere, to and/or from school, or on school property.
268 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

To/From School

5. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club going to

or from school?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 to 3 days

d. 4 to 5 days

e. 6 to 9 days

f. 10 to 13 days

g. 14 to 17 days

h. 18 or more days

6. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a handgun going to or from school?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 to 3 days

d. 4 to 5 days

e. 6 to 9 days

f. 10 to 13 days

g. 14 to 17 days

h. 18 or more days

On School Property

7. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on

school property?

a. 0 days

b. 1 day

c. 2 or 3 days

d. 4 or 5 days

e. 6 or more days

8. During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such

as a gun, knife, or club on school property?

a. 0 times

b. 1 time

c. 2 or 3 times

d. 4 or 5 times

e. 6 or 7 times

f. 8 or 9 times

g. 10 or 11 times

h. 12 or more times
III. Behavior Assessments 269

III. Behavior Assessments

(Items 3, 4, 5 and 6, above, are from the NYC Youth Violence Survey.)

Scoring and Analysis

Individual items can be scored by assigning point values to correspond to response categories. For items with

a range, a midpoint value can also be assigned. Incidence rates for items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and standard

errors for these estimates are calculated as follows:

Incidence Rate = ∑

n

i=1

PiCi Standard Error = √∑Ci2(Var(Pi)

P = the proportion of subjects

i = (1,2,3....n) levels of the variable of interest

C = frequency of behavior

Incidence Rate = the proportion of subjects with the behavior of interest (Pi) multiplied by the frequency of

that behavior (Ci), or use a midpoint if there is a range.

Standard Error = the square root of the sum of the frequency of the behavior squared (Ci2

) multiplied by the

variance of each proportion (Var(Pi)).

Example: Incidence Rate of Weapon Carrying Among Hispanic Females

i = 1,2,3,4 (1 day, 2.5 days, 4.5 days, 6+ days)

j = 1,2,3 (White, Black, Hispanic)

k = 1,2 (Female, Male)

For Hispanic females (j=3,k=1) the incidence rate can be designated as IRjk or IR31 and calculated as follows:

IR31 = ∑

4

i=1

Pi31Ci
270 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

References

Aber JL, Brown JL, Jones S, Samples F. Adapting

measures of children’s beliefs, attributions and skills

for use in the evaluation of violence prevention

projects. New York, NY: National Center for

Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 1995.

(Unpublished)

Bosworth K, Espelage D. Teen Conflict Survey.

Bloomington, IN: Center for Adolescent Studies,

Indiana University, 1995. (Unpublished)

Brener ND, Collins JL, Kann L, Warren CW,

Williams BI. Reliability of the Youth Risk Behavior

Survey Questionnaire. American Journal of

Epidemiology 1995;141(6):575-580.

Church B. Mentoring and Rites of Passage Youth

Violence Prevention Program-Robert Taylor Homes,

Chicago, IL: Northeastern Illinois University, 1994.

(Unpublished)

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.

Technical Report. Durham, NC: Department of

Psychology, Duke University, 1991. (Unpublished)

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group

(CPPRG). Things your friends have done (technical

report). Raleigh, NC: Duke University, 2000.

Available from the FastTrack Project Web site,

http://www.fasttrackproject.org/techrept/.

Crick NR, Bigbee MA. Relational and overt forms

of peer victimization: a multi-informant approach.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

1998;66:337-347.

Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion. New York City Youth Violence Survey.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 1993.

Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH),

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health

Promotion. Youth Risk Behavior Survey-2003.

Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 2003.

Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Mechanisms in the

cycle of violence. Science 1990;250:1678-1683.

Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing

factors in reactive and proactive aggression in

children’s peer groups. Special issue: Integrating

personality and social psychology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 1987;53(6):

1146-1158.

Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing

factors in reactive and proactive aggression in

children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 1987;53:1146-1158.

Dolan S. Doctoral Dissertation. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago, Department of Psychology,

1989. (Unpublished)

Eberly MB, Montemayor R, Flannery DJ. Variation

in adolescent helpfulness toward parents in a family

context. Journal of Early Adolescence 1993;13(3):

228-244.

Elliott D S, Huizinga D, Ageton SS. Explaining

delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1985.

Eron LD, Walder LO, Lefkowitz MM. Learning of

aggression in children. Boston, MA: Little, Brown

and Co., 1971.

Farrell AD, Kung EM, White KS, Valois R. The

structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and

delinquent behaviors during early adolescence.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 2000;29:282-

292.
III. Behavior Assessments 271

III. Behavior Assessments

Fifield B. A current validation study of the SSRS-T

and the Walker-McConnell Scale of social

competence and school adjustment. Technical

Report. Eugene, OR: Eugene School District, 1987.

(Unpublished)

Flewelling RL, Paschall MJ, Ringwalt CL. SAGE

Baseline Survey. Research Triangle Park, NC:

Research Triangle Institute, 1993. (Unpublished)

Foshee VA, Linder F, Bauman KE, et al. The Safe

Dates Project: theoretical basis, evaluation design,

and selected baseline findings. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 1996;12(5 Suppl):39-47.

Gabriel RM. Self Enhancement, Inc. Violence

prevention program, grades 7, 8 and 9: year 1

evaluation report. Portland, OR: RMC Research

Corporation, 1994. (Unpublished)

Houston Community Demonstration Project.

Houston, TX: City of Houston Health and Human

Services Department, 1993. (Unpublished)

Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Guerra NG. Victimization

and aggression. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Life

History Research, 1992.

Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Guerra NG, Crawshaw

VB. Measuring children’s aggression with teachers’

predictions of peer-nominations. Psychological

Assessment 1994;6(4):329-336.

Huesmann LR, Eron LD, Lefkowitz MM, Walder

LO. Stability of aggression over time and generations.

Developmental Psychology 1984;20(6): 1120-1134.

Institute of Behavioral Sciences. Youth Interview

Schedule: Denver Youth Survey. Boulder, CO:

University of Colorado, 1987.

Jessor R, Jessor SL. Problem behavior and

psychological development: a longitudinal study of

youth. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG. Drug use

among American high school seniors, college

students and young adults, 1975-1990. Rockville,

MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1991.

Kandel DB. Stages of adolescent involvement in

drug use. Science 1975;190:912-914.

LH Research, Inc. A survey of experiences,

perceptions, and apprehensions about guns among

young people in America. Boston, MA: Harvard

School of Public Health, 1993.

Loeber R, Farrington DP, Stouthamer-Loeber M,

Van Kammen WB. Antisocial behavior and mental

health problems: explanatory factors in childhood

and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1998.

Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The prediction of

delinquency. In: Quay HC (ed.). Handbook of

Juvenile Delinquency. New York, NY: Wiley, 

1987:325-382.

McConnell SR, Strain P, Kerr M, Stagg V, Lenker

D, Lambert D. An empirical definition of elementary

school adjustment: selection of target behaviors for a

comprehensive treatment program. Behavior

Modification 1984;8(4):451-473.

Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description

of measures: cohort-wide student survey, 2004.

Available from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)

Orpinas P. Skills training and social influences for

violence prevention in middle schools. a curriculum

evaluation. Doctoral Dissertation. Houston, TX:

University of Texas Health Science Center at

Houston, School of Public Health, 1993.

Orpinas P, Frankowski R. The aggression scale: a

self-report measure of aggressive behavior for

young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence

2001;21(1):51-68.
272 III. Behavior Assessments

III. Behavior Assessments

Orpinas P, Horne AM, Staniszewski D. School

bullying: changing the problem by changing the

school. School Psychology Review 2003;32(3):431-

444.

Orpinas P, Kelder S. Students for Peace Project.

Second student evaluation. Houston, TX: University

of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School

of Public Health, 1995. (Unpublished)

Paschall MJ, Flewelling RL. Measuring

intermediate outcomes of violence prevention

programs targeting African-American male youth:

an exploratory assessment of the psychometric

properties of six psychosocial measures. Health

Education Research 1997;12(1):117-128.

Phillips J, Springer F. Extended National Youth

Sports Program 1991-1992 evaluation highlights,

part two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI)

and risk assessment study. Report prepared for the

National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates, 1992.

(Unpublished)

Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L,

Lynam D, Reynolds C, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Liu J.

Proactive and reactive aggression in adolescent

boys. Los Angeles: University of Southern

California, 2003. (Unpublished)

Robin AL, Foster SL. Negotiating parent-adolescent

conflict: a behavioral-family systems approach. New

York, NY: Guilford Press, 1989.

Rosenbaum DP, et al. Second-year evaluation of

D.A.R.E. in Illinois. Chicago, IL: Center for

Research on Law and Justice, University of Illinois

at Chicago, 1991. (Unpublished)

Slaby RG, Guerra NG. Cognitive mediators of

aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment.

Developmental Psychology 1988;24(4):580-588.

Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman

DB. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2):

development and preliminary psychometric data.

Journal of Family Issues 1996;17(3):283-316.

Straus MA, Hamby SL, Warren WL. The Conflict

Tactics Scales handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western

Psychological Services, 2003.

Werthamer-Larsson L, Kellam SG, Wheeler L.

Effect of first-grade classroom environment on shy

behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration

problems. American Journal of Community

Psychology 1991;19(4):585-602.

Sullivan TN, Esposito L, Farrell AD. Relation

between overt and relational victimization and

problem behaviors in adolescence. Paper presented

at the annual conference for the Association for

Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA,

2003.

Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA,

Tobin K. Gangs and delinquency in developmental

perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press,

2003.

Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth

M, Jang SJ. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and

delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of

interactional theory. Criminology 1994;32:47-83.
III. Behavior Assessments 273

III. Behavior Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments 275

IV. Environmental Assessments

Section IV

Environmental

Assessments

The assessments in this section measure the

following family, home, and community influences

related to youth violence: 

A. Disciplinary Practices

B. Family Communication

C. Family Conflict and Hostility

D. Family Relationships

E. Parent-Child Relationships

F. Parental Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior

and Aggression

G. Parental Involvement

H. Parental Monitoring and Supervision

I. Quality of Life

J. Collective Efficacy

K. Community Involvement

L. Community Resources

M. Exposure to Violence

N. Fear of Crime

O. Neighborhood Cohesion

P. Neighborhood Disorganization

Q. Neighborhood Integration and Exchange

R. Neighborhood Satisfaction

S. Social Control
276 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

A. Disciplinary

Practices

A1. Authoritative

Parenting Index; 16

items

Measures children’s

perceptions of their

parents’ level of

demanding and

responsive behaviors.

Students aged 8-18. Internal consistency:

Responsiveness .85;

Demandingness .71

to .77.

Jackson, Henriksen &

Foshee, 1988

A2. Consistency of

Discipline—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

7 items

Measures the extent to

which the parent

maintains consistent

consequences and follows

through with them.

Matching version for

youth.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood. Parents of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth .65; Parents

.85.

Stern, Smith & Jang,

1999

Adapted from Krohn,

Stern, Thornberry &

Jang, 1992

A3. Positive

Parenting

Practices—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

5 items

Measures the frequency

with which parents reward

the child’s good behavior

with praising, hugging, or

similar responses.

Matching version for

youth.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood. Parents of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth .79; Parents

.70.

Adapted from Krohn,

Stern, Thornberry &

Jang, 1992

A4. Positive

Parenting

Practices—Chicago

Youth Development

Study; 6 items

Measures the frequency of

parental rewards (e.g.,

winking, verbal praise,

hugs, and special

privileges) for good

behavior. Matching

version for youth.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth .85; Parents

.84.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2000

B. Family

Communication

B1. Reactivity in

Family

Communication; 3

items

Measures the extent to

which parents and

children perceive that

emotional states

experienced by one

person in a family spread

easily to other family

members.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8,

and their parents.

Internal consistency:

Youth .58; Parents

.66. 

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004b

Adapted from Henry,

Chertok, Keys &

Jegerski, 1991

C. Family Conflict

and Hostility

C1. Family Conflict

and Hostility—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

3 items

Measures the extent to

which the parent reports a

climate of hostility and

conflict within the family.

