J O H N M . G A L L A G H E R , M S WJ O S É B . A S H F O R D , L C S W , P H D

SHORT, RELIABLE AND POPULATION TESTED: SUPPORT FOR USING THE

BRIEF VERSION OF THE BUSS-PERRY AGGRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE WITH

ASSAULTIVE OFFENDERS

PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

• Provide brief overviews of the history, structure and uses of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BP-AQ)

• Review competing factor structures for the BP-AQ

• Present results of testing of competing models with sample of individuals who pled guilty to misdemeanor aggressive offenses

• Discuss practical applications and implications

BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE: MISDEMEANOR ASSAILANTS

• Many municipal courts offer referrals to counseling agencies as a form of criminal diversion for first time offenders.

• Individual defendants vary significantly on demographic, psychological and criminological risk factors.

• Ideally, it is important to distinguish among individuals to better understand their levels and types of aggression.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT: BP-AQ

• The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) is a widely used measure of aggression. • It is used in research and applied/clinical settings• It has been translated into multiple languages• It has been used with multiple populations,

including offenders• The BP-AQ was developed with U.S.

undergraduate students.• It was based on the Buss-Durkee Hostility

Inventory (1957).

BASIC STRUCTURE: BP-AQ

• The BP-AQ is a 29 item, self-report measure with 4 factors:• Physical aggression • Verbal aggression• Anger• Hostility

• Based on research or clinical focus, scores can be generated for each factor (sub-scale), an overall rating of aggression (hierarchical factor), or both.

• Responses are on a 1 to 5 scale, from “Extremely unlike me” to “Extremely like me.”

• Factor structure holds between genders—although males typically have higher scores.

COMPETING MODELS

• A number of competing models have been offered, for a variety of reasons:• Despite wide usage, the original Buss-Perry

factor structure only achieved a marginal fit.• Concerns have been raised regarding relying

on an instrument developed with college students in clinical and other real-world settings.

• A desire to develop a shorter version of the BP-AQ

SAMPLE: PROCEDURES

• Stratified random sample drawn from all referrals (over 1,500) from Phoenix Municipal Court to a local treatment provider during three year period (2010 – 2012).

• Stratified based on:• Treatment year• Gender• Race/ethnicity• Age

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

• Total sample = 246• Survey administered at program entry• Gender: 66% male; 34% female• Race/ethnicity:

• White, non-Hispanic: 51%; Hispanic: 28%• African American: 11%; Native American: 5%• Asian: 1%; Other: 3%; Missing: 2%

• Age distribution• 18 - 29: 50%; 30 - 39: 18%; • 40 - 49: 18%; 50 - 59: 9%• 60 - 69: 4%; 70+: 1%

SAMPLE CONTINUED

• Original Charge:• Assault or other aggressive act: 186 (75%)• Criminal Damage: 41 (17%)• Other: 19 (8%)

• Program Outcome:• Charge Dismissed: 204 (83%)• Guilty Plea Executed: 42 (17%)

• One year recidivism:• Any recidivism: 24 (10%)• Aggressive offense: 12 (5%)

METHODS

• Conducted 7 separate CFAs using AMOS (version 21)

• Fit indices were chosen a priori to consider absolute fit, relative fit, and model parsimony.

• Models were compared using the chosen indices.

• Following initial comparisons, the best fitting model was reviewed more closely, including

• Reliability of the models were evaluated.

RESULTS: COMPARISON OF MODELS

Green = good fit; Yellow = moderate fit; Red = poor fit; Bold = clearly superior comparative fit

BRYANT & SMITH 4 FACTOR MODEL

BRYANT & SMITH: HIERARCHICAL MODEL

RELIABILITY MEASURED BY CRONBACH’S Α

Full

Scal

e

Phys

ical

A

ggre

ssio

n

Verb

al

Agg

ress

ion

Ang

er

Hos

tility

PA &

Ang

er

VA &

Hos

tility

Buss & Perry .93 .82 .73 .79 .85 N/A N/A

Harris .92 .82 .73 .79 .84 N/A N/A

Williams et al. .94 N/A N/A N/A N/A .91 .88

Bryant & Smith .89 .73 .70 .76 .78 N/A N/A

Diamond et al. .90 .73 .70 .83 .78 N/A N/A

Webster et al. .82 .75 .63 .47 .64 N/A N/A

DISCUSSION

• Consistent with the findings of Byrne & Smith (2001), the much smaller 12 item, 4 factor model seems superior.

• Brief version reduces time, while retaining adequate reliability

• Replication of their findings with a sample of misdemeanor offenders is of note.

• Although not factored into these models, some interesting findings on mean scores include:• Younger individuals had significantly higher scores.• Women had similar scores to men—a significant deviation

from most past research.• Mean scores in this population were lower than most

published studies.

