Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

Abstract

The Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (A-PBFS) is an 18-item psychometric instrument designed for adolescents to self-report the frequency of their aggressive behaviors. Utilizing a 6-point Likert-type scale, respondents quantify how often they engaged in specific aggressive acts over the preceding 30 days. The scale is theoretically and empirically structured around three primary dimensions of aggression: physical aggression, non-physical aggression (often verbal or overt), and relational aggression (social manipulation).

The A-PBFS has been widely adopted in large-scale public health and violence prevention research, most notably as a core measure within the federally funded Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVP). Its utility stems from its straightforward administration, clear behavioral definitions, and demonstrated robust internal consistency across diverse youth populations, making it an essential tool for tracking intervention outcomes.

Keywords

Aggression, Problem Behavior, Physical Aggression, Non-Physical Aggression, Relational Aggression, Adolescence, Self-report measure, Violence Prevention, Frequency Scale, Psychometrics, Multisite Violence Prevention Project

Authors

Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVP), Orpinas P., Frankowski R., Crick N. R., Bigbee M. A., Farrell A. D. et al.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (A-PBFS) is to precisely quantify the rate at which young adolescents engage in various forms of aggressive and anti-social behaviors. By establishing a fixed, recent recall period (30 days), the scale provides a highly time-sensitive measure, which is critical for assessing immediate behavioral changes resulting from preventative interventions or natural developmental shifts.

The instrument is designed to offer granularity beyond a single global score of aggression. It enables researchers and practitioners to differentiate among various manifestations of behavioral problems, yielding distinct scores for subscales covering direct physical harm, indirect non-physical antagonism, and socially damaging relational behaviors. This detailed breakdown is essential for the design of targeted intervention strategies and the rigorous evaluation of program efficacy in school-based violence prevention initiatives.

Construct

The A-PBFS measures the construct of multi-dimensional adolescent aggression, conceptualized as a behavioral spectrum ranging from overt physical confrontation to covert social manipulation. The scale operationalizes this construct through 18 items grouped into three primary subscales:

• Physical Aggression: This dimension measures direct acts intended to cause physical harm or threat of harm, including behaviors such as hitting, pushing, or threatening with a weapon.
• Non-Physical Aggression (Overt/Verbal): This captures behaviors that involve direct verbal or non-physical confrontation aimed at insulting, angering, or humiliating another individual (e.g., insulting family members or direct teasing).
• Relational Aggression: This focuses on social behaviors intended to damage another person’s social standing, reputation, or relationships, typically through exclusion, rumor spreading, or social manipulation of peer groups.

Validity

While foundational documentation for the A-PBFS does not extensively report on formal structural validity studies, such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the scale demonstrates strong face validity. Its 18 items directly reflect observable, self-reported problem behaviors frequently encountered in middle school environments, aligning with established definitions of adolescent aggression.

The scale’s practical utility and implied criterion validity are strongly supported by its selection and consistent use in major, federally funded research initiatives, including the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVP). This suggests that the instrument aligns empirically with broader measures of violence, delinquency, and behavioral outcomes. The theoretical differentiation of items across the three specified dimensions (Physical, Non-Physical, Relational) suggests an intended factor structure, but formal published psychometric studies confirming this intended three-factor model remain limited.

Reliability

The Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale exhibits generally strong internal consistency across its subscales, which is the primary measure of its reliability. Studies conducted in the United States, such as those associated with the MVP project (Miller-Johnson et al., 2004), reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .70 and .87. These values are considered acceptable to strong for psychological assessment instruments.

Furthermore, the high degree of reliability has been confirmed through cross-cultural validation efforts. For example, a Bulgarian study (Biliċ, 2013) reported comparable Cronbach’s alpha values, consistently falling between .83 and .87. These results confirm that the A-PBFS is a reliable instrument for measuring aggressive behaviors consistently across various adolescent populations and cultural settings.

Factor Analysis

A recognized limitation in the early psychometric literature for the A-PBFS is the scarcity of published studies explicitly detailing its factor structure. The scale is designed theoretically to measure three distinct factors (Physical, Non-Physical, and Relational aggression); however, formal psychometric analyses, such as Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), necessary to empirically confirm this tripartite structure, have not been widely cited in the primary sources available.

Consequently, researchers are advised that while the scale demonstrates high internal reliability within its defined subscales, the underlying structural validity—that is, how the 18 items group empirically into the three intended factors—requires further, robust investigation. Ensuring the measurement model is stable and robust across diverse cohorts is essential for maximizing the scale’s interpretability and scientific precision.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report frequency measure

Format: 18 items rated on a 6-point frequency scale.

Language Available: English (Primary), translations may exist for research purposes (e.g., Bulgarian in cited studies).

Population Group: Youth / Adolescents

Age Group: 12 to 16 years old

Population Details: Specifically targets middle school students, typically spanning grades 6 through 8.

Test Methodology: Respondents are instructed to report the frequency of engaging in the specific aggressive behaviors listed over the last 30 days. The scoring utilizes the following point values for each item, which are then summed to create subscale scores:

• Never = 1
• 1-2 times = 2
• 3-5 times = 3
• 6-9 times = 4
• 10-19 times = 5
• 20 or more times = 6

High summed scores on any given subscale indicate a higher self-reported frequency of that corresponding aggressive behavior.

Keywords

Aggression scale, Self-report, Adolescent behavior, Violence, Peer relations, Psychometrics, Internal consistency, Multisite Violence Prevention Project, Behavioral assessment

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Scale developed collaboratively under a project structure)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Contact Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for MVP project details)

Correspondence Address: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA (Context of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale was utilized extensively around the year 2004 as a key component of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVP). As a tool developed through publicly funded research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is generally available for non-commercial and research use, often without a direct fee. Interested parties seeking to use the instrument should consult the CDC’s official documentation for current usage guidelines and permissions.

The instrument is formally documented in the comprehensive compendium, “Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools.” The original PDF of the compendium can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf.

Additional relevant documentation, likely containing background or psychometric details, can be found here: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486261.pdf.

Reference’s

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Aggression-Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

Physical Aggression

1. Thrown something at someone to hurt them?
2. Been in a fight in which someone was hit?
3. Threatened to hurt a teacher?
4. Shoved or pushed another kid?
5. Threatened someone with a weapon (gun, knife, club, etc.)?
6. Hit or slapped another kid?
7. Threatened to hit or physically harm another kid?

Non-Physical Aggression

8. Insulted someone’s family?
9. Teased someone to make them angry?
10. Put someone down to their face?
11. Gave mean looks to another student?
12. Picked on someone?
13. Didn’t let another student be in your group anymore because you were mad at them?
14. Told another kid you wouldn’t like them unless they did what you wanted them to do?
15. Tried to keep others from liking another kid by saying mean things about him/her?
16. Spread a false rumor about someone?
17. Left another kid out on purpose when it was time to do an activity?
18. Said things about another student to make [them angry or sad].