Parents of youths

initially in grades 7-8

in 1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Not available. Thornberry, Krohn,

Lizotte, Smith &

Tobin, 2003

D. Family

Relationships

D1. Family

Relationship

Characteristics; 39

items

Measures four aspects of

family relationship

characteristics thought to

distinguish risk for serious

antisocial behavior:

cohesion, beliefs about

family, structure, and

deviant beliefs.

Children and

adolescents aged 

6-17.

Internal consistency:

.72 to .91.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith,

Huesmann & Zelli,

1997

E. Parent-Child

Relationship

E1. Parental-Child

Attachment—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

11 items

Measures the degree of

warmth and lack of

hostility in the parent-child

relationship.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood. Parents of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth .87; Parents

.81.

Thornberry, Lizotte,

Krohn, Farnworth &

Jang, 1991

Adapted from Hudson,

1982
IV. Environmental Assessments 277

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

E. Parent-Child

Relationship

(Continued)

E2. Attachment to

Parents—Seattle

Social Development

Project; 4 items

Measures students’

perceptions of how close

they feel to their fathers

and mothers.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

.76.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

E3. Family

Bonding—

Individual Protective

Factors Index; 6

items

Measures family bonding

and communication.

Students in grades 

7-11.

Internal consistency:

.58 (Gabriel, 1994).

Phillips & Springer,

1992

F. Parental

Attitudes

F1. Parental Attitudes

Toward Discipline—

Chicago Youth

Development Study;

12 items

Measures the extent to

which a parent disengages

or avoids providing

consequences for a child’s

behavior (avoidance of

discipline), and a parent’s

perception of how

effective their discipline is

in controlling the child’s

behavior (discipline

effectiveness).

Primary caregivers of

youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.84.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2000

F2. Parental Attitudes

Toward Drug Use—

Seattle Social

Development

Project; 3 items

Measures youths’

perceptions of their

parents’ attitudes about

drinking and smoking.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

.78.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

F3. Parental Attitudes

Toward Antisocial

Behavior—Seattle

Social Development

Project; 3 items

Measures youths’

perceptions of how their

parents would feel if they

stole, drew graffiti or

picked a fight with

someone.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

.70.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

F4. Parental Attitudes

Toward Use of

Aggression; 10 items

Measures the mother’s

values regarding use of

aggression to solve

problems.

Mothers of children

in kindergarten.

Internal consistency:

.55.

Dodge, Pettit & Bates,

1994

F5. Parental Support

for Fighting; 10

items

Measures students’

perception of their

parents’ support for

aggressive and nonaggressive solutions as a

means of resolving

conflicts.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Internal consistency:

Aggressive solutions

.62; Non-aggressive

solutions .66.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004a.

Adapted from Orpinas,

Murray & Kelder, 1999
278 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

G. Parental

Involvement

G1. Parental

Involvement in

School; 18 items

Assesses parental

involvement with the

child’s schoolwork,

teacher and school

activities, as well as

teacher involvement with

the parent.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8,

and their parents.

Internal consistency:

For Students:

Parent involvement

with child .75; Parent

involvement with

teacher/school .74;

Teacher involvement

with parent .69.

For Parents:

Parent involvement

with child: .81; Parent

involvement with

teacher/school .76;

Teacher involvement

with parent .79.

Multisite Violence

Prevention Project,

2004b

Adapted from Eccles &

Harold, 1993 (Parent

Version); and Smith,

Connell, Wright, et al.,

1997 (Student Version)

G2. Parental

Involvement—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

11 items

Measures how often

parents report being

involved with their

children in a range of

prosocial activities.

Parents of youths

initially in grades 7-8

in 1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.74.

Adapted from Stern &

Smith, 1995

G3. Parental

Involvement—

Chicago Youth

Development Study;

12 items

Measures the degree to

which the parent is

involved in the child’s life.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth .79; Caregivers

.78.

Gorman-Smith, Tolan,

Zelli & Huesmann,

1996

G4. Prosocial

Parental

Involvement—

Seattle Social

Development

Project; 7 items

Measures students’

perceptions of the

opportunities and rewards

offered by and

experienced with their

parents.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

Opportunities .76;

Rewards .78.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

H. Parental

Monitoring and

Supervision

H1. Parental

Supervision—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

4 items

Measures the extent to

which the youth feels that

his parents are aware of

his whereabouts, friends

and activities.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.56.

Bjerregaard & Smith,

1993

H2. Parental

Supervision—

Seattle Social

Development

Project; 8 items

Measures students’

perceptions of what rules

their parents have

established and how

closely their parents

monitor those rules.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

.83.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

I. Quality of Life I1. Stressful Urban

Life Events Scale; 15

items

Measures stressful life

events experienced in the

past year (e.g., poor

grades, family illness or

death, robbery).

Elementary school

students, grades 2-5.

Internal consistency:

Stress due to negative

life events .55; Stress

due to neighborhood

violence .61 (Tolan &

Gorman-Smith,

1991).

Tolan, Miller &

Thomas, 1988

Adapted by Attar,

Guerra & Tolan, 1994
IV. Environmental Assessments 279

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

I. Quality of Life

(Continued)

I2. Stressful Life

Events—Rochester

Youth Development

Study; 18 items

Measures number of

stressful life events

experienced in the past 30

days, such as the death of

someone close to them, a

family member getting in

trouble with the law, or

getting a new

boyfriend/girlfriend.

Youths initially in

grades 7-8 in 1988,

and followed into

adulthood. Parents of

the youths.

Not available. Stern & Smith, 1995

(Parent Version)

Thornberry, Krohn,

Lizotte, Smith &

Tobin, 2003 (Youth

Version)

J. Collective

Efficacy

J1. Collective

Efficacy—Chicago

Neighborhood

Study; 10 items

Measures informal social

control, willingness to

intervene, and social

cohesion in a

neighborhood.

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.80 to .91.

Sampson,

Raudenbush & Earls,

1997

K. Community

Involvement

K1. Community

Involvement—

Chicago Youth

Development Study;

4 items

Measures the extent to

which children and their

caregivers are comfortable

and engaged in their

neighborhoods.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth involvement

.49; Caregiver

involvement .62.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2001

K2. Community

Involvement—

Seattle Social

Development

Project; 9 items

Measures students’

perceptions of the

opportunities and rewards

for prosocial activities in

their communities.

Students aged 11-18. Internal consistency:

Opportunities .78;

Rewards .85.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

L. Community

Resources

L1. Community

Resources in

Neighborhood—

Chicago Youth

Development Study;

13 items

Measures availability and

use of resources in the

community (e.g., relatives,

grocery stores, clinics,

public transportation).

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth resources .58;

Caregiver resources

.74.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2001

M. Exposure to

Violence

M1. Children’s

Exposure to

Community

Violence; 12 items

Measures frequency of

exposure (through sight

and sound) to violence in

one’s home and

neighborhood.

African-American

males aged 12-16.

Internal consistency:

.84.

Richters & Martinez,

1990

M2. Victimization

Scale; 135 items

Measures exposure to

violence and victimization

in one’s home, school,

and neighborhood.

Middle school

students, grades 6-8.

Not available. Nadel, Spellmann,

Alvarez-Canino,

Lausell-Bryant &

Landsberg, 1991

N. Fear of Crime N1. Fear of Crime—

Chicago Youth

Development Study;

13 items

Measures fear of being the

victim of a violent crime in

the home and/or

neighborhood, the impact

of such fear, and steps

taken to protect oneself

from crime.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency:

Fear of crime .86;

Measures taken to

cope with fear of

crime .77.

Gorman-Smith, Tolan

& Henry, 2000
280 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

O. Neighborhood

Cohesion

O1. Neighborhood

Cohesion; 8 items

Measures the extent to

which residents feel a

sense of belonging in the

neighborhood and share

the same values as their

neighbors.

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.68

Perkins, Florin &

Rich, 1990

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

P. Neighborhood

Disorganization

P1. Neighborhood

Disorganization—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

17 items

Measures the parent’s

perception of crime,

dilapidation, and

disorganization in his/her

neighborhood.

Parents of youths

initially in grades 7-8

in 1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.95.

Thornberry, Krohn,

Lizotte, Smith, &

Tobin, 2003

P2. Neighborhood

Disorganization—

Seattle Social

Development

Project; 5 items

Measures students’

perception of crime,

fighting, physical

deterioration, and safety in

their communities.

Students aged 11-18 Internal consistency:

.79.

Arthur, Hawkins,

Pollard, Catalano &

Baglioni, 2002

P3. Perceived

Community

Problems—Chicago

Youth Development

Study; 14 items

Measures the extent to

which youth and their

caregivers feel certain

negative qualities are

problems in their

communities (e.g., unkept

front yards, vacant lots,

noise, vandalism).

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth perceptions

.78; Caregiver

perceptions .84.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2001

P4. Neighborhood/

Block Conditions; 13

items

Measures residents’

perceptions of

neighborhood conditions

(e.g., severity of

problems, sense of

safety).

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.90.

Perkins, Florin &

Rich, 1990

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

Q. Neighborhood

Integration and

Exchange

Q1. Neighborhood

Integration—

Rochester Youth

Development Study;

7 items

Measures the extent to

which neighbors are

familiar with one another

and interact on a routine

basis.

Parents of youths

initially in grades 7-8

in 1988, and followed

into adulthood.

Internal consistency:

.85.

Thornberry, Krohn,

Lizotte, Smith &

Tobin, 2003

Q2. Sense of

Belonging—Chicago

Youth Development

Study; 6 items

Measures the extent to

which youth and their

caregivers feel a sense of

loyalty and identity to their

neighbors.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth belonging .52;

Caregiver belonging

.76.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2001

Q3. Reciprocated

Exchange—Chicago

Neighborhood

Study; 5 items

Measures the relative

frequency of social

exchange within the

neighborhood on issues

of consequence for

children.

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.65.

Sampson, Morenoff

& Earls, 1999
IV. Environmental Assessments 281

IV. Environmental Assessments

DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES

Construct Scale/Assessment Characteristics Target Groups Reliability/Validity Developer

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

Q. Neighborhood

Integration and

Exchange

(Continued)

Q4. Community

Support—Chicago

Youth Development

Study; 6 items

Measures the extent to

which youth and their

caregivers feel

comfortable with people in

their neighborhoods, ask

their advice, and interact

with them.

Youths initially in

grades 6 and 8 in

1990, and followed

into adulthood.

Primary caregivers of

the youths.

Internal consistency:

Youth support .61;

Caregiver support

.80.

Tolan, Gorman-Smith

& Henry, 2001

Q5. Intergenerational

Connections—

Chicago

Neighborhood

Study; 5 items

Measures

intergenerational

connections and active

support of neighborhood

children by parents and

other adults.

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.74.

Sampson, Morenoff

& Earls, 1999

R. Neighborhood

Satisfaction

R1. Neighborhood

Satisfaction; 4 items

Measures residents’

attitudes toward their

neighborhood (e.g., good

place to live).

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.70.

Perkins, Florin &

Rich, 1990

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

S. Social Control S1. Neighborhood

Action/Willingness to

Intervene; 6 items

Measures perceived

likelihood that someone

will intervene when

presented with a problem

in the neighborhood (e.g.,

break up a fight, stop drug

selling).

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.71.

Perkins, Florin &

Rich, 1990

Adapted by Houston

Community

Demonstration Project,

1993

S2. Social Control of

Children—Chicago

Neighborhood

Study; 3 items

Measures general aspects

of social cohesion and

neighborhood control in

situations involving

children.

Urban residents,

aged 18 and older.

Internal consistency:

.72.

Sampson, Morenoff

& Earls, 1999
282 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

SCALES AND ASSESSMENTS

A1. Authoritative Parenting Index

We asked other kids what THEIR mothers are like. Listed on this page is what these other kids said. Now we

want to know what YOUR mother is like. Put an X to show if what the other kids said is Just like, A lot like,

Sort of like, or NOT like your mother or step-mother.

Just like A lot like Sort of like Not like

Responsiveness

1. She is always telling me what to do. 4321

2. She makes rules without asking what I think. 4321

3. She makes me feel better when I am upset. 4321

4. She is too busy to talk to me. 4321

5. She listens to what I have to say. 4321

6. She likes me just the way I am. 4321

7. She tells me when I do a good job on things. 4321

8. She wants to hear about my problem. 4321

9. She is pleased with how I behave. 4321

Demandingness

1. She has rules that I must follow. 4321

2. She tells me times when I must come home. 4321

3. She makes sure I tell her where I am going. 4321

This index measures children’s perception of their parents’ authoritative behavior on two dimensions:

responsiveness and demandingness. Items measuring indicators of parental warmth, acceptance,

involvement, and intrusiveness comprise the responsive dimension. The demanding dimension includes

items measuring indicators of parental supervision, assertive control, monitoring, and permissiveness.
IV. Environmental Assessments 283

IV. Environmental Assessments

Just like A lot like Sort of like Not like

4. She makes sure I go to bed on time. 4321

5. She asks me what I do with friends. 4321

6. She knows where I am after school. 4321

7. She checks to see if I do my homework. 4321

Note. Students who do not live with their mother or father are asked to answer the questions for their

grandmother, aunt or other adult with whom they live. When used with younger children (grades 3-5), an

oversized mock up of the scale is used to show children how to mark their choice. When used with

adolescents, “kids” is replaced with “students” in the instructions.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items for Responsiveness should be reverse coded. Point values

for all items are summed. Intended range is 16 to 64, with high scores indicating a high level of authoritative

parenting behavior.
284 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

A2. Consistency of Discipline—Rochester Youth Development Study

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

Parent Items

1. How often do you give up when you ask your child 4321

to do something and he/she doesn’t do it?

2. How often does your child get away with things? 4321

3. When your child is punished, how often does the 4321

punishment work?

4. How often do you feel that you can correct your 4321

children’s behavior?

5. Once a punishment has been decided, how often 4321

can your child get out of it?

6. How often do you have to ask your child to do the 4321

same thing more than once?

7. How often does your child get punished sometimes, 4321

but not other times, for doing the same thing?

Youth Items

1. Once your parent decides a punishment, how often 4321

can you get out of it?

2. How often do you get away with things? 4321

3. How often do you get punished sometimes, 4321

but not other times, for doing the same thing?

These items measure the extent to which a parent maintains consistent consequences and follows

through with them. Corresponding items for youth measure the extent to which the youth feels that the

parent maintains consistent consequences and follows through with them.
IV. Environmental Assessments 285

IV. Environmental Assessments

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

4. How often does your parent have to ask you to do the 4321

same thing more than once?

5. When you get punished, how much does the kind of punishment you get depend on your parent’s mood?

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5

Totally Mostly About half on mood Mostly on Totally on

on mood on mood half on your behavior your behavior your behavior

Scoring and Analysis

Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are summed and then divided by the total

number of items (7 for parent; 5 for youth). Intended range of scores is between 1 and 4 (parent), and 1 and

4.2 (youth). Higher scores indicate a greater frequency of positive parenting.
286 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

A3. Positive Parenting Practices—Rochester Youth Development Study

Parent Items

When your child has done something that you like or approve of, how often do you ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. Say something nice about it or praise your child for it? 1234

2. Give your child something like a hug, kiss, or pat on the 1234

back for it?

3. Give your child some reward for it, like a present, 1234

money, or food?

4. Give your child a special privilege, like staying up 1234

late or a special activity?

5. Go someplace or do something special with your 1234

child as a reward?

Youth Items

When you have done something that your parent likes or approves of, how often does she/does he ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. Say something nice about it or praise you for it? 1234

2. Give you something like a hug, kiss, or pat on the 1234

back for it?

3. Give you some reward for it, like a present, money, 1234

or food?

These items measure the frequency with which parents reward the child’s good behavior with

praising, hugging, or similar responses. Corresponding items measure the youth’s report of the frequency

with which parents reward the child’s good behavior with praising, hugging, or similar responses.
IV. Environmental Assessments 287

IV. Environmental Assessments

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

4. Give you a special privilege, like staying up late or 1234

a special activity?

5. Go someplace or do something special with you as 1234

a reward?

Scoring and Analysis

Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values

are summed and then divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score

indicating a greater frequency of positive parenting.
288 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

A4. Positive Parenting Practices—Chicago Youth Development Study

Parent Items

In the past 12 months, when your youth did something that you liked or approved of, how often did you ...

Almost Almost

never Sometimes always

1. Give him a wink or a smile? 1 3 5

2. Say something nice about it; praise or approval? 1 3 5

3. Give him a hug, pat on the back, or kiss for it? 1 3 5

4. Give him some reward for it, like a present, extra money, 1 3 5

or something special to eat?

5. Give him some special privilege such as staying up late, 1 3 5

watching TV, or doing some special activity?

6. Do something special together, such as going to the movies, 1 3 5

playing a game, or going somewhere special?

Youth Items

When you have done something that your parents like or approve of, how often does your caregiver ...

Almost Almost

never Sometimes always

1. Give you a wink or smile? 1 3 5

2. Say something nice about it; praise or approval? 1 3 5

3. Give you a hug, pat on the back, or kiss for it? 1 3 5

These items measure the frequency of parental rewards (e.g., winking, verbal praise, hugs, and special

privileges) for good behavior. Comparable items are administered to youth.
IV. Environmental Assessments 289

IV. Environmental Assessments

Almost Almost

never Sometimes always

4. Give you some reward for it, like a present, extra 1 3 5

money or something special to eat?

5. Give you some special privilege such as staying up late, 1 3 5

watching TV, or doing some special activity?

6. Do something special together, such as going to the movies, 1 3 5

playing a game, or going somewhere special?

Scoring and Analysis

Parent and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values

are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Intended range is 1-5, with higher scores

indicating a greater sense of positive parenting.
290 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

B1. Reactivity in Family Communication

Almost

Never Rarely Sometimes Often always

1. Family members jump to conclusions 1 2 3 4 5

when we talk.

2. I know what other members of my family 1 2 3 4 5

will say before they finish saying it.

3. We interrupt one another when we talk 1 2 3 4 5

or argue.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the total number

of items. Intended range is 1-5, with higher scores indicating greater reactivity in family communication.

Emotional reactivity is the tendency for emotional states to be contagious among family members. In

reactive families, multiple family members will become emotionally aroused if a single family member is

upset. These items measure this characteristic of families.
IV. Environmental Assessments 291

IV. Environmental Assessments

C1. Family Conflict and Hostility—Rochester Youth Development Study

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. How often has there been quarreling or arguing 1234

in your household?

2. How often do family members lose their temper 1234

or blow up for no good reason?

3. How often have there been physical fights in the 1234

household, like people hitting, shoving, throwing

objects at each others, threatening with a weapon,

and so forth?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the total number

of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of hostility and

conflict within the family.

These items measure the extent to which the parent reports a climate of hostility and conflict within

the family. Respondents are asked to indicate how often hostile situations have occurred in their families

in the past 30 days, not including their children’s fights with each other.
292 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

D1. Family Relationship Characteristics

Strongly Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree agree

1. Family togetherness is very important. 1234

2. Kids should value a close relationship with their family 1234

and not have to be asked to spend time at home.

3. No matter what, family members should stick together. 1234

4. Family members should be able to speak their minds 1234

with one another.

5. Parents should teach their children what they need 1234

to know to make it in the world.

6. Children should always talk to their parents with respect. 1234

7. Kids should obey their parents even when they don’t 1234

agree with them.

8. Parents should expect kids my age (kid’s ______age) 1234

to do some work around the house.

9. Kids my age (kid’s _____age) should call home if 1234

they think they might be late.

10. Kids my age (kid’s _____age) should clean up for 1234

themselves without having to be told.

11. It’s O. K. to lie to someone if it will keep you out of 1234

trouble with them.

12. It’s O. K. to steal something from someone who is 1234

rich and can easily replace it.

This assessment measures four aspects of family relationship characteristics thought to distinguish risk

for serious antisocial behavior: cohesion, beliefs about family, structure, and deviant beliefs. Youth and

their parents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with various statements about their family.
IV. Environmental Assessments 293

IV. Environmental Assessments

Strongly Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree agree

13. It’s O. K. to skip school every once in awhile. 1234

14. It’s O. K. to fight if the other guy says bad enough 1234

things about you or your family.

Almost 

Not at Hardly True always or 

all true true a lot always true

15. My family knows what I mean when I say something. 1234

16. My family and I have the same views about what is right 1234

and wrong.

17. I am able to let others in the family know how I 1234

really feel.

18. My family and I have the same views about 1234

being successful.

19. I’m available when others in the family want to 1234

talk to me.

20. I listen to what other family members have to 1234

say, even when I disagree.

21. Family members ask each other for help. 1234

22. Family members like to spend free time with each other. 1234

23. Family members feel very close to each other. 1234

24. We can easily think of things to do together as a family. 1234

25. Family members attend church, synagogue, Sunday 1234

school, or other religious activities fairly often. 

26. We often talk about the religious meaning of Christmas, 1234

Passover, or other holidays.
294 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Almost 

Not at Hardly True always or 

all true true a lot always true

27. My family expects too much of me. 1234

28. My family doesn’t care about me. 1234

29. I often don’t understand what other family members are 1234

saying.

30. If someone in the family has upset me, I keep it to myself. 1234

31. I have trouble accepting someone else’s answer to a 1234

family problem.

32. My family doesn’t let me be myself. 1234

33. I am tired of being blamed for family problems. 1234

34. The children make the decisions in our family. 1234

35. It is hard to identify the leaders in our family. 1234

36. It is hard to tell who does which household chores. 1234

37. I sometimes get headaches or other aches and pains 1234

after I fight with my family.

38. I sometimes use feeling sick to get out of doing something. 1234

For Parent Version: In addition to the preceding items, the following item is added.

Strongly Strongly

disagree Disagree Agree agree

39. When you feel someone is out to get you, it’s better to 1234

get them first.
IV. Environmental Assessments 295

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

This measure includes four subscales assessing aspects of family relationships, including structure, cohesion,

beliefs about family, and deviant beliefs. All subscales are scored by computing means scores of the items

listed.

Cohesion: Includes items 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. A maximum score of 4 indicates

more cohesion among family members.

Beliefs about Family: Includes items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. A maximum score of 4 indicates more

positive beliefs about the family.

Structure: Includes items 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. A maximum score of 4 indicates

more family structure.

Deviant Beliefs: Includes items 11, 12, 13 and 14 (and item 39 for Parent version). A maximum score of 4

indicates greater sense of deviant beliefs.
296 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

E1. Parental-Child Attachment—Rochester Youth Development Study

Parent Items

How often would you say that ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. You get along well with your child? 4321

2. You feel that you can really trust your child? 4321

3. You just do not understand your child? 4321

4. Your child is too demanding? 4321

5. You really enjoy your child? 4321

6. Your child interferes with your activities? 4321

7. You think your child is terrific? 4321

8. You feel very angry toward your child? 4321

9. You feel violent toward your child? 4321

10. You feel proud of your child? 4321

11. You wish your child was more like others that 4321

you know?

These items measure the degree of warmth and lack of hostility in the parent-child relationship.

Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which each statement is true for them.
IV. Environmental Assessments 297

IV. Environmental Assessments

Youth Items

How often would you say that ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. You get along well with your parent? 4321

2. You feel that you can really trust your parent? 4321

3. Your parent does not understand you? 4321

4. Your parent is too demanding? 4321

5. You really enjoy your parent? 4321

6. You have a lot of respect for your parent? 4321

7. Your parent interferes with your activities? 4321

8. You think your parent is terrific? 4321

9. You feel very angry toward your parent? 4321

10. You feel violent toward your parent? 4321

11. You feel proud of your parent? 4321

Scoring and Analysis

Parent and youth items are scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Youth items 3, 4,

7, 9 and 10 are reverse coded; parent items 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11 are reverse coded. Point values are summed

and then divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a

higher level of attachment.
298 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

E2. Attachment to Parents—Seattle Social Development Project

1. Do you feel very close to your mother? NO! no yes YES!

2. Do you share your thoughts and feelings NO! no yes YES!

with your mother?

3. Do you feel very close to your father? NO! no yes YES!

4. Do you share your thoughts and feelings NO! no yes YES!

with your father?

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1-4 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

Point values for all items are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of parental attachment.

These items measure students’ perceptions of how close they feel to their fathers and mothers, and

whether they share their thoughts and feelings with their parents. Respondents are asked to indicate how

strongly they feel each sentence is true for them. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for

them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
IV. Environmental Assessments 299

IV. Environmental Assessments

E3. Family Bonding—Individual Protective Factors Index

1. I can tell my parents the way I feel about things. YES! yes no NO!

2. My family expects too much of me. YES! yes no NO!

3. Sometimes I am ashamed of my parents. YES! yes no NO!

4. My family has let me down. YES! yes no NO!

5. I like to do things with my family. YES! yes no NO!

6. I enjoy talking with my family. YES! yes no NO!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 5 and 6 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

All other items are reverse coded. Point values for all items are added. Blank items are excluded, with the

scale score adjusted for the number of items completed when two or few items are blank. The maximum

obtainable score of 24 indicates a strong family bond. A minimum score of 6 indicates a weak family bond.

These items measure family bonding and communication. Respondents are asked to indicate how

strongly they feel each sentence is true for them. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for

them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
300 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

F1. Parental Attitudes Toward Discipline—

Chicago Youth Development Study

Almost 

never Sometimes Often

Avoidance of Discipline

1. Do you hesitate to enforce the rules with your child because 1 3 5

you fear he might then harm someone in your household?

2. Do you feel that you must be careful not to upset your child? 1 3 5

3. Do you feel that other family members must be careful not 1 3 5

to upset your child?

4. Do you feel that it is more trouble than it is worth to ask your 1 3 5

child to help you?

5. Do you think that your child will take it out on other children 1 3 5

if you try to make him obey you?

6. Do you leave your child alone because of his moodiness? 1 3 5

7. Do you think that your child will try to get back at you if 1 3 5

you try to make him obey you?

Discipline Effectiveness

8. If you punish your child, does his behavior get worse? 1 3 5

9. When you are by yourself, do you have much difficulty 1 3 5

controlling your child?

10. When other adults are present, do you have much 1 3 5

difficulty controlling your child?

These items measure two aspects of parental attitudes toward discipline. The first set of items assess

the extent to which a parent disengages or avoids providing consequences for a child’s behavior

(Avoidance of Discipline). The second set of items assess a parent’s perception of how effective their

discipline is in controlling the child’s behavior (Discipline Effectiveness).
IV. Environmental Assessments 301

IV. Environmental Assessments

Not Half of the

really time Usually

11. If your child is punished, does the punishment work? 1 3 5

12. Is the discipline you use effective for your child? 1 3 5

Scoring and Analysis

Avoidance of Discipline: Reverse code items 1-7 and then compute a mean score.

Discipline Effectiveness: Reverse code items 8-10 and then compute a mean score of items 8-12.
302 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

F2. Parental Attitudes Toward Drug Use—

Seattle Social Development Project

How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to ...

1. Drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

2. Smoke cigarettes? 

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

3. Smoke marijuana?

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very wrong = 4

Wrong = 3

A little bit wrong = 2

Not wrong at all = 1

Point values should be summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate

greater parental concern about drug use.

These items measure youths’ perceptions of their parents attitudes about drinking and smoking.

Respondents are asked to indicate how wrong their parents feel certain behaviors are for them.
IV. Environmental Assessments 303

IV. Environmental Assessments

F3. Parental Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior—

Seattle Social Development Project

How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to ...

1. Steal anything worth more than $5?

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

2. Draw graffiti, or write things or draw pictures on buildings or other property 

(without the owner’s permission)?

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

3. Pick a fight with someone?

■ Very wrong ■ Wrong ■ A little bit wrong ■ Not wrong at all

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very wrong = 4

Wrong = 3

A little bit wrong = 2

Not wrong at all = 1

Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate greater

parental concern about antisocial behavior

These items measure youths’ perceptions of how their parents would feel if they stole, drew graffiti or

picked a fight with someone. Respondents are asked to indicate how wrong their parents feel certain

behaviors are for them.
304 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

F4. Parental Attitudes Toward Use of Aggression

For each item, decide whether you agree or disagree, then choose a number between 1 and 7 using the

following scale.

1. I let my child watch adventure television shows that have killing and violence in them.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

2. If my child were teased by other kids at school, I would want my child to defend himself/herself even if it

meant hitting another child.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

3. When my child does something wrong, talking about it with him/her helps more than spanking.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

4. If my child gets into a fight with another child, I won’t try to stop it because my child has to show that

she/he can defend herself/himself.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

5. It is important to keep a gun at home to protect the family.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

6. Sometimes a physical fight might help my child have a better relationship with other children.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

These items measure a mother’s values regarding the use of aggression to solve problems. Mothers

are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with ten statements.
IV. Environmental Assessments 305

IV. Environmental Assessments

7. It would bother me if my child saw one adult hit another in real life.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

8. If I found out my child hit another child, I would be very disappointed, no matter what the reason.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

9. I wouldn’t mind if my child got a reputation as the “toughest” kid in school.

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

10. I believe that television violence has a bad effect on children. 

■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 6 ■ 7

Definitely Neutral Definitely

disagree agree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items 3, 7, 8 and 10 are reverse coded. Point values are summed

and then divided by the number of items for each respondent. Higher scores indicate a greater acceptance of

using aggression for problem solving.
306 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

F5. Parental Support for Fighting

Does your parent tell you these things about fighting?

Yes No

Aggressive Solutions

1. If someone hits you, hit them back. 0 1

2. If someone calls you names, hit them. 0 1

3. If someone calls you names, call them names back. 0 1

4. If someone asks you to fight, hit them first. 0 1

5. If you can’t solve the problem by talking, it is best to solve it through fighting. 0 1

Non-Aggressive Solutions

6. If someone calls you names, ignore them. 0 1

7. If someone asks you to fight, you should try to talk your way 0 1

out of a fight.

8. You should think the problem through, calm yourself, and 0 1

then talk the problem out with your friend.

9. If another student asks you to fight, you should tell a teacher or someone older. 0 1

10. No matter what, fighting is not good; there are other ways to solve problems. 0 1

These items measure a student’s perception of his or her parent’s support for aggressive and nonaggressive solutions as means of resolving conflicts. Students are asked to respond “yes” or “no” to each

item based on what their parents tell them about fighting.
IV. Environmental Assessments 307

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items in each subscale. Intended range is between 0 and 1.

Aggressive Solutions: High values indicate the perception of strong parental support for aggression or fighting

in response to conflict.

Non-Aggressive Solutions: High scores indicate the perception of strong parental support for peaceful

solutions to conflict.
308 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

G1. Parental Involvement in School

Parent Involvement with Child’s Schoolwork

1. How often do you check your child’s homework?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

2. How often do you ask your child what he/she did at school?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

3. How often do you go over graded papers with your child?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

4. How often do you talk with your child about his/her schoolwork?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

5. How often do you talk with your child about how she/he behaves at school?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

6. How often do you talk with your child about doing his/her best at school?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

7. How often do you ask or talk with your child about one of his/her teachers at school?

■ Never ■ Once a month ■ Once a week ■ Several times a week ■ Every day

Parent Involvement with Teacher/School

8. How often do you talk with one of your child’s teachers?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

9. How often do you attend functions in the school like open house, fund-raisers, PTA meetings, and the like?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

10. How often do you volunteer to help at a school-related function like a field trip, athletic game, or other

event?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

These items assess parental involvement with the child’s schoolwork, teacher and school activities, as

well as teacher involvement with the parent. Ratings are made on different types of school activities,

including homework, communication with teachers, and attendance at school events. Respondents can be

either the child or his/her parent.
IV. Environmental Assessments 309

IV. Environmental Assessments

11. How often to you attend parent-teacher conferences when they are scheduled by your child’s school?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

12. How often do you contact your child’s school to request a meeting with a teacher or school official to

discuss your child’s behavior?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

13. How often do you call a teacher on the telephone or write a note to the teacher concerning your child’s

schoolwork?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

Teacher Involvement with Parent

14. How often does your child’s teacher contact you to request a meeting to discuss your child’s behavior?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

15. How often does the teacher provide information to you on how your child is performing in school?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

16. How often does the teacher provide information to you in advance on upcoming assignments, projects, or

events for your child at school?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

17. How often does the teacher or school provide information to you on how your child is behaving in

school?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often

18. How often does the teacher provide information on your child’s accomplishments at school?

■ Never ■ Hardly ever ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ Very often
310 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Items 1-7:

Never = 0

Once a month = 1

Once a week = 2

Several times a week = 3

Every day = 4

Items 8-18:

Never = 0

Hardly ever = 1

Sometimes = 2

Often = 3

Very often = 4

This measure has three subscales, with the score of each calculated by summing the responses and then

dividing by the total number of items in each subscale.

Parent Involvement with Child’s Schoolwork: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Parent Involvement with Teacher/School: Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Teacher Involvement with Parent: Items 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
IV. Environmental Assessments 311

IV. Environmental Assessments

G2. Parental Involvement—Rochester Youth Development Study

How often ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. Are you too busy or unavailable to do things 4321

with your child?

2. Does your child do things with other members 4321

of the family?

3. Do you play sports or games with your child? 4321

4. Does your child help with important decisions? 4321

5. Do you go with your child to the movies or some 4321

special event?

Sometimes parents take part in activities with their children by attending meetings or events, driving their

children, or being a coach. How involved are you in this activity with your children?

Very Somewhat A little Not at all

involved involved involved involved

6. Organized sports clubs or teams outside of school 4321

7. School sports 4321

8. School activities like clubs or special events 4321

9. Church or religious activities 4321

10. Other organized groups like the “Y” or like the 4321

Boys and Girls Club 

11. Organized musical or singing groups, including in 4321

school

These items measure how often parents report being involved with their child in a range of prosocial

activities. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they engage in certain behaviors with their children.
312 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above, with item 1 reverse coded. Point values are summed and then

divided by the number of items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher

level of parental involvement.
IV. Environmental Assessments 313

IV. Environmental Assessments

G3. Parental Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study

Caregiver Items

More than Within Within

Don’t 1 month last last Yesterday/

know ago month week today

1. When was the last time that you talked with your 12345

youth about their plans for the coming day?

2. When was the last time that you talked with your 12345

youth about what he had actually done during the day?

Less than At least At least

Don’t once a once a once a Almost

know month month week every day

3. In the past 12 months, about how often have you 12345

discussed with your youth his plans for the 

coming day?

4. In the past 12 months, about how often have 12345

you talked with your youth about what he had

actually done during the day?

Hardly

ever Sometimes Often

5. Does your youth help with family fun activities? 1 3 5

6. Does your youth like to get involved in family activities? 1 3 5

7. How often do you have time to listen to your youth, 1 3 5

when he wants to talk to you?

8. Do you and your youth do things together at home? 1 3 5

These items measure the extent to which the parent is involved in the child’s life. Respondents are

asked to indicate how often they engage in certain interactions with their children and how often the child

is involved in family activities. With minor modifications, youth can also complete this assessment.
314 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Hardly

ever Sometimes Often

9. Does your youth go with members of the family 1 3 5

to movies, sports events or other outings?

10. How often do you have a friendly talk with your youth? 1 3 5

11. Does your youth help you with chores, errands 1 3 5

and/or other work?

12. How often do you talk with your youth about how he 1 3 5

is doing in school?