DISCUSSION, CONTINUED

• Applied considerations:• When to administer• Social desirability• Using the full score vs. sub-scales• How to interpret, what is a “high” or “low” score?

• This study highlights the importance to awareness of tool development.• What population was it developed with?• Has it been validated with other populations?• Have subsequent researchers made modified versions?

• Highlights the benefits of partnerships between courts, service providers, and universities.

REFERENCES

Bryant, F.B. & Smith, B.D. (2001). Refining the architecture of aggression: A measurement model for the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 138-167.

Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Buss, A.H. & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(4), 343-349.

Buss, A.H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452-459.

REFERENCES

Diamond, P.M., Wang, E.W., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2005). Factor structure of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) with mentally ill male prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 546-564.

Harris, J.A. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the aggression questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(8), 991- 993.

Webster, G.D., DeWall, C.N., Pond, R.S., Deckman, T., Jonason, P.k., Le, B.M. … Bator, R.J. (2014). The Brief Aggression Questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 120-139.

Williams, T.Y., Boyd, J.C., Cascardi, M.A. & Poythress, N. (1996). Factor structure and convergent validity of the aggression questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 398-403.

CONTACT INFORMATION

John M. Gallagher, MSWArizona State UniversitySchool of Social WorkOffice of Forensic Social Work Education and Training411 N. Central Ave, Suite 880Phoenix, AZ 85004602-405-0421John.gallagher@asu.edu

Gallagher & Ashford NOFSW, July 2014

Handout #1: Summary of Items with their Hypothesized Factors in Seven Competing Models

# Item Text BP-1 BP-4 Will Harris BS Diam Webb

1 Once in a while I can't control the urge to strike another person. Yes PA PA/A PA

5 Given enough provocation, I may hit another person. Yes PA PA/A PA PA PA PA

9 If somebody hits me, I hit back. Yes PA PA/A PA

13 I get into fights a little more than the average person. Yes PA PA/A PA

17 If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will. Yes PA PA/A PA PA

21 There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows. Yes PA PA/A PA PA PA PA

24 I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person. (RC) Yes PA PA

27 I have threatened people I know. Yes PA PA/A PA PA PA

29 I have become so mad that I have broken things. Yes PA PA/A PA

2 I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them. Yes VA VA VA

6 I often find myself disagreeing with people. Yes VA VA/H VA VA VA

10 When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them. Yes VA VA/H VA VA

14 I can't help getting into arguments when people disagree with me. Yes VA VA/H VA VA VA

18 My friends say that I'm somewhat argumentative. Yes VA VA/H VA VA VA VA

3 I flare up quickly but get over it quickly. Yes A PA/A A A .

7 When frustrated, I let my irritation show. Yes A PA/A A

11 I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode. Yes A PA/A A A

15 I am an even-tempered person. (RC) Yes A A A

19 Some of my friends think I'm a hothead. Yes A PA/A A

22 Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason. Yes A PA/A A A A A

25 I have trouble controlling my temper. Yes A PA/A A A A A

4 I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy. Yes H VA/H H

8 At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Yes H VA/H H H H

12 Other people always seem to get the breaks. Yes H VA/H H H H H

16 I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things. Yes H VA/H H H H

20 I know that "friends" talk about me behind my back. Yes H VA/H H

23 I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers. Yes H VA/H

26 I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind me back. Yes H VA/H H H

28 When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want. Yes H VA/H H Note. The items are presented in the order developed by Buss & Perry (1996) and the item numbers represent the order they were administered in the present

study and correspond to any item numbers in this report. RC = Reverse coded; PA/A = Physical aggression and anger; VA/H = Verbal Aggression and

Hostility.BP-1 = Buss Perry, 1 factor model, BP-4 = Buss Perry 4 factor model, Will = Williams et al., Harr = Harris, BS = Bryan Smith, Diam = Diamond et al.,

Webb = Webster et al.

Gallagher & Ashford NOFSW, July 2014

Handout #2: Normative scores for full and short versions

Mean scores and standard deviations for scales by studies, Full 29 item BP-AQ

Study

Population Total Physical Verbal Anger Hostility

Buss & Perry (1992) US undergraduates

Men (n = 612) 77.8

(16.5)

24.3

(7.7)

15.2

(3.9)

17.0

(5.6)

21.3

(5.5)

Women (n = 641) 68.2

(17)

17.9

(6.6)

13.5

(3.9)

16.7

(5.8)

20.2

(6.3)

Tremblay & Ewart

(2005)

Canadian

undergraduates

Men (n = 100) 70.96

(14.6)

22.96

(6.68)

13.9

(3.71)

15.61

(5.23)

18.5

(5.56)

Women (n = 146) 62.15

(13.63)

16.15

(5.6)

13.08

(3.32)

14.87

(4.84)

18.04

(5.18)

