Henry David B
Department of Psychiatry, Institute for Juvenile Research, University of Illinois, Chicago 60608, USA.
Assessment. 2006 Sep;13(3):241-52. doi: 10.1177/1073191106287668.
This study evaluates the validity of two aggression scales for predicting observations of malicious or disruptive behavior at school. Subgroups of a sample of 1,560 children (age 8.6+/-1.5 years) were assessed using (a) peer nominations of aggression, (b) teacher reports on the Teacher Report Form (TRF) of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Aggression scale and the peer nomination items, or (c) self-reports on the peer nomination items. Criteria were observations of physical, verbal, initiated, retaliatory, malicious, and disruptive behaviors. Teacher report peer nominations predicted observed physical, verbal, initiated, and retaliatory aggression and disruptive behavior. Peer nominations predicted physical aggression, verbal aggression, initiation and disruptive behavior, and TRFs predicted verbal, initiated, and disruptive behavior. Self-reports did not significantly predict any behavior. Implications for assessment of aggression are discussed.
本研究评估了两种攻击行为量表在预测学校中恶意或破坏性行为观察结果方面的有效性。对1560名儿童(年龄8.6±1.5岁)样本的亚组进行了评估,评估方式包括:(a)同伴对攻击行为的提名;(b)教师根据儿童行为检查表(CBCL)攻击行为量表的教师报告表(TRF)及同伴提名项目进行报告;或(c)对同伴提名项目进行自我报告。评判标准为对身体攻击、言语攻击、主动攻击、报复性攻击、恶意攻击和破坏性行为的观察结果。教师报告的同伴提名预测了观察到的身体攻击、言语攻击、主动攻击、报复性攻击和破坏性行为。同伴提名预测了身体攻击、言语攻击、主动攻击和破坏性行为,而教师报告表预测了言语攻击、主动攻击和破坏性行为。自我报告未显著预测任何行为。文中讨论了对攻击行为评估的启示。