Youth Items

More than Within Within

Don’t 1 month last last Yesterday/

know ago month week today

1. When was the last time that you talked with 12345

your caregiver about what you were going

to do for the coming day?

2. When was the last time that you talked with 12345

your caregiver about what you had actually

done during the day?

Less than At least At least

Don’t once a once a once a Almost

know month month week every day

3. How often does your caregiver talk to you 12345

about what you were going to do for the coming day?

4. In the past 12 months, how often has your 12345

caregiver talked with you about what you

had actually done during the day?
IV. Environmental Assessments 315

IV. Environmental Assessments

Hardly

ever Sometimes Often

5. Do you help with family fun activities? 1 3 5

6. Do you like to get involved in family activities? 1 3 5

7. How often does your caregiver have time to listen to you 1 3 5

when you want to talk with one of them?

8. How often do you and your caregiver do things together 1 3 5

at home?

9. How often do you go with members of the family to 1 3 5

movies, sports events, or other outings?

10. How often do you have a friendly talk with your caregiver? 1 3 5

11. How often do you help with chores, errands and/or other 1 3 5

work around the house?

12. How often does your caregiver talk with you about how 1 3 5

you are doing in school?

Scoring and Analysis

Caregiver and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point

values are summed and then divided by the total number of times. Higher scores indicate greater levels of

parental monitoring and involvement.
316 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

G4. Prosocial Parental Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project

Opportunities

1. My parents give me lots of chances to do fun NO! no yes YES!

things with them.

2. My parents ask me what I think before most NO! no yes YES!

family decisions affecting me are made.

3. If I had a personal problem, I could ask my mom NO! no yes YES!

or dad for help.

Rewards

4. My parents notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it.

■ Never or almost never ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ All the time

5. How often do your parents tell you they’re proud of you for something you’ve done?

■ Never or almost never ■ Sometimes ■ Often ■ All the time

6. Do you enjoy spending time with your mother? NO! no yes YES!

7. Do you enjoy spending time with your father? NO! no yes YES!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1-3, 6 and 7 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

These items measure students’ perceptions of the opportunities and rewards offered by and experienced

with their parents. Respondents are asked to indicate how much they agree or disagree with seven

statements about their relationship with their mother or father. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very

true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
IV. Environmental Assessments 317

IV. Environmental Assessments

Items 4 and 5 are scored as follows:

All the time = 4

Often = 3

Sometimes = 2

Never or almost never = 1

Point values for all items are added, with a possible total score ranging from 7-28. Higher scores indicate

stronger prosocial parental involvement.
318 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

H1. Parental Supervision—Rochester Youth Development Study

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

1. In the course of a day, how often does your parent 4321

know where you are?

2. How often would your parent know who you are 4321

with when you are away from home?

Very Not very Not at all

important Important important important

3. How important is it to your parent to know who 4321

your friends are?

4. How important is it to your parent to know where 4321

you are?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of parental

supervision.

These items measure the extent to which the youth feels that his parents are aware of his or her

whereabouts, friends and activities.
IV. Environmental Assessments 319

IV. Environmental Assessments

H2. Parental Supervision—Seattle Social Development Project

1. My parents ask if I’ve gotten my homework done. NO! no yes YES!

2. Would your parents know if you did not come NO! no yes YES!

home on time?

3. When I am not at home, one of my parents knows NO! no yes YES!

where I am and who I am with.

4. The rules in my family are clear. NO! no yes YES!

5. My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use. NO! no yes YES!

6. If you drank some beer or wine or liquor (for example, NO! no yes YES!

vodka, whiskey, or gin) without your parents’

permission, would you be caught by your parents?

7. If you skipped school would you be caught by your NO! no yes YES!

parents?

8. If you carried a handgun without your parents’ NO! no yes YES!

permission, would you be caught by your parents?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

Point values for all items are added, with scores ranging from 8-32. Higher scores indicate higher levels

of positive parental supervision.

These items measure students’ perceptions of what rules their parents have established and how

closely their parents monitor those rules. Respondents are asked to indicated the extent to which they

agree or disagree with statements describing their parents supervisory standards and behavior. A “YES!”

is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is somewhat false;

and “NO!” if it is very false.
320 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

I1. Stressful Urban Life Events Scale

1. During the last year, did you get poor grades on your report card? Yes No

2. During the last year, have you gotten into trouble with a teacher or Yes No

principal at school?

3. During the last year, did you get suspended from school? Yes No

4. During the last year, did your family move to a new home or apartment? Yes No

5. During the last year, has your family had a new baby come into the family? Yes No

6. During the last year, has anyone moved out of your home? Yes No

7. During the last year, did a family member die? Yes No

8. During the last year, did another close relative or friend die? Yes No

9. During the last year, has a family member become seriously ill, injured badly, Yes No

and/or had to stay at the hospital?

10. During the last year, has someone else you know, other than a member of Yes No

your family, gotten beaten, attacked or really hurt by others?

11. During the last year, have you seen anyone beaten, shot or really hurt by someone? Yes No

12. In the past year, did you change where you went to school? Yes No

13. During the last year, have you seen or been around people shooting guns? Yes No

14. During the last year, have you been afraid to go outside and play, or have your Yes No

parents made you stay inside because of gangs or drugs in your neighborhood?

15. During the last year, have you had to hide someplace because of shootings in Yes No

your neighborhood?

These items measure stressful life events. Respondents are asked to indicate if they have experienced

a traumatic event (e.g., moved to a new home, been robbed, lost a family member or close friend) in the

past year
IV. Environmental Assessments 321

IV. Environmental Assessments

(This scale originally had 23 items, but 8 were dropped in the adaptation by Attar, et al., 1994. )

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows: Yes = 1; No = 0. This measure has five subscales, with the score of each

subscale calculated by summing the responses to the items and dividing by the total number of items. The

five subscales are:

Hassles: Includes items 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15. A higher score indicates greater exposure to daily life hassles

during the past year.

Life Transitions: Includes items 4, 5, 6 and 12. A higher score indicates greater exposure to life transitions

during the past year.

Circumscribed Events: Includes items 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. A higher score indicates greater exposure to

discrete stressful events during the past year.

Violence: Includes items 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15. A higher score indicates greater exposure to violence during

the past year.

School Problems: Includes items 1, 2 and 3. A higher score indicates greater experience with school problems

during the past year.
322 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

I2. Stressful Life Events—Rochester Youth Development Study

Parent Items

In the past 30 days ...

1. Did you get married? Yes No

2. Did you get divorced or separated? Yes No

3. Did you get back together with a spouse or partner? Yes No

4. Has anyone in your family had a serious accident or illness? Yes No

5. Has anyone in your family abused alcohol, including you? Yes No

6. Has anyone in your family abused other drugs, including you? Yes No

7. Has anyone in your family been laid off temporarily from his or her job? Yes No

8. Has anyone in your family lost their job permanently? Yes No

9. Has your child been placed in foster care or in the care of others? Yes No

10. Did anyone in your family or a close friend die? Yes No

Youth Items

In the past 30 days ...

1. Did you fail a course at school? Yes No

2. Did you get suspended or expelled from school? Yes No

3. Did you break up with your boyfriend/girlfriend? Yes No

4. Did you have a big fight or problem with a friend? Yes No

These items measure stressful life events experienced in the last 30 days, such as the death of

someone close, a family member getting in trouble with the law, or getting a new boyfriend/girlfriend.
IV. Environmental Assessments 323

IV. Environmental Assessments

5. Did anyone you were close to die in the past 30 days? Yes No

6. Have you had a major illness or were you hospitalized? Yes No

7. Did you get a new boyfriend/girlfriend? Yes No

8. Did you start hanging around with a new group of friends? Yes No

Scoring and Analysis

Parents and youth items should be scored separately. Point values are assigned as follows:

Yes = 2

No = 1

Point values for all responses are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of stress in the parent or

child’s life.
324 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

J1. Collective Efficacy—Chicago Neighborhood Study

Social Control

1. If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely

is it that your neighbors would do something about it?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

2. If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that your neighbors

would do something about it?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

3. If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it

that your neighbors would break it up?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

4. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighborhood would

scold that child?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

5. Suppose that because of budget cuts the fire station closest to your home was going to be closed down by

the city. How likely is it that neighborhood residents would organize to try to do something to keep the

fire station open?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

Social Cohesion

6. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

These items measure informal social control, willingness to intervene, and social cohesion in a

neighborhood. Residents are asked about the likelihood that their neighbors can be counted on to

intervene in various situations and the level of trust they feel for their neighbors.
IV. Environmental Assessments 325

IV. Environmental Assessments

7. This is a close-knit neighborhood.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

8. People in this neighborhood can be trusted.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

9. People in this neighborhood generally don’t get along with each other.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

10. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Social Control

Very likely = 5

Likely = 4

Neither likely nor unlikely = 3

Unlikely = 2

Very unlikely = 1

Social Cohesion

Strongly agree = 5

Agree = 4

Neither agree nor disagree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Items 9 and 10 are reverse coded. Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 10-50,

with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived collective efficacy in a neighborhood.
326 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

K1. Community Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree

1. I regularly stop and talk with people in my 12345

neighborhood.

2. I know most of the names of people on my block. 12345

True False

3. I am involved in neighborhood or block organizations 1 2

that deal with neighborhood issues or problems.

4. I have done volunteer work in the last year to benefit 1 2

my neighborhood.

Scoring and Analysis

Reverse code items 1 and 2; recode items 3 and 4 as follows: 1 = 4; 2 = 2. Once items have been recoded,

point values for all items are summed and then divided by the total number of items. A higher score indicates

greater comfort and engagement in the neighborhood.

These items measure the extent to which children and their caregivers are comfortable and engaged in

their neighborhoods. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with several

statements about their communities.
IV. Environmental Assessments 327

IV. Environmental Assessments

K2. Community Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project

Opportunities

1. There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I NO! no yes YES!

could talk to about something important.

Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your community?

2. Sports teams Yes No

3. Scouting Yes No

4. Boys and girls clubs Yes No

5. 4-H clubs Yes No

6. Service clubs Yes No

Rewards

7. My neighbors notice when I am doing a good NO! no yes YES!

job and let me know about it.

8. There are people in my neighborhood who encourage NO! no yes YES!

me to do my best.

9. There are people in my neighborhood who are proud NO! no yes YES!

of me when I do something well.

These items measure students’ perceptions of the opportunities and rewards for prosocial activities in

their communities. Respondents are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with statements

about the presence of supportive adults and the availability of sports and other community activities. A

“YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true; “no” if it is

somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
328 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1, 7, 8 and 9 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

For items 2-6, point values are: Yes = 1; No = 0. Point values for all items are added. Higher scores

indicate higher levels of community involvement.
IV. Environmental Assessments 329

IV. Environmental Assessments

L1. Community Resources in Neighborhood—

Chicago Youth Development Study

True False

1. I have relatives living in my neighborhood. 1 2

2. There is a grocery store in or near my neighborhood. 1 2

3. There is a church or synagogue that I could attend in my 1 2

neighborhood.

4. There is a clinic or other medical services near my neighborhood. 1 2

5. There are entertainment places in my neighborhood. 1 2

6. There are parks that we can use in or near my neighborhood. 1 2

7. Public transportation is convenient for me to use. 1 2

8. There are neighborhood or block organizations that deal with 1 2

neighborhood issues or problems.

9. There is a school in this neighborhood. 1 2

10. We regularly do our shopping in my neighborhood. 1 2

11. I attend religious services in my neighborhood. 1 2

12. When I need medical services, I use those in the neighborhood. 1 2

13. I use the recreational facilities available in my neighborhood. 1 2

These items measure the availability and use of resources in the community (e.g., relatives, grocery

stores, clinics, public transportation) for youth and their adult caregivers. Respondents are asked to

indicate whether each statement is true or false for their neighborhoods.
330 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Resources Available to Adult Caregiver: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 1-8,

10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.

Resources Available to Youths: Items 9 and 11 are not included in calculating the score. Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

10, 12 and 13 should be reverse coded. Compute a mean score from these items.
IV. Environmental Assessments 331

IV. Environmental Assessments

M1. Children’s Exposure to Community Violence

1. I have heard guns being shot.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

2. I have seen somebody arrested.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

3. I have seen drug deals.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

4. I have seen someone being beaten up.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

5. My house has been broken into.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

6. I have seen somebody get stabbed.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

7. I have seen somebody get shot.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

8. I have seen a gun in my home.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

9. I have seen alcohol such as beer, wine, or hard liquor in my home.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

10. I have seen gangs in my neighborhood.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

11. I have seen somebody pull a gun on another person.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

These items measure the frequency of exposure (through sight and sound) to violence in one’s home

and neighborhood. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have seen or heard certain things

around their home and neighborhood (not on TV or in movies).
332 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

12. I have seen someone in my home get shot or stabbed.

■ Never ■ Once or twice ■ A few times ■ Many times

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Never = 1

Once or twice = 2

A few times = 3

Many times = 4

Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Intended range is 1-4, with a

higher score indicating more frequent exposure to acts of crime and violence.
IV. Environmental Assessments 333

IV. Environmental Assessments

M2. Victimization Scale

Never Once Sometimes Often

At school, how often have you been ...

1. Hit by a student 1234

2. Hit by school staff 1234

3. Kicked or pushed by a student 1234

4. Kicked or pushed by school staff 1234

5. Badly beaten up 1234

6. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

8. Threatened with a gun 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student; 1234

that is, being called names or having things said to

you that make you feel bad about yourself or afraid

10. Verbally or emotionally abused by school staff 1234

11. Sexually harassed by a student 1234

12. Sexually harassed by school staff 1234

13. Sexually assaulted 1234

14. Robbed 1234

This scale measures exposure to violence and victimization in the home, at school, and in the

community. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they have seen or experienced certain behaviors

since the beginning of the school year.
334 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

At school, how often have you seen others being ...

1. Hit by a student 1234

2. Hit by school staff 1234

3. Kicked or pushed by a student 1234

4. Kicked or pushed by school staff 1234

5. Badly beaten up 1234

6. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

8. Threatened with a gun 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student 1234

10. Verbally or emotionally abused by school staff 1234

11. Sexually harassed by a student 1234

12. Sexually harassed by school staff 1234

13. Sexually assaulted 1234

14. Robbed 1234

15. In a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

In your neighborhood, how often have you been ...

1. Hit 1234

2. Kicked 1234

3. Pushed or shoved 1234
IV. Environmental Assessments 335

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

4. Badly beaten up 1234

5. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Threatened with a gun 1234

8. Shot at 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused, that is, being 1234

called names or having things said to you that

make you feel bad about yourself or afraid 1234

10. Sexually harassed 1234

11. Sexually assaulted 1234

12. Robbed 1234

In your neighborhood, how often have you seen others being ...

1. Hit 1234

2. Kicked 1234

3. Pushed or shoved 1234

4. Badly beaten up 1234

5. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Threatened with a gun 1234

8. Shot at 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused 1234
336 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

10. Sexually harassed 1234

11. Sexually assaulted 1234

12. Robbed 1234

13. In a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

At school, how often have you heard of other students being ...

1. Hit by a student 1234

2. Hit by school staff 1234

3. Kicked or pushed by a student 1234

4. Kicked or pushed by school staff 1234

5. Badly beaten up 1234

6. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

8. Threatened with a gun 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused by a student, 1234

that is, they were called names or had things

said to them that made them feel bad about

themselves, or afraid

10. Shot at 1234

11. Verbally or emotionally abused by school staff 1234

12. Sexually harassed by a student 1234

13. Sexually harassed by school staff 1234

14. Sexually assaulted 1234
IV. Environmental Assessments 337

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

15. Robbed 1234

16. In a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

In your neighborhood, how often have you heard of others being ...

1. Hit 1234

2. Kicked 1234

3. Pushed or shoved 1234

4. Badly beaten up 1234

5. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Threatened with a gun 1234

8. Shot at 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused 1234

10. Sexually harassed 1234

11. Sexually assaulted 1234

12. Robbed 1234

13. In a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

At home, in the past, how often have you been ...

1. Hit 1234

2. Kicked 1234

3. Pushed or shoved 1234
338 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

4. Badly beaten up 1234

5. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Threatened with a gun 1234

8. Shot at 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused 1234

10. Sexually harassed 1234

11. Sexually assaulted 1234

12. Robbed 1234

At home, in the past, how often have you seen other family members being ...

1. Hit 1234

2. Kicked 1234

3. Pushed or shoved 1234

4. Badly beaten up 1234

5. Threatened with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Threatened with a gun 1234

8. Shot at 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused 1234

10. Sexually harassed 1234
IV. Environmental Assessments 339

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

11. Sexually assaulted 1234

12. Robbed 1234

At school, how often have you done these things?

1. Hit or kicked someone 1234

2. Pushed or shoved someone when you were angry 1234

3. Badly beaten somebody up 1234

4. Carried a knife or sharp weapon or other blade 1234

5. Threatened someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Carried a weapon 1234

8. Threatened someone with a gun 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused someone, that is, 1234

said something that made them feel bad about

themselves, or afraid

10. Sexually harassed someone 1234

11. Sexually assaulted someone 1234

12. Robbed someone 1234

13. Been suspended 1234

14. Gotten into a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

Outside of school, how often have you done these things?

1. Hit or kicked someone 1234
340 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Never Once Sometimes Often

2. Pushed or shoved someone when you were angry 1234

3. Badly beaten somebody up 1234

4. Carried a knife or sharp weapon or other blade 1234

5. Threatened someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

6. Attacked someone with a knife or sharp weapon 1234

7. Carried a weapon 1234

8. Threatened someone with a gun 1234

9. Verbally or emotionally abused someone, 1234

that is, said something that made them feel bad

about themselves, or afraid

10. Sexually harassed someone 1234

11. Sexually assaulted someone 1234

12. Robbed someone 1234

13. Been suspended 1234

14. Gotten into a fight after drinking or getting high 1234

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items are scored by domain (school, community, family) and by

whether violence is direct or vicarious. More specific timeframes can be used with this measure (e.g., past 30

days, past 3 months, past 6 months).
IV. Environmental Assessments 341

IV. Environmental Assessments

N1. Fear of Crime—Chicago Youth Development Study

How afraid are you of being attacked or robbed ...

Not A little Somewhat Very

fearful fearful fearful fearful

1. At home in your house or apartment? 1234

2. On the streets of your neighborhood during the day? 1234

3. Out alone at night in your neighborhood? 1234

4. Out with other people at night in your neighborhood? 1234

Has a fear of crime caused you to...

No Yes

5. Limit the places or the times that you go shopping? 0 1

6. Limit the places or the times that you will work? 0 1

7. Limit the places that you will go by yourself? 0 1

8. Purchase a weapon for self-protection? 0 1

9. Install a home security system or install protective 0 1

devices such as bars on the windows, buzzers on

windows and/or doors, etc.?

10. Move to a different place to live? 0 1

11. Do you have a rifle in your home? 0 1

12. Do you have a shotgun in your home? 0 1

13. Do you have a handgun in your home? 0 1

These items assess a subject’s fear of being the victim of a violent crime in their home and/or

neighborhood and the impact of such fear on the places they go. They also assess the measures taken to

protect oneself from crime.
342 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items.

Fear of Crime: Compute the mean score of items 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Measures Taken To Cope with Fear of Crime: Compute the mean score of items 5-10. Items 11-13 are

retained to assess firearm ownership.
IV. Environmental Assessments 343

IV. Environmental Assessments

O1. Neighborhood Cohesion

No

Agree Disagree opinion

1. People on this block do not share the same values. 1 3 2

2. I have almost no influence over what this block is like. 1 3 2

3. If there is a problem on this block, people who live here 1 3 2

can get it solved.

4. My neighbors and I want the same things for the block. 1 3 2

5. I feel at home on this block. 1 3 2

6. People on this block generally do not get along. 1 3 2

7. Occasionally, I visit with neighbors inside their homes. 1 3 2

8. Occasionally, my neighbors visit with me inside my home. 1 3 2

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Items 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 should be reverse coded (Agree = 3;

Disagree = 1; No opinion = 2). Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by the total

number of items. Blank items are not counted in the total number of responses. Higher scores indicate higher

levels of a sense of belonging, cohesion, and shared values among neighbors on a block.

These items measure the extent to which residents feel a sense of belonging in the neighborhood and

share the same values as their neighbors. Respondents are asked if they agree or disagree with

descriptions of themselves or the people who live on their block.
344 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

P1. Neighborhood Disorganization—Rochester Youth Development Study

Thinking of your neighborhood, how much of a problem is ...

A big Sort of a Not a

problem problem problem

1. High unemployment? 3 2 1

2. Different racial or cultural groups who do not get along 3 2 1

with each other?

3. Vandalism, buildings and personal belongings broken and torn up? 3 2 1

4. Little respect for rules, laws and authority? 3 2 1

5. Winos and junkies? 3 2 1

6. Prostitution? 3 2 1

7. Abandoned houses or buildings? 3 2 1

8. Sexual assaults or rapes? 3 2 1

9. Burglaries and thefts? 3 2 1

10. Gambling? 3 2 1

11. Run down and poorly kept buildings and yards? 3 2 1

12. Syndicate, mafia or organized crime? 3 2 1

13. Assaults and muggings? 3 2 1

14. Street gangs or delinquent gangs? 3 2 1

15. Homeless street people? 3 2 1

These items measure a parent’s perception of crime, dilapidation, and disorganization in his/her

neighborhood. Respondents are presented with a list of problems that may occur in neighborhoods and

asked to indicate to what extent that problem exists anywhere around their home or within 4 or 5 blocks.
IV. Environmental Assessments 345

IV. Environmental Assessments

A big Sort of a Not a

problem problem problem

16. Drug use or drug dealing in the open? 3 2 1

17. Buying or selling stolen goods? 3 2 1

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items. The intended range of scores is 1-3, with a higher score indicating a higher level of neighborhood

crime, dilapidation and disorganization.
346 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

P2. Neighborhood Disorganization—Seattle Social Development Project

How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood?

1. Crime and/or drug selling. NO! no yes YES!

2. Fights. NO! no yes YES!

3. Lots of empty or abandoned buildings. NO! no yes YES!

4. Lots of graffiti. NO! no yes YES!

5. I feel safe in my neighborhood. NO! no yes YES!

Scoring and Analysis

Items 1-4 are scored as follows:

YES! = 4

yes = 3

no = 2

NO! = 1

Item 5 is reverse coded. Point values for all items are added. Higher scores indicate higher levels of

perceived disorganization in the community.

These items measure students’ perception of crime, fighting, physical deterioration, and safety in their

communities. Respondents are asked to indicate to what extent five statements accurately describe their

neighborhood. A “YES!” is checked if the statement is very true for them; “yes” if it is somewhat true;

“no” if it is somewhat false; and “NO!” if it is very false.
IV. Environmental Assessments 347

IV. Environmental Assessments

P3. Perceived Community Problems—Chicago Youth Development Study

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree

1. Dirty or unkempt front yards are a problem 12345

on my block.

2. There is a public park near to my block. 12345

3. Vacant lots are a problem on my block. 12345

4. Morning noise is quite irritating on my block. 12345

5. Night noise is quite irritating on my block. 12345

6. Abandoned or boarded-up homes are a 12345

problem on my block.

7. Vandalism is a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

8. Burglary is a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

9. Homelessness is a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

10. Crime has gotten worse in my neighborhood 12345

in the last few years.

