|
Social
Competencies
Adolescent Violence
Measures
The measures listed in this section are by no means exhaustive and are
merely a sampling of the more popular measures used by researchers for
assessing the various components believed to be important in successful
adolescent relationships. It is possible also that the often overlooked
qualitative measures such as portfolios, diaries or journals, and personal
interviews can be valuable and useful alternative sources of data gathering
when investigating the dynamics of adolescent interpersonal relationships.
| Name: |
Lethal Behaviors Scale |
| Author: |
Thorson and Powell |
| Date: |
1987 |
| Instrument Description: |
The instrument is an inventory of 22 lethal
activities presented in a yes/no format. Scoring ranges from 1-3 with possible
range of the instrument from 22-66, with higher scores reflecting more
lethality. Younger males were the most likely to engage in lethal activities. |
| Where Available: |
James A. Thorson, Gerontology Program, University
of Nebraska, Omaha, NE 68182. |
| Literature Reference: |
Factor structure of a lethal behaviors scale.
Psychological Reports, 61, 807-810. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Tested on adults with mean age of 33.54 |
| Subtests: |
None |
| Psychometrics: |
Factor analysis revealed four factors: general
orientation toward danger, orientation toward bravery and adventure, thrill
seeking, and safe and unsafe habits. Reliability alpha for the scale was
.62 but authors noted that the scale could be improved with the elimination
of some questions, which they specify. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Tested on older population. However, it is highly
likely the questions could apply to adolescents as they encompass those
dimensions researchers frequently assess adolescents on. Sample questions
are: do you ever take chances or do dangerous things for the thrill of
it; have you ever experimented with dangerous drugs; when driving, do you
generally pass most of the other cars on the highway; do you smoke. The
scale could benefit from further testing on different populations. |
| Name: |
My Exposure to Violence (My ETV) |
| Author: |
Buka, Selner, O’Hagan, Kindlon, & Earls |
| Date: |
1996 |
| Instrument Description: |
A highly structured interviewer administered instrument
that covers lifetime and past-year exposure to 18 different violent events
that have been either personally experienced or witnessed by the participant. |
| Where Available: |
Authors |
| Literature Reference: |
(1) Buka, S., Selner-O’Hagan, M., Kindlon, D.,
& Earls, F. (1996). My Exposure to Violence and My Child’s Exposure
to Violence. Unpublished manual. (2) Selner-O’Hagan, M., Kindlon, D. J.,
Buka, S. L., Raudenbush,, S. W., & Earls (1998). Assessing exposure
to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry,
39(2), 215-224. Information: mohagan@phdcn.harvard.edu |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents ages 9-24 |
| Subtests: |
Witnessed violence; victimization; total exposure |
| Psychometrics: |
Test/retest reliability scores indicated r = .75 to .94.
Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency at r = .68 to .93. Construct
validity was provided by item analysis, which revealed a theoretically
sensible ordering of item extremity. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Manual is unpublished. Authors suggest the scale can be
used to augment longitudinal studies of exposure to violence and assess
violence protection programs; to investigate trajectories of ETV and factors
that affect those trajectories; and used as an outcome measure in violence
prevention trials at the school and neighborhood level. |
| Name: |
Risk Appraisal Guide (RAG) |
| Author: |
Harris, Rice, & Quinsey |
| Date: |
1993 |
| Instrument Description: |
Originally developed to predict the violent behavior of
mentally disordered male offenders. Research conducted by Loza and Dhaliwal
(1997) indicated the reliability and the concurrent validity of the RAG
for assessing violent behavior of incarcerated nonmentally disordered male
offenders (ages 16 – 58). |
| Where Available: |
Authors |
| Literature Reference: |
(1) Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey,
V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The
development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 20, 315-535. (2) Loza, W., & Dhaliwal, G. K. (1997). Psychometric
evaluation of the Risk Appraisal Guide (RAG): A tool for assessing violent
recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(6), 779-793. |
| Cost: |
Not available |
| Intended Audience: |
Currently tested on males 16-58. |
| Subtests: |
elementary school maladjustment, age at index offence, victim
injury for index offense, female victim, and alcohol abuse history scales. |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency coefficient alpha was .72. Significant
correlations are found between most of the item scores and the total score.
Factor analysis of the RAG items indicated two factor loadings: Psychopathy/Antisocial
Personality and Victim Data. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Currently has been utilized with older male population but
it is possible that components may be extrapolated into the juvenile population.
Further research using the scale is needed. Current research indicated
good predictive ability. |
| Name: |
Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale |
| Author: |
A. Mehrabian |
| Date: |
1996 |
| Instrument Description: |
A 35-item scale designed to identify individuals who have
a general tendency to act violently, and those who erupt suddenly and unexpectedly
into episodes of violence. Based on the premise that those individuals
displaying quiet, withdrawn, and restrained but tense characteristics but
who may habitually experience seething anger and frustration. A portion
of the scale involves questions dealing with wishes to harm, injure, or
even destroy specific others or larger groups in the population. |
| Where Available: |
Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Rd., Monterey, CA
93940 or A. Mehrabian, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los
Angeles, CA 90095 |
| Literature Reference: |
Mehrabian, A. (1997). Relations among personality
scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: Validational evidence bearing
on the Risk of Eruptive Violence Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 433-445. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents ages 13-21 |
| Subtests: |
Not explicated |
| Psychometrics: |
Alpha internal consistency was .98. In general, item-total
correlations ranged from .45 to .95. Reliability level is .84. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
The instrument has focused on juvenile inmates in high security
facility. However, as it is a fairly new instrument its potential is still
in development and could in all likelihood benefit from testing with youth
in various settings. The method could prove quite useful to community-based
programs, especially those focusing on gang violence and school and community
violence. |
| Name: |
Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure (SAVE) |
| Author: |
Hastings and Kelley |
| Date: |
1997 |
| Instrument Description: |
The scale was developed in order to provide a socially valid
and clinically sensitive measure of violent events experienced by adolescents
in the school, home, and community. The authors note several crucial elements
considered in the scale’s development including ease in administration,
suitability for poor readers, acceptable reliability and validity, and
measurement of the stressor criterion associated with PTSD. |
| Where Available: |
Teresa L. Hastings, PO Box 95606, Seattle, WA 98145-2606. |
| Literature Reference: |
Hastings, T. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1997).
Development and validation of the Screen for Adolescent Violence Exposure
(SAVE). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(6), 511-520. |
| Cost: |
Not Available |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents ages 11-18. |
| Subtests: |
Traumatic violence (relating to severe victimization experiences,
12 items), indirect violence (witnessing of or being informed of less severe
interpersonal violence, 14 items), and physical/verbal abuse (actual or
threatened violent harm directed at the participant, 6 items). |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha for each setting
scale was .90 to .94. subscale alphas ranged from .58 to .91. Intercorrelations
between subscales ranged from .19 to .93. Test-retest coefficients ranged
from .53 to .92. Discriminate analyses demonstrated utility in classifying
high- and low-violence participants. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Needs further testing using a more ethnically diverse population
(the population thus far tested consisted of primarily African-American
inner city youths). |
|
