Reduction
of Risk Behaviors in Youth including:
 Delinquent Behavior
Measures
| Name: |
Self Report Delinquency Scale |
| Author: |
Elliot, Huiziga, and Ageton |
| Date: |
1985 |
| Instrument Description: |
Elliot, et. al.'s (1985) Self Report
Delinquency scale indicates levels of several types of delinquency. The
scale consists of 24 items, which examine frequency of minor delinquent
acts, as well as more serious types of delinquent behavior, and is said
to measure the full range of delinquent activity. Responses are scored
by the adolescent listing the number of times he or she has engaged in
an activity in the last six months. This scale has an alpha of .93. |
| Literature Reference: |
Elliot, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton,
S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage. |
| Cost: |
Free |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents |
| Psychometrics: |
This scale had a Cronbach’s alpha
of .93 in validation study. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Self report methods are beneficial
for this population in that poor and minority adolescents tend to be over-represented
in police records, but class differences disappear when self-report methods
are used (Larzelere and Patterson, 1990). This measure has been widely
used with a variety of populations, and is the most commonly cited measure
of delinquent behavior. It is easy to administer as a paper and pencil
instrument, and takes about 10 minutes to complete. |
| Name: |
Social Interaction between Siblings
Interview (SIBS) |
| Author: |
Slomkowski, Wasserman, & Schaffer |
| Date: |
1997 |
| Instrument Description: |
This scale is designed to examine sibling influences
on antisocial behavior. Mothers complete the interview, consisting
of 87 questions, about a sibling pair. Four subscales are created:
amount of contact between siblings, positive qualities, negative qualities
and influence among siblings. Scale items are included in the interviews. |
| Where Available: |
Copy available from first author upon request |
| Literature Reference: |
Slomkowski, C., Wasserman, G., &
Schaffer, D. (1997). A new instrument to assess sibling relationships
in antisocial youth: The social interaction between siblings (SIBS)
interview: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 38, 253-256. |
| Cost: |
Free |
| Intended Audience: |
Mothers of children aged 6 - 15 |
| Psychometrics: |
This scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .93 in validation
study. Test-retest reliability ranged from adequate to excellent
in the four subscales. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Time to complete instrument is about 40 minutes.
It may be more beneficial (and easier) to obtain a direct assessment of
childrens’ and adolescents’ perceptions, than getting parental observations. |
| Name: |
Australian Self-Reported Delinquency
Scale |
| Author: |
Mak |
| Date: |
1993 |
| Instrument Description: |
This scale is designed to examine delinquent
behavior among Australian adolescents, as well as assess delinquent behavior
ranging from minor status offenses to more serious crimes. Nine subscales
are created: cheat, status, fight, vehicle, drugs, theft, harm, driving,
and disturb. |
| Where Available: |
Measure is present in the article, more information
is available from the first author. |
| Literature Reference: |
Mak, A.S. (1993). A self-report
delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian Journal
of Psychology, 45, 75-79. |
| Cost: |
Free |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents under the age of 18. |
| Psychometrics: |
This scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 for
males and .87 for females in validation study. Factor analyses of
subscales ranged from adequate to strong. Test-retest reliability
information was not available. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
There is a social desirability scale embedded
in the measure, which helps determine whether adolescents are merely “telling
you what you want to here”. The measure may only be appropriate for
Australian adolescents. |
| Name: |
The Seattle Self-Report Instrument |
| Author: |
Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weis |
| Date: |
1981 |
| Instrument Description: |
This text discusses several controversial issues
surrounding delinquency: self-report vs. official statistics, as
well as issues surrounding gender, race and socioeconomic status.
The scale consists of 69 items, and the following indices were present:
official contact, serious crime, delinquency, drug use, school and family
offenses. |
| Where Available: |
Measure is present in the appendices of text,
comprehensive information is presented on reliability and validity within
text. |
| Literature Reference: |
Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T., &
Weis, J.G. (1981). Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Press. |
| Cost: |
Free |
| Intended Audience: |
Adolescents under the age of 18. |
| Psychometrics: |
Analyses of psychometric properties were extensive.
Reliabilities ranged from .87 in black females, to .93 in white males.
Test -retest reliabilities were .95 for females, and .96 for males.
Face and concurrent validity were also examined and ranged from adequate
to high. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Survey contains 63 items, would take considerable
time to complete (about a half an hour). |
| Name: |
Self-Report Early Delinquency Instrument
(SRED) |
| Author: |
Moffitt and Silva |
| Date: |
1988 |
| Instrument Description: |
There are two forms of this instrument: a 58
item survey and a 29-item survey, which focuses on activities that are
specifically illegal. In addition, the full scale focuses on “norm
violations,” such as attending R rated movies without parental permission
or making crank phone calls. It is possible to add an interview component
with administration of the “full scale.” |
| Where Available: |
Measure is present in the appendices of text,
information is presented on reliability and validity within text. |
| Literature Reference: |
Moffitt, T.E., & Silva, P.A.
(1988). Self-reported delinquency: Results from an instrument
for New Zealand. |
| Cost: |
Free |
| Intended Audience: |
Early adolescents (tested on group of adolescents
aged 13, and deemed appropriate until age 17). |
| Psychometrics: |
Internal consistency for the full scale was .91,
and was .81 for the shorter version. Test-retest scores were also
adequate. Validity was assessed by correlating scores on SRED to
parental and teacher observations of delinquent behavior, and SRED scores
were significantly associated with independent observations. |
| Advantages/Disadvantages |
Developed for a New Zealand population.
Has both a short and long term form, with similar psychometric properties,
which makes it possible to determine how much time you want participants
to invest in taking the pencil and paper instrument. The “norm violations”
may be useful for a broader definition of antisocial behavior. |
|