A Pretty A A serious

little Some much lot problem

11. Gangs are a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

12. Graffiti is a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

13. Drugs are a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel certain negative qualities are

problems in their communities (e.g., unkempt front yards, vacant lots, noise, vandalism). Youth and their

caregivers are asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with fourteen statements about their

neighborhoods.
348 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

A Pretty A A serious

little Some much lot problem

14. Violent crime is a problem in my neighborhood. 12345

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items. The intended range of scores is 1-5, with a higher score indicating a higher level of neighborhood

crime, dilapidation and disorganization.
IV. Environmental Assessments 349

IV. Environmental Assessments

P4. Neighborhood/Block Conditions

No A minor A serious

problem problem problem

1. Property damage? Is that ... 1 2 3

2. Drug dealing? Is that ... 1 2 3

3. Groups of young people hanging around? Is that... 1 2 3

4. Physical assaults of people on the street? Is that ... 1 2 3

5. Organized gangs? Is that ... 1 2 3

6. Physical fighting? Is that ... 1 2 3

7. Gunshots? Is that ... 1 2 3

8. Lack of supervised activities for youth? Is that ... 1 2 3

9. Feeling unsafe while out alone on your block during the day? Is that ... 1 2 3

10. Feeling unsafe while out alone on your block during the day? Is that ... 1 2 3

11. Inadequate recreational facilities available for young people? Is that... 1 2 3

12. Feeling unsafe in your home? Is that ... 1 2 3

13. Poor city services, like trash pick-up and police response? Is that ... 1 2 3

Scoring and Analysis

Point values for responses are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Blank items should not

be counted in the number of responses. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived problems in

residents’ neighborhood.

These items measure residents’ perceptions of neighborhood conditions (e.g., severity of problems,

sense of safety). Respondents are given a list of common urban problems and are asked to indicate the

extent to which each is a problem on their block.
350 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Q1. Neighborhood Integration—Rochester Youth Development Study

How many people who live in your neighborhood ...

A lot Some A few None

1. Do you know by sight? 4321

2. Do you know by name? 4321

3. Do you talk to on a regular basis? 4321

How often do you and other people who live in your neighborhood ...

Often Sometimes Seldom Never

4. Borrow things like tools or recipes from each other? 4321

5. Ask each other to watch your children when you are 4321

not at home?

6. Have a talk with each other? 4321

7. Ask each other to drive or take your children somewhere? 4321

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values are summed and then divided by the number of

items. The intended range of scores is 1-4, with a higher score indicating a higher level of routine

neighborhood interaction.

These items measure neighborhood integration. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which

neighbors are familiar with one another and interact on a routine basis.
IV. Environmental Assessments 351

IV. Environmental Assessments

Q2. Sense of Belonging—Chicago Youth Development Study

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree

1. I feel like I belong to the neighborhood. 12345

2. I feel loyal to the people in my neighborhood. 12345

3. I would be willing to work together with 12345

others on something to improve my neighborhood.

4. I like to think of myself as similar to the 12345

people who live in this neighborhood.

5. Overall, I am very attracted to living in this 12345

neighborhood.

6. Given the opportunity, I would like to move 12345

out of this neighborhood.

Scoring and Analysis

Caregiver’s Sense of Belonging: Reverse code items 1, 2, 4 and 5; then compute a mean score from these four

items. Ignore item 3.

Youth’s Sense of Belonging: Reverse code items 1, 2, 4 and 6; then compute a mean score from these four

items. Ignore item 3.

These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel a sense of loyalty and identity

to their neighbors. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements about

their neighborhoods.
352 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Q3. Reciprocated Exchange—Chicago Neighborhood Study

1. About how often do you and people in your neighborhood do favors for each other? By favors we mean

such things as watching each other’s children, helping with shopping, lending garden or house tools, and

other small acts of kindness?

■ Very often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never

2. How often do you and people in this neighborhood have parties or other get-togethers where other people

in the neighborhood are invited?

■ Very often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never

3. When a neighbor is not at home, how often do you and other neighbors watch over their property?

■ Very often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never

4. How often do you and other people in this neighborhood visit in each other’s homes or on the street?

■ Very often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never

5. How often do you and other people in the neighborhood ask each other advice about personal things such

as childrearing or job openings?

■ Very often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very often = 5

Often = 4

Sometimes = 3

Rarely = 2

Never = 1

Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 5-25, with higher scores indicating higher

frequencies of social exchange within the neighborhood.

These items measure the relative frequency of social exchange within the neighborhood on issues of

consequences for children. Respondents are asked to indicate how often they engage in five interactive

behaviors with their neighbors.
IV. Environmental Assessments 353

IV. Environmental Assessments

Q4. Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study

Strongly Strongly

agree Agree Neither Disagree disagree

1. I visit with my neighbors in their homes. 12345

2. If I needed advice about something I could 12345

go to someone in my neighborhood.

3. I regularly stop and talk with people in my 12345

neighborhood.

4. I know most of the names of people on my block. 12345

5. I would feel comfortable asking to borrow 12345

some food or a tool from people on my block.

6. I would feel comfortable asking people on my 12345

block to watch my home while I was away.

Scoring and Analysis

Reverse code items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Compute a mean score from these five items. Ignore item 6.

These items measure the extent to which youth and their caregivers feel comfortable with people in

their neighborhoods, ask their advice, and interact with them. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent

to which they agree or disagree with several statements about interactions with their neighbors.
354 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

Q5. Intergenerational Connections—Chicago Neighborhood Study

1. Parents in this neighborhood know their children’s friends.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

2. Adults in this neighborhood know who the local children are.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

3. There are adults in this neighborhood that children can look up to.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

4. Parents in this neighborhood generally know each other.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

5. You can count on adults in this neighborhood to watch out that children are safe and don’t get in trouble.

■ Strongly agree ■ Agree ■ Neither agree ■ Disagree ■ Strongly disagree

nor disagree

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree = 5

Agree = 4

Neither agree nor disagree = 3

Disagree = 2

Strongly disagree = 1

Point values for all responses are summed. Intended range is 5-25, with higher scores indicating higher

levels of intergenerational connections and active support within the neighborhood.

These items measure connections between neighbors and active support of neighborhood children by

parents and other adults. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with

five statements about their neighbors.
IV. Environmental Assessments 355

IV. Environmental Assessments

R1. Neighborhood Satisfaction

No

Agree Disagree opinion

1. I am satisfied with this block as a place to live. 3 1 2

2. Compared to other blocks in this area, my block is 3 1 2

a good place to live.

3. In the past year, the general conditions on my block 3 1 2

have gotten worse.

4. In the next year, the general conditions on my block 3 1 2

will probably get better.

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by

the total number of items. Blank items are not counted in the number of responses. Higher scores indicate

higher levels of respondent satisfaction with their block as a place to live and their expectations about the

future for their block.

These items measure residents’ attitudes toward their neighborhood (for example, whether or not it is

a good place to live). Respondents are asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree with four

statements about neighborhood satisfaction.
356 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

S1. Neighborhood Action/Willingness to Intervene

Not at all Somewhat Very

likely likely likely

1. If some 10 to 12 year-old youths were spray painting a street 1 2 3

sign on the block, how likely is it that you or some of your 

neighbors would tell them to stop?

2. If a suspicious stranger was hanging around the block, how 1 2 3

likely is it that you or some of your neighbors would notice this 

and warn others to be on guard?

3. If someone on your block was playing loud music, how likely is it 1 2 3

that you or some of your neighbors would ask them to turn the 

music down?

4. If teenagers were fist-fighting on your block, how likely is it that 1 2 3

you or some of your neighbors would attempt to stop it?

5. If someone on your block was firing a gun, how likely is it that 1 2 3

you or some of your neighbors would do something about it?

6. If drugs were being sold on your block, how likely is it that you 1 2 3

or some of your neighbors would do something about it?

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as indicated above. Point values for all responses are summed and then divided by

the total number of items. Blank items should not be counted in the number of responses. Higher scores

indicate higher levels of expressed likelihood that the respondent or a neighbor would intervene when

presented with a problem on their block.

These items measure the perceived likelihood that the resident or a neighbor will intervene when

presented with a problem in the neighborhood (e.g., break up a fight, stop drug selling). Respondents are

presented with six problems that may or may not happen on their block, and asked to determine the

likelihood of a neighbor responding appropriately.
IV. Environmental Assessments 357

IV. Environmental Assessments

S2. Social Control of Children—Chicago Neighborhood Study

How likely is it that your neighbors can be counted on to “do something” if ...

1. Children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

2. Children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

3. Children were showing disrespect to an adult?

■ Very likely ■ Likely ■ Neither likely ■ Unlikely ■ Very unlikely

nor unlikely

Scoring and Analysis

Point values are assigned as follows:

Very likely = 5

Likely = 4

Neither likely nor unlikely = 3

Unlikely = 2

Very unlikely = 1

Point values are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher scores indicate higher

levels of child-centered social control.

These items measure general aspects of social cohesion and neighborhood control. Respondents are

asked to indicate how likely it is that their neighbors can be counted on to “do something” in three

situations involving children.
358 IV. Environmental Assessments

IV. Environmental Assessments

References

Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Pollard JA, Catalano RF,

Baglioni AJ. Measuring risk and protective factors

for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent

problem behaviors: the Communities That Care

Youth Survey. Evaluation Review 2002;26(6):575-

601.

Attar BK, Guerra NG, Tolan PH. Neighborhood

disadvantage, stressful life events, and adjustment in

urban elementary-school children. Special issue:

impact of poverty on children, youth, and families.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology

1994:23(4):391-400.

Bjerregaard B, Smith CA. Gender differences in

gang participation, delinquency, and substance use.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1993;9:329-

355.

Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Socialization

mediators of the relation between socioeconomic

status and child conduct problems. Child

Development 1994;65:649-665.

Eccles JS, Harold RD. Parent-school involvement

during the early adolescent years. In: Takanishi R

(ed.), Adolescence in the 1990’s: risk and

opportunity. New York, NY: Columbia University

Teachers’ College, 1993.

Gabriel RM. Self Enhancement Inc. Violence

prevention program, grades 7, 8 and 9: year 1

evaluation report. Portland, OR: RMC Research

Corporation, 1994. (Unpublished)

Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Henry DB. A

developmental-ecological model of the relation of

family functioning to patterns of delinquency.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2000;16:169-

198.

Gorman-Smith D, Tolan PH, Zelli A, Huesmann LR.

The relation of family functioning to violence

among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family

Psychology 1996;10:115-129.

Henry D, Chertok F, Keys C, Jegerski J.

Organizational and family systems factors in stress

among ministers. American Journal of Community

Psychology 1991;19(6):931-952.

Houston Community Demonstration Project.

Houston, TX: City of Houston Health and Human

Services Department, 1993. (Unpublished)

Hudson W. The clinical measurement package: a

field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1982.

Jackson C, Henriksen L, Foshee VA. The

authoritative parenting index: predicting health risk

behaviors among children and adolescents. Health

Education & Behavior 1998;25(3):321-339.

Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description

of measures: cohort-wide student survey, 2004a.

Available from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)

Multisite Violence Prevention Project. Description

of measures: parent survey, 2004b. Available from

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,

Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished)

Nadel H, Spellmann M, Alvaarez-Canino T, LausellBryant L, Landsberg G. The cycle of violence and

victimization: a study of the school-based

intervention of a multidisciplinary youth violence

prevention program. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine 1996:12(5 Suppl):109-119.

Orpinas P, Murray N, Kelder S. Parental influences

on students’ aggressive behavior and weaponcarrying. Health Education and Behavior

1999;26(6):774-787.
IV. Environmental Assessments 359

IV. Environmental Assessments

Perkins DD, Florin P, Rich RC, Wandersman A,

Chavis DM. Participation and the social and

physical environment of residential blocks: crime

and community context. American Journal of

Community Psychology 1990;18(1):83-115.

Phillips J, Springer F. Extended National Youth

Sports Program 1991-1992 evaluation highlights,

part two: Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI)

and risk assessment study. Report prepared for the

National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates, 1992.

(Unpublished)

Richters JE, Martinez P. Things I Have Seen and

Heard: a structured interview for assessing youth

children’s violence exposure. Rockville, MD:

National Institute of Mental Health, 1990.

(Unpublished)

Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F. Beyond social

capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for

children. American Sociological Review

1999;64:633-660.

Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F.

Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study

of collective efficacy. Science 1997;277:918-924.

Smith EP, Connell CM, Wright G, Sizer M, Norman

JM, Hurley A, Walker SN. An ecological model of

home, school, and community partnerships:

implications for research and practice. Journal of

Educational and Psychological Consultation

1997;8:339-360.

Stern SB, Smith CA. Family processes and

delinquency in an ecological context. Social Service

Review 1995;69:703-731.

Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA,

Tobin K. Gangs and delinquency in developmental

perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press,

2003.

Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth

M, Jang SJ. Testing interactional theory: an

examination of reciprocal causal relationships

among family, school, and delinquency. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 1991;82:3-35.

Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Huesmann LR, Zelli A.

Assessment of family relationship characteristics: a

measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and

depression among urban youth. Psychological

Assessment 1997;9(3):212-223.

Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago

Youth Development Study Parenting Practices

Measure: Instructions for Scaling Technical Report.

Families and Communities Research Group,

Institute for Juvenile Research, Department of

Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago,

2000. (Unpublished)

Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago

Youth Development Study Community and

Neighborhood Measure: construction and reliability

technical report. Families and Communities

Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The

University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001.

(Unpublished)

Tolan PH, Miller L, Thomas P. Perception and

experience of types of social stress and self-image

among adolescents. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence 1988;17(2):147-163.
Index 

Aggression/Delinquency Attitudes and Beliefs

Attitude Toward Conflict, I, A6

Attitude Toward Delinquency—Pittsburgh Youth Study, I, A10

Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence, I, A8

Attitude Toward Violence, I, A4

Beliefs about Aggression and Alternatives, I, A5

Beliefs about Conflict—NYC Youth Violence Survey, I, A9

Beliefs about Hitting, I, A3

Beliefs Supporting Aggression, I, A2

Delinquent Beliefs—Rochester Youth Development Study, I, A11

KMPM Questionnaire, I, A7

Normative Beliefs about Aggression, I, A1

Norms for Aggression and Alternatives, I, A12

Aggression Fantasies

Aggressive Fantasies, II, A2

Fantasy Measure, II, A1

Aggressive and Violent Behavior

Aggression Scale, III, A1

Aggression Towards Parents—High Risk Behavioral Assessment, III, A14

Aggression/Victimization Scale, III, A3

Aggression—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, III, A8

Aggressive Behavior—Joyce Foundation Youth Survey, III, A11

Aggressive Behavior—SAGE Baseline Survey, III, A7

Fighting To and From School—NYC Youth Violence Survey, III, A6

Fighting—High Risk Behavioral Assessment, III, A15

Modified Aggression Scale, III, A2

Nonphysical Aggression—Pittsburgh Youth Study, III, A10

Peer-Nomination of Aggression, III, A4

Physical Fighting—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, III, A5

Reactive/Proactive Aggression—FastTrack, III, A12

Reactive/Proactive Aggression—FastTrack (Teacher Checklist), III, A13

Seriousness of Violence Classification—Pittsburgh Youth Study, III, A9

Attachment to Role Models

Attachment to Teacher—Rochester Youth Development Study, II, B2

Rutgers Teenage Risk and Prevention Questionnaire, II, B1

360
Attributional Bias

Home Interview (Vignettes), II, C2

Peer Relations Assessment, II, C1

Collective Efficacy

Collective Efficacy—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, J1

Community Involvement

Community Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, K1

Community Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, K2

Community Resources

Community Resources in Neighborhood—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, L1

Conflict Resolution Beliefs, Intentions and Skills

Attitude Toward Conflict, I, A6

Attitude Toward Interpersonal Peer Violence, I, A8

Beliefs about Conflict—NYC Youth Violence Survey, I, A9

Conflict Resolution—Individual Protective Factors Index, III, C1

Conflict Resolution Style, III, C2

Self-Efficacy—Teen Conflict Survey, II, P5

Social Problem Solving Measure, III, N1

Violent Intentions—Teen Conflict Survey, II, L3

Dating/Partner Violence

Acceptance of Couple Violence, I, B1

Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), III, D3

Perpetration in Dating Relationships, III, D2

Victimization in Dating Relationships, III, D1

Delinquent Behavior

Delinquent Behavior—High Risk Behavioral Assessment, III, E8

Disciplinary and Delinquent Behavior—SAGE Baseline Survey, III, E3

Likelihood of Violence and Delinquency, II, L1

Self-Reported Delinquency—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, III, E2

Self-Reported Delinquency—Rochester Youth Development Study, III, E1

Delinquent Peers

Delinquent Peers—Rochester Youth Development Study, III, E6

Friend’s Delinquent Behavior—Denver Youth Survey, III, E4

Friends’ Delinquent Behavior—Peer Deviancy Scale, III, E5

Peer Reactions to Delinquency—Rochester Youth Development Study, II, L4

361
Depression

Depression—Rochester Youth Development Study, II, D3

DSM Screener for Depression, II, D1

Modified Depression Scale, II, D2

Disciplinary Behavior

Disciplinary and Delinquent Behavior—SAGE Baseline Survey, III, E3

Disciplinary Behavior—High Risk Behavioral Assessment, III, E7

Disciplinary Practices

Authoritative Parenting Index, IV, A1

Consistency of Discipline—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, A2

Positive Parenting Practices—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, A4

Positive Parenting Practices—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, A3

Drug and Alcohol Use

Drug and Alcohol Use—High Risk Behavioral Assessment, III, F5

Drug and Alcohol Use—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, III, F3

Drug and Alcohol Use—SAGE Baseline Survey, III, F2

Drug and Alcohol Use—Teen Conflict Survey, III, F4

Drug and Alcohol Use—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, III, F1

Education and School

Attachment to Teacher—Rochester Youth Development Study, II, B2

Attitudes Toward School—Denver Youth Survey, I, C1

Classroom Climate Scale, I, C5

Commitment to School—Rochester Youth Development Study, I, C3

Commitment to School—Seattle Social Development Project, I, C2

Concentration—Social Health Profile, III, B1

Norms for Aggression and Alternatives, I, A12

Prosocial Involvement, Opportunities and Rewards—Seattle Social Development Project, I, C4

Sense of School Membership, II, R3

Emotional or Psychological Distress

Distress—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, II, E1

PTSD Interview (PTSD-I), II, E3

Seattle Personality Questionnaire, II, E2

Employment

Attitudes Toward Employment—Work Opinion Questionnaire, I, D1

362
Ethnic Identity

Ethnic Identity, II, F2

Ethnic Identity—Teen Conflict Survey, II, F3

Multigroup Ethnic Identity, II, F1

Exposure to Violence

Children’s Exposure to Community Violence, IV, M1

Stressful Urban Life Events Scale, IV, I1

Victimization Scale, IV, M2

Family Environment

Family Conflict and Hostility—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, C1

Family Relationship Characteristics, IV, D1

Reactivity in Family Communication, IV, B1

Fear of Crime

Fear of Crime—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, N1

Future Orientation

Achievement Motivation—Denver Youth Survey, II, H3

Children’s Hopelessness, II, I1

Children’s Hopelessness (Modified Version), II, I2

Fatalism, II, G1

Future Aspirations—Peer Leader Survey, II, H1

Positive Outlook—Individual Protective Factors Index, II, H2

Gangs

Attitudes Toward Gangs, I, E1

Exposure to Gangs—Houston School Cohort Survey, III, G1

Gender Roles

Attitudes Toward Women, I, F2

Gender Stereotyping, I, F1

Guns

Attitudes Toward Guns and Violence, I, G1 

Handgun Access—NYC Youth Violence Survey, III, H1

Weapon Carrying—Youth Risk Behavior Survey/NYC Youth Violence Survey, III, P1

Hopelessness (also see Future Orientation)

Children’s Hopelessness, II, I1

Children’s Hopelessness (Modified Version), II, I2

363
Hostility

Hostility—SCL-90, II, J1

Leisure Activity

Leisure Activity—Teen Conflict Survey, III, J1

Moral Reasoning

Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form (SRM-SF), II, K1

Neighborhood Cohesion (also see Neighborhood Integration and Exchange)

Collective Efficacy—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, J1

Neighborhood Cohesion, IV, O1

Neighborhood Disorganization

Neighborhood Disorganization—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, P1

Neighborhood Disorganization—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, P2

Neighborhood/Block Conditions, IV, P4

Perceived Community Problems—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, P3

Neighborhood Integration and Exchange

Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, Q4

Intergenerational Connections—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, Q5

Neighborhood Integration—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, Q1

Reciprocated Exchange—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, Q3

Sense of Belonging—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, Q2

Neighborhood Satisfaction

Neighborhood Satisfaction, IV, R1

Parent-Child Relationship

Attachment to Parents—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, E2

Family Bonding—Individual Protective Factors Index, IV, E3

Parental-Child Attachment—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, E1

Parental Attitudes

Parental Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, F3

Parental Attitudes Toward Discipline—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, F1

Parental Attitudes Toward Drug Use—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, F2

Parental Attitudes Toward Use of Aggression, IV, F4

Parental Support for Fighting, IV, F5

364
Parental Involvement

Parental Control, III, K1

Parental Involvement in School, IV, G1

Parental Involvement—Chicago Youth Development Study, IV, G3

Parental Involvement—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, G2

Prosocial Parental Involvement—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, G4

Parental Monitoring and Supervision

Parental Supervision—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, H1

Parental Supervision—Seattle Social Development Project, IV, H2

Perceived Likelihood of Involvement in Violence and Other Problem Behaviors

Likelihood of Violence and Delinquency, II, L1

Perception of Problem Behavior—Pittsburgh Youth Study, II, L2

Quality of Life

Stressful Life Events—Rochester Youth Development Study, IV, I2

Stressful Urban Life Events Scale, IV, I1

Safety and Threats

Personal Safety—Joyce Foundation Youth Survey, II, N1

Safety and Threats—NYC Youth Violence Survey, III, L1

Sense of Safety, II, N2

Self-Efficacy, Impulse Control, Desire of Control, and Coping

Children’s Desire for Control, II, P4

Control—Individual Protective Factors Index, II, P2

Impulsivity—Teen Conflict Survey, III, I1

Minimization, II, P6

Restraint—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, II, P3

Self-Efficacy, II, P1

Self-Efficacy—Teen Conflict Survey, II, P5

Self-Esteem

Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale, II, Q2

How I Think Questionnaire, II, Q3

Low Self-Esteem—Weinberger Adjustment Inventory, II, Q1

Modified Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Inventory (a), II, Q4

Modified Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Inventory (b), II, Q5

Self-Concept—Individual Protective Factors Index, II, Q6

Self-Esteem—Rochester Youth Development Study, II, Q7

Twenty Statements, II, M1

365
Sense of Caring and Support

Empathy—Teen Conflict Survey, II, R4

Presence of Caring—Individual Protective Factors Index, II, R1

Vaux Social Support Record, II, R2

Social Competence

Parent/Child Social Competencies—Conflict Behavior Questionnaire, III, M4

Parental Report of Helping Behavior, III, M5

Prosocial Behaviors of Children, III, M3

Social Competence, III, M1

Social Competence—Teacher Post-Ratings, III, M2

Social Consciousness and Responsibility

Social Consciousness, II, S1

Social Responsibility, II, O1

Social Control

Collective Efficacy—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, J1

Neighborhood Action/Willingness to Intervene, IV, S1

Social Control of Children—Chicago Neighborhood Study, IV, S2

Television

Parental Control, III, K1

TV Attitudes, I, H1

Victimization

Aggression/Victimization Scale, III, A3

Aggressive Behavior—Joyce Foundation Youth Survey, III, A11

Victimization, III, O1

Victimization in Dating Relationships, III, D1

Victimization Scale, IV, M2

Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, III, O2

Weapon Carrying (also see Guns)

Weapon Carrying—Youth Risk Behavior Survey/NYC Youth Violence Survey, III, P1

366
Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

4770 Buford Highway NE, MS K-60

Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3742

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc