Polman Hanneke, de Castro Bram Orobio, Thomaes Sander, van Aken Marcel
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009 Feb;37(2):183-93. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9266-0.
The well-known distinction between reactive and proactive aggression is theoretically important but empirically controversial. Recently, aggression researchers have argued that we should separate the form and function of aggression to make a clearer distinction between reactive and proactive aggression. This article describes the validation of a new teacher-report Instrument for Reactive and Proactive Aggression (IRPA) that assesses the form separate from the function of aggression. We demonstrated good discriminant, convergent, and construct validity of the IRPA in a sample of 427 children aged 10 to 13. Reactive and proactive functions of aggression were independent constructs (r = 0.03) which indicates excellent discriminant validity. Convergent validity was satisfactory; scores from the IRPA were moderately to highly related to scores from the widely used Teacher Rating Instrument, TRI (Dodge and Coie in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:1146-1158, 1987). Additionally, reactive and proactive aggression showed unique correlations with most a priori hypothesized theoretically relevant variables, which indicates construct validity. (150 words).
反应性攻击和主动性攻击之间广为人知的区别在理论上很重要，但在实证方面存在争议。最近，攻击行为研究者认为，我们应该将攻击行为的形式和功能区分开来，以便更清楚地区分反应性攻击和主动性攻击。本文描述了一种新的教师报告的反应性和主动性攻击行为量表（IRPA）的验证过程，该量表将攻击行为的形式与功能分开进行评估。我们在一个由427名10至13岁儿童组成的样本中验证了IRPA具有良好的区分效度、聚合效度和结构效度。攻击行为的反应性和主动性功能是相互独立的结构（r = 0.03），这表明其具有出色的区分效度。聚合效度令人满意；IRPA的得分与广泛使用的教师评定量表（TRI）（道奇和科伊，《人格与社会心理学杂志》53:1146 - 1158，1987）的得分具有中度到高度的相关性。此外，反应性攻击和主动性攻击与大多数先验假设的理论相关变量呈现出独特的相关性，这表明其具有结构效度。 （150字）
