Paula J. Fite, Spencer C. Evans, Elizabeth C. Tampke, Rebecca Griffith
{"title":"家长、教师和青少年对反应性攻击和主动攻击措施的报告","authors":"Paula J. Fite, Spencer C. Evans, Elizabeth C. Tampke, Rebecca Griffith","doi":"10.1007/s10566-023-09780-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>More research is needed to improve measurement selection and to better understand informant differences in reports of reactive and proactive aggression.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objective</h3><p>Toward this goal, the current study evaluated the psychometrics (i.e., reliability, factor structure, and validity) and correlates of two measures of reactive and proactive aggression (i.e., Dodge & Coie, in J Pers Soc Psychol 53:1146, 1987; Raine et al. in Aggress Behav 32:15–171, 2006) across three informants (i.e., parent, teacher, and youth).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Method</h3><p>Parent, teacher and youth reports of measures were collected in a community recruited sample of 9–12 year-old youth (<i>M</i> = 10.44; 56% male).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Both measures demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency by parent- and teacher-report, and borderline to adequate internal consistency by youth-report. Additionally, aggression subscales were correlated within and across measures and informants, and an appropriate 2-factor structure was identified for both measures across informants. Consistent with prior research, reactive aggression was more robustly associated with depression symptoms and effortful control than proactive aggression across measures, but there were some links with proactive aggression.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Overall findings suggest that both measures are psychometrically appropriate to use with parents, teachers, and youth. However, there were distinctions between the two measures, and relying solely on youth reports in this age group is not recommended. Further, there are unique associations evident with various informants, supporting the need for multiple informants when assessing functions of aggression in youth.</p>","PeriodicalId":47479,"journal":{"name":"Child & Youth Care Forum","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parent, Teacher, and Youth Reports on Measures of Reactive and Proactive Aggression\",\"authors\":\"Paula J. Fite, Spencer C. Evans, Elizabeth C. Tampke, Rebecca Griffith\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10566-023-09780-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>More research is needed to improve measurement selection and to better understand informant differences in reports of reactive and proactive aggression.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objective</h3><p>Toward this goal, the current study evaluated the psychometrics (i.e., reliability, factor structure, and validity) and correlates of two measures of reactive and proactive aggression (i.e., Dodge & Coie, in J Pers Soc Psychol 53:1146, 1987; Raine et al. in Aggress Behav 32:15–171, 2006) across three informants (i.e., parent, teacher, and youth).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Method</h3><p>Parent, teacher and youth reports of measures were collected in a community recruited sample of 9–12 year-old youth (<i>M</i> = 10.44; 56% male).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Both measures demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency by parent- and teacher-report, and borderline to adequate internal consistency by youth-report. Additionally, aggression subscales were correlated within and across measures and informants, and an appropriate 2-factor structure was identified for both measures across informants. Consistent with prior research, reactive aggression was more robustly associated with depression symptoms and effortful control than proactive aggression across measures, but there were some links with proactive aggression.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Overall findings suggest that both measures are psychometrically appropriate to use with parents, teachers, and youth. However, there were distinctions between the two measures, and relying solely on youth reports in this age group is not recommended. Further, there are unique associations evident with various informants, supporting the need for multiple informants when assessing functions of aggression in youth.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child & Youth Care Forum\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child & Youth Care Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09780-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child & Youth Care Forum","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-023-09780-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:需要更多的研究来改进测量方法的选择,并更好地理解被调查者在反应性攻击和主动攻击报告中的差异。目的为了达到这一目的,本研究评估了反应性攻击和主动性攻击两种测量方法(Dodge &[J] .中华精神病学杂志,2003;Raine et al.在Aggress Behav 32:15-171, 2006)中对三个线人(即家长、老师和青少年)进行了研究。方法收集社区9-12岁青少年家长、教师和青少年对措施的报告(M = 10.44;56%的男性)。结果两项指标均表现出良好的内部一致性(家长报告和教师报告)和良好的内部一致性(青少年报告)。此外,攻击分量表在被测者和被测者之间以及在被测者之间存在相关性,并确定了一个合适的两因素结构。与先前的研究一致,反应性攻击与抑郁症状和努力控制的关系比主动攻击更强,但与主动攻击有一定的联系。结论总体结果表明,这两种测量方法在心理测量学上适用于家长、教师和青少年。然而,两种测量方法之间存在差异,不建议仅依赖该年龄组的青少年报告。此外,在评估青少年攻击功能时,不同的信息者之间存在明显的独特关联,这支持了对多个信息者的需求。
Parent, Teacher, and Youth Reports on Measures of Reactive and Proactive Aggression
Background
More research is needed to improve measurement selection and to better understand informant differences in reports of reactive and proactive aggression.
Objective
Toward this goal, the current study evaluated the psychometrics (i.e., reliability, factor structure, and validity) and correlates of two measures of reactive and proactive aggression (i.e., Dodge & Coie, in J Pers Soc Psychol 53:1146, 1987; Raine et al. in Aggress Behav 32:15–171, 2006) across three informants (i.e., parent, teacher, and youth).
Method
Parent, teacher and youth reports of measures were collected in a community recruited sample of 9–12 year-old youth (M = 10.44; 56% male).
Results
Both measures demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency by parent- and teacher-report, and borderline to adequate internal consistency by youth-report. Additionally, aggression subscales were correlated within and across measures and informants, and an appropriate 2-factor structure was identified for both measures across informants. Consistent with prior research, reactive aggression was more robustly associated with depression symptoms and effortful control than proactive aggression across measures, but there were some links with proactive aggression.
Conclusions
Overall findings suggest that both measures are psychometrically appropriate to use with parents, teachers, and youth. However, there were distinctions between the two measures, and relying solely on youth reports in this age group is not recommended. Further, there are unique associations evident with various informants, supporting the need for multiple informants when assessing functions of aggression in youth.
期刊介绍:
Child & Youth Care Forum is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary publication that welcomes submissions – original empirical research papers and theoretical reviews as well as invited commentaries – on children, youth, and families. Contributions to Child & Youth Care Forum are submitted by researchers, practitioners, and clinicians across the interrelated disciplines of child psychology, early childhood, education, medical anthropology, pediatrics, pediatric psychology, psychiatry, public policy, school/educational psychology, social work, and sociology as well as government agencies and corporate and nonprofit organizations that seek to advance current knowledge and practice. Child & Youth Care Forum publishes scientifically rigorous, empirical papers and theoretical reviews that have implications for child and adolescent mental health, psychosocial development, assessment, interventions, and services broadly defined. For example, papers may address issues of child and adolescent typical and/or atypical development through effective youth care assessment and intervention practices. In addition, papers may address strategies for helping youth overcome difficulties (e.g., mental health problems) or overcome adversity (e.g., traumatic stress, community violence) as well as all children actualize their potential (e.g., positive psychology goals). Assessment papers that advance knowledge as well as methodological papers with implications for child and youth research and care are also encouraged.