Williams et al. (1996) Jail detainees, Dade

County, FL

Men (n = 124) 72.8

(19.7)

24.1

(7.7)

13.6

(3.9)

16.4

(5.5)

19.9

(6.6)

Women (n = 76) 68.4

(21.5)

20.8

(7.6)

13.4

(3.9)

16

(5.9)

19.5

(7.3)

O’Conor et al. (2001) UK men, general

population (n=77)

64.30

(17.32)

18.43

(7.16)

14.05

(3.78)

15.57

(5.88)

16.81

(6.18)

Smith & Waterman

(2006)

UK prisoners

Violent offenders,

men (n = 57)

96.13

(18.95)

31.17

(7.71)

17.13

(4.23)

22.96)

(5.38)

24.87

(6.17)

Violent offenders,

women (n = 66)

29.55

(8.42)

16.33

(4.25)

20.92

(6.01)

24.45

(6.16)

91.25

(21.4)

Nonviolent, men

(n = 58)

82.87

(20.36)

25.75

(8.22)

15.21

(4.1)

18.87

(6.2)

23.03

(6.16)

Nonviolent, women

(n = 67)

24.33

(8.87)

14.83

(4.24)

18.64

(5.8)

21.51

(6.69)

79.3

(20.84)

Kelly & Egan (2012) Irish probationers,

men & women (n =

72)

94.4

(19.2)

30.2

(8.1)

17.3

(3.4)

21.8

(6.2)

25.1

(6.4)

Ashford & Gallagher

(2014)

Misdemeanor

offenders, Phoenix,

AZ

Men (n = 163) 62.28

(17.96)

19.71

(6.53)

12.71

(3.68)

13.97

(4.99)

15.88

(6.23)

Women (n = 83) 60.78

(18.95)

19.01

(7.10)

12.07

(3.48)

14.17

(4.91)

15.53

(6.02)

Gallagher & Ashford NOFSW, July 2014

Handout #2: Normative scores for full and short versions

Mean scores and standard deviations for scales by studies, 12 item AQ-Short Form

Study

Population Total Physical Verbal Anger Hostility

Condon et al. (2006)

Spanish high school

students and

undergraduates

Males (n = 196) 27.77

(7.93)

6.18

(3.07)

6.78

(2.52)

6.92

(2.89)

7.88

(3.04)

Females (n = 220) 27.22

(7.93)

4.89

(2.72)

6.64

(2.54)

7.41

(2.86)

8.29

(3.19)

Brinkley et al. (2008) Federal female

inmates (n = 430)

26.1 6.23

(3.2)

6.18

(3.66)

5.62

(3.49)

8.07

(3.65)

Psychogiou et al.

(2007)

UK parents of

school age children

Men (n = 78) 27.56

(10.40)

Not Reported

Women (n = 268) 23.48

(9.08)

Not Reported

Ashford & Gallagher

(2014)

Misdemeanor

offenders, Phoenix,

AZ

Men (n = 163) 23.44

(8.32)

5.80

(2.69)

6.09

(2.24)

5.63

(2.54)

5.93

(2.75)

Women (n = 83) 22.59

(8.83)

5.51

(2.75)

5.49

(2.17)

5.66

(2.69)

5.92

(2.64)

Gallagher & Ashford NOFSW, July 2014

Handout #2: Normative scores for full and short versions

References

Ashford, J.B. & Gallagher, J.M. (2014). [Aggression Questionnaire scores among misdemeanor

offenders]. Unpublished raw data.

Brinkley, C.A., Diamond, P.M., Magaletta, P.R., Heigel, C.P. (2008). Cross-validation of

Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale in a sample of federal female inmates. Assessment, 15,

464-482.

Buss, A.H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 63(3), 452-459.

Kelly, J. & Egan, V. (2012). A case-control study of alcohol-related violent offending among

Irish probation clients. Irish Probation Journal, 9, 94-110.

O’Connor, D.B., Archer, J. & Wu, F.W. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-reports, partner

reports, and responses to provoking scenarios. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 79-101.

Psychogiou, L., Daley, D., Thompson, M. & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2007). Testing the interactive

effect of parent and child ADHD on parenting in mothers and fathers: A further test of

the similarity-fit hypothesis. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 419-433.

Smith, P. & Waterman, M. (2006). Self-reported aggression and impulsivity in forensic and non-

forensic populations: The role of gender and experience. Journal of Family Violence, 21,

425-437.

Tremblay, P.F. & Ewart, L.A. (2005). The Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire and its

relations to values, the Big Five, provoking hypothetical situations, alcohol consumption

patterns and alcohol expectancies. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 337-346.

Williams, T.Y., Boyd, J.C., Cascardi, M.A. & Poythress, N. (1996). Factor structure and

convergent validity of the aggression questionnaire in an offender population.

Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 398-403.