Psychometric properties of a short self-report measure of rule-breaking behaviour among adolescents: findings from the Ungdata survey

Abstract

Background:

The aim of the present study was to examine the factor structure and reliability of a six-item scale of rule-breaking behaviour, and to test for measurement invariance across gender, age, survey year and geographical location.

Methods:

Data were from three yearly cross-sectional and population-based collections of the Ungdata surveys (2017 to 2019) including a total of 297,102 Norwegian adolescents aged approximately 13 to 19 years. Measurements included respondent’s rule-breaking behaviour, time, gender, age and geographical location.

Results:

Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a one-factor solution of the rule-breaking behaviour scale had good fit to data (comparative fit index 0.98; Tucker–Lewis index 0.96; root mean square error of approximation 0.049 (95% confidence interval 0.048, 0.050)), with factor loadings ranging from 0.60 to 0.81 for all items (mean factor loading 0.72). Similar results were found across survey years for both genders. Several multiple group confirmatory factor analyses showed indications of measurement invariance for the scale across gender, age groups, geographical locations and survey years. The ordinal alpha and omega coefficients for internal consistency of the scale were both 0.86.

Conclusions:

The six-item scale for self-reported rule-breaking behaviour demonstrated good psychometric properties and appears to constitute a reliable measure of adolescent rule-breaking behaviour for use in population-based surveys in a Norwegian setting.

Keywords

Rule-breaking behaviour adolescents Ungdata psychometric properties confirmatory factor analysis measurement invariance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burt

. How do we optimally conceptualize the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior? An argument for aggressive versus non-aggressive behavioral dimensions. Clin Psychol Rev 2012;32:263–279.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

Adalbjarnardottir

Rafnsson

. Adolescent antisocial behavior and substance use: longitudinal analyses. Addict Behav 2002;27:227–240.

Moffitt

Caspi

. Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Dev Psychopathol 2001;13:355–375.

Moffitt

. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychol Rev 1993;100:674.

Lahey

Waldman

. A developmental propensity model of the origins of conduct problems during childhood and adolescence. In: Lahey

Moffitt

Caspi

(eds) Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York: The Guilford Press, 2003, pp. 76–117.

Tackett

Daoud

De Bolle

, et al. Is relational aggression part of the externalizing spectrum? A bifactor model of youth antisocial behavior. Aggress Behav 2013;39:149–159.

Eley

Lichtenstein

Stevenson

. Sex differences in the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior: results from two twin studies. Child Dev 1999;70:155–168.

Burt

Donnellan

Iacono

, et al. Age-of-onset or behavioral sub-types? A prospective comparison of two approaches to characterizing the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2011;39:633–644.

10.

Tremblay

. Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: the ‘original sin’ hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2010;5):341–367.

11.

Bakken

. Nasjonale resultater. NOVA Rapport 16/20. Oslo: NOVA, OsloMet, 2020, 2021.

12.

Elliott

Huizinga

Ageton

. Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage Publications, 1985.

13.

Windle

. A longitudinal study of antisocial behaviors in early adolescence as predictors of late adolescent substance use: gender and ethnic group differences. J Abnorm Psychol 1990;99:86.

14.

Huizinga

Elliott

. Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. J Quantit Criminol 1986;2:293–327.

15.

Bendixen

Olweus

. Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early adolescence and adolescence: Psychometric properties and substantive findings. Crim Behav Mental Health 1999;9:323–354.

16.

Frøyland

. Ungdata dokumentasjonsrapport 2010–2019 [Ungdata documentation report 2010-2019]. Oslo: NOVA, Oslomet, 2017.

17.

Frøyland

Sletten

. Mindre problematferd for de fleste, større problemer for de få? En studie av tidstrender i problematferd: 1992, 2002 og 2010 [Minor behavior problems for the many, major problems for the few? A study of time trends in behavior problems: 1992, 2002, and 2010]. Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning 2012;12:43–66.

18.

Piquero

Macintosh

Hickman

. The validity of a self-reported delinquency scale: Comparisons across gender, age, race, and place of residence. Sociol Methods Res 2002;30:492–529.

19.

Heradstveit

Nilsen

Breivik

, et al. Past year cannabis use among Norwegian 1 adolescents: time trends based on the Ungdata surveys 2010–2019. Front Psychiatry 2021;12:194.

20.

Statistics Norway. Population and land area in urban settlements. Statistics Norway. 2019. https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/folketall/statistikk/tettsteders-befolkning-og-areal (2019; accessed 17 December 2021).

21.

Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999;6:1–55.

22.

Rodriguez

Reise

Haviland

. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods 2016;21:137.

23.

Svetina

Rutkowski

. Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: an illustration using M plus and the lavaan/semtools packages. Struct Equat Model: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2020;27:111–130.

24.

D’Urso

De Roover

Vermunt

, et al. Scale length does matter: recommendations for measurement invariance testing with categorical factor analysis and item response theory approaches. Behav Res Methods 2021; 1–32.

25.

Cheung

Rensvold

. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equat Model 2002;9:233–255.

26.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Australia: R Core Team, 2016.

27.

StataCorp

. Stata statistical software: release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2019.

28.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. Multivariate data analysis. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.

29.

Evers

Hagemeister

Høstmælingen

, et al. EFPA review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests. Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations, 2013.

30.

Elliott

Ageton

. Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. Am Sociol Rev 1980;45:95–110.

31.

Shi

Lee

Fairchild

, et al. Fitting ordinal factor analysis models with missing data: a comparison between pairwise deletion and multiple imputation. Educat Psychol Measure 2020;80:41–66.

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB