The original Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev self-control scale is frequently used in self-control theory studies. Examining self-control requires precision in measurement. Using the Rasch rating scale model analysis, the Grasmick et al. scale is evaluated for construct validity in a college student sample. The results show that the 4-point Likert-type format response categories are not suitable for the scale. The distribution of the measures does not align with the distribution of the item measures in the original Grasmick et al. scale. The items do not fit the Rasch model, they do not form a unidimensional trait, and they function differently for males and females. Thus, the original Grasmick et al. scale does not have construct validity. A revised scale is presented that meets the standards of the Rasch model.
Akers, R. (1991). Self-control as a general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201-211.
2.
Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J. (1999). Evaluating the dimensionality and invariance of “low self-control.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 307-331.
3.
Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursik, R. J. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225-247.
4.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human services. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. M. (1993). Self-control and juvenile delinquency: Theoretical issues and an empirical assessment of selected elements of General Theory of Crime. Deviant Behavior, 14, 243-264.
6.
Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., Sellers, C. S., Wilkerson, W., & Chamlin, M. (1998). Academic dishonesty and low self-control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime. Deviant Behavior, 19, 227-255.
7.
DeLisi, M., Hochstettler, A., & Murphy, D. S. (2003). Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale. Justice Quarterly, 20, 240-264.
8.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Evans, D. T., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Dunaway, R. G., & Benson, M. L. (1997). The social consequences of self-control: Testing the general theory of crime. Criminology, 35, 475-501.
11.
Flora, D. B., Finkel, E. J., & Foshee, V. A. (2003). Higher order factor structure of a self-control test: Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis with polychoric correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 112-127.
12.
Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as a basis for a general theory of crime: A critique. Theoretical Criminology, 4, 35-53.
13.
Gibbs, J. J., & Giever, D. (1995). Self-control and its manifestations among university students: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 12, 231-255.
14.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Higgins, G. E. (2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441-458.
15.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Martin, J. (1998). Parental-management and self-control: An empirical test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 42-72.
16.
Gibson, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Low self-control and coworker delinquency: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 483-492.
17.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). General theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
19.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Higgins, G. E. (2002). General theory of crime and deviance: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25, 71-95.
21.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47-54.
22.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1994). The generality of deviance. In T. Hirschi & M. Gottfredson (Eds.), The generality of deviance (pp. 1-23). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
23.
Keane, C., Maxim, P. S., & Teevan, J. J. (1993). Drinking and driving, self-control, and gender: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 30-46.
24.
LaGrange, T., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41-72.
25.
Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 103-122.
26.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85-106.
27.
Linacre, J. M. (2005). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
28.
Longshore, D., Turner, S., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Self-control in a criminal sample: An examination of construct validity. Criminology, 34, 209-228.
29.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
MacDonald, R. R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Marcus, B. (2003). An empirical examination of the construct validity of two alternative self-control measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 674-706.
32.
Marcus, B. (2004). Self-control in the general theory of crime: Theoretical implications of a measurement problem. Theoretical Criminology, 8, 33-55.
33.
Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467-496.
34.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
Paternoster, R., & Brame, R. (1998). The structural similarity or processes generating criminal and analogous behaviors. Criminology, 36, 633-670.
36.
Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 481-510.
37.
Piquero, A. R., MacIntosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2001). Applying Rasch modeling to the validity of a control balance scale. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 493-505.
38.
Piquero, A. R., & Rosay, A. B. (1998). The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale: A comment on Longshore et al. Criminology, 36, 157-173.
39.
Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision-making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481-510.
40.
Polakowski, M. (1994). Linking self- and social control with deviance: Illuminating the structure underlying a general theory of crime and its relation to deviant activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 41-78.
41.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
42.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: The Danish Institute for Educational Research.
43.
Raykov, T. (2000). A method for examining stability in reliability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 289-305.
44.
Reed, G. E., & Yeager, P. C. (1996). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology, 34, 357-382.
45.
Reskage, M. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207-230.
46.
Smith, E. V. (2001). Evidence of the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: A Rasch measurement perspective. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2, 281-311.
47.
Smith, E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205-231.
48.
Smith, R. M. (2000). Common oversights in Rasch studies (MESA Note 9). Available at http://www.rasch.org/rn9.htm
49.
Thurstone, L. L. (1925). A method of scaling psychological and educational tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 16, 433-451.
50.
Tibbetts, S. G. (1997). Gender differences in students’ rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 393-414.
51.
Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179-200.
52.
Tittle, C., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-365.
53.
Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., & Junger, M. (1995). Does low self-control during childhood explain the association between delinquency and accidents in early adolescence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 5, 439-451.
54.
Turner, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2002). The stability of self-control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 457-471.
55.
Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Parental management, ADHD, and delinquent involvement: Reassessing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory. Justice Quarterly, 20, 471-500.
56.
von Davier, M. (1997). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit statistics for sparse categorical data—results from a Monte Carlo study. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2, 31-48.
57.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.
58.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
