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

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.

[1]  K. Stormark,et al.  Past Year Cannabis Use Among Norwegian Adolescents: Time Trends Based on the Ungdata Surveys 2010–2019 , 2021, Frontiers in Psychiatry.

[2]  Alberto Maydeu-Olivares,et al.  Fitting Ordinal Factor Analysis Models With Missing Data: A Comparison Between Pairwise Deletion and Multiple Imputation , 2020, Educational and psychological measurement.

[3]  Leslie Rutkowski,et al.  Multiple-Group Invariance with Categorical Outcomes Using Updated Guidelines: An Illustration Using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools Packages , 2020, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal.

[4]  S. Reise,et al.  Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. , 2016, Psychological methods.

[5]  J. Tackett,et al.  Is relational aggression part of the externalizing spectrum? a bifactor model of youth antisocial behavior. , 2013, Aggressive behavior.

[6]  S. A. Burt How do we optimally conceptualize the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior? An argument for aggressive versus non-aggressive behavioral dimensions. , 2012, Clinical psychology review.

[7]  M. Donnellan,et al.  Age-of-Onset or Behavioral Sub-Types? A Prospective Comparison of Two Approaches to Characterizing the Heterogeneity within Antisocial Behavior , 2011, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[8]  Richard E Tremblay,et al.  Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: the 'original sin' hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. , 2010, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[9]  Alex R. Piquero,et al.  The Validity of a Self-reported Delinquency Scale , 2002 .

[10]  D. Olweus,et al.  Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early adolescence and adolescence: psychometric properties and substantive findings , 1999 .

[11]  P. Lichtenstein,et al.  Sex differences in the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior: results from two twin studies. , 1999, Child development.

[12]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .