Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 1

Measurement Invariance and Psychometric Properties of the Reactive and Proactive

Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) Across Genders

Abstract

Aggression is an important risk factor that predisposes adolescents to disruptive and

criminal behaviours. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the structural

invariance and psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Reactive-Proactive

Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) across genders among adolescents. A sample of 450

students (Mage = 14 years, SD = 0.81) was recruited randomly and completed the Persian

version of the RPQ, Child Behavior Checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

Although the two-factor model obtained the best fit across genders, the results did not support

the equivalence of factor loadings across groups. These findings replicated the distinction of

reactive and proactive aggression while implied different models of the RPQ based on

gender. Suggestions for future research and a more accurate assessment of these two kinds of

aggression are further discussed.

Keywords: Reactive Aggression, Proactive Aggression, Adolescents, Gender,

Invariance
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 2

Introduction

Research suggests that aggression is a severe and pervasive problem in adolescence,

contributing to most crimes (Bobadilla et al., 2012; Cima & Raine, 2009; Justice & Justice,

1999; Vitaro et al., 2006). It is defined as behaviours aimed to harm people and/or objects

(Dodge, 1991). Besides the different forms of aggression, it is believed that aggression has

different functions (Hubbard et al., 2010; Kempes et al., 2005). Therefore, different

categories of aggression have been emerged to explain this heterogeneous structure

(Cenkseven-Önder et al., 2016).

A frequently-used dichotomy classification was first put forwarded by Dodge and

Coie (1987), resulting in two subtypes of aggression, proactive and reactive (Cima & Raine,

2009; Conaty, 2006). Reactive aggression is defined by impulsive behaviours that occurred in

response to a provocation, frustration, or perceived threat which is best described by

frustration-aggression theory (Polman et al., 2007). It is the retaliatory form of aggression

motivated by anger (Hubbard et al., 2010; Polman et al., 2007). In contrast, proactive

aggression is the cold-blooded and goal-oriented form of aggression (Dodge, 1991; Hubbard

et al., 2010; Raine et al., 2006). This instrumental kind of aggression is best conceptualized

by the social learning theory that emphasizes the role of operant conditioning and vicarious

learning (Bandura, 1973).

Although there is a controversial debate on the usefulness of this distinction

(Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Euler et al., 2017), several studies demonstrated differential

correlates of these two subtypes of aggression (Dodge, 1991; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Hubbard

et al., 2010; Kempes et al., 2005; Vitaro et al., 2006), suggesting the different causal pathway

of these subtypes. A literature review shows different behavioural and neurocognitive profiles

among these groups (Smeets et al., 2017). Proactive aggression is found associated with

narcissism (Seah & Ang, 2008), poor peer relationship in early childhood, blunted affect
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 3

(Raine et al., 2006), higher levels of working memory (Hecht & Latzman, 2018), and an

expectation of positive outcomes (Poulin & Boivin, 2000). Past researches indicated that

correlates of reactive aggression include information processing deficits (Dodge & Coie,

1987), physical violence(Brendgen et al., 2001), lack of self-control, increased impulsivity,

problem-solving deficiency (Atkins et al., 1993), social anxiety, lack of close friend (Raine et

al., 2006), narcissistic traits (Bobadilla et al., 2012), increased emotion dysregulation (Hecht

& Latzman, 2018), schizotypal traits, poor interpersonal relations (Seah & Ang, 2008), social

maladjustment, internalizing behavior, and peer rejection (Card & Little, 2006).

However, there are some inconsistent findings of correlated variables with these two

subtypes of aggression. For instance, while in some studies, proactive aggression was

associated with delinquency (Atkins et al., 1993; Brendgen et al., 2001; Raine et al., 2006;

Vitaro et al., 1998), in some others, it was more related to reactive aggression (Card & Little,

2006).

The conflicting outcomes might be due to participants' different sex or ages (Bobadilla

et al., 2012; Connor et al., 2003; Kempes et al., 2005). Although there are many studies about

the development of aggression across the lifespan and comparison of genders, very few

accounts for age and gender differences specifically for these subtypes of aggression. About

gender comparison, one study showed boys were higher in reactive aggression but no

difference in proactive aggression (Kempes et al., 2006; Lickley & Sebastian, 2018).

Although these subtypes of aggression co-occurrence in children (Merk et al., 2005)

and aggression is better conceptualized on a continuous dimension, the distinction between

reactive and proactive aggression can still enhance our understanding of their separate

precursors and outcomes (Dodge, 1991). This knowledge would contribute to the

development of preventive and therapeutic interventions (Hubbard et al., 2010; Merk et al.,

2005; Pechorro et al., 2015). As such, reliable and valid measures which could distinguish
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 4

between these two subtypes of aggression are vital. Dodge and Coie (1987) tried to

discriminate these two subtypes of aggression among children as young as 3 to 6 years of

age. Their six-item rating scale can be completed by teachers, parents, themselves(Kaat et al.,

2015), and correctional facility staff (Hubbard et al., 2010). However, self-report measures

are privileged over others by accurately recognizing the inherent motivation of aggression,

the central feature of this distinction (Raine et al., 2006). The reactive-Proactive Aggression

Questionnaire (RPQ) is a brief self-report measure developed by Raine et al. (2006). The

psychometric properties of this measure have been investigated by several studies across

different cultures, supporting its reliability and validity. (Cenkseven-Önder et al., 2016;

Fossati et al., 2009; Fung et al., 2009; Pechorro et al., 2015; Seah & Ang, 2008). The

Cronbach's alpha values in the initial validation of the RPQ among schoolboys aged 7 and 16

years old were 0.84 for the reactive scale, 0.86 for the proactive scale, and 0.90 for the total

score (Raine et al., 2006). The Portuguese version of the RPQ showed good psychometric

properties, including convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity,

as well as internal consistency estimated by Cronbach's alpha and omega coefficient

(Pechorro et al., 2018). Cima et al. (2013) have identified Cronbach's alpha of the Dutch

version as 0.83 for the reactive scale and 0.87 for the proactive scale, supporting the RPQ as a

reliable and valid instrument to identify these subtypes of aggression. Its criterion validity

was also established due to the significantly lower scores of non-offenders compared to

offenders samples (Cima et al., 2013). The study conducted on Turkish children and

adolescents indicated the item-total correlation ranging from 0.40 to 0.74 and an Alpha

coefficient above 0.81 for both subscales and the total score, which supports the high internal

consistency of this measure (Cenkseven-Önder et al., 2016).

There are studies in favour of the original two-factor model across various cultures.

For instance, Fung et al. (2009) have examined the generalizability of the RPQ in an East
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 5

Asian population. Despite the significant correlation between reactive and proactive

aggression (r> 0.54), the original two-factor model was superior to the one-factor model, and

the item- loadings were over 0.45. A better fit of the two-factor structure was replicated in a

study among Portuguese youth (Pechorro et al., 2018). However, the measurement invariance

across genders was confirmed after excluding item 21. Although a two-factor model of the

Spanish version of the RPQ best fit the data, it was variant across genders and ages, with the

best fit in males under 25 years of age (Toro et al., 2020). The original two-factor model of

the RPQ also obtained the best fit among Dutch (Cima et al., 2013) and Turkish samples

(Cenkseven-Önder et al., 2016).

Despite these findings supporting the two-factor structure of the RPQ, some studies

have failed to confirm the original model. Using a person-based approach, Brugman et al.

(2017) revealed a three-factor structure based on the severity of aggression among forensic

and non-forensic samples. Moreover, the four-factor structure has been explored, combining

two subtypes of aggression and various contexts for reactive aggression (playing games and a

defensive form) based on a variable-based approach. However, the four-factor solution was

considered less solid since items were more uniquely related to each subscale of aggression in

the two-factor model of the RPQ. In the same way, Smeets et al. (2017) have extracted three

factors in the clinical sample, including reactive aggression due to external provocation,

reactive aggression due to internal frustration, and proactive aggression. Pang et al. (2013)

also identified three distinct clusters (including high reactive and low proactive aggression,

low on both subscales, and high on both subscales) among adolescents in Singapore,

providing evidence for this distinction.

Therefore, the contradictory results of the prior researches, together with the lack of

study for convergent and criterion validity of the RPQ among the Iranian population, suggest

the need for further research on the reliability of the RPQ to distinguish reactive from
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 6

proactive aggression. Hence, this research aims to investigate the replication of the original

model of the RPQ (Raine et al., 2006) and its psychometric properties among Iranian

adolescents across genders. Thus, we want to examine to what extent these two forms of

aggression can differ in a different culture by testing the cross-cultural generalizability of

these two kinds of aggression. Therefore, the first hypothesis was that the original two-factor

model of the RPQ would also achieve adequate fit while the loadings of items would have a

similar pattern across genders. Secondly, the RPQ is predicted to show good internal

consistency as measured by the Omega and Alpha coefficient, mean inter-item correlation

(MIIC), and corrected item-total correlation in both groups. Thirdly, we hypothesized that

both RPQ subscales would relate positively to criterion-related variables, including rule-

breaking behaviour, aggressive behaviour, and conduct problems, in a similar way in both

groups. Finally, to support that proactive aggression is associated with delinquency

(Bobadilla et al., 2012), we examine whether detained individuals can be distinguished based

on their scores in the proactive aggression subscale. It was predicted incarcerated individuals

would score higher than non-incarcerated adolescents on the proactive subscale.

Method

Participants

A total of 450 students participated in this study (Mage =14 years; S.D. =.81) consist of

217 boys (Mage= 14.29 years; SD= .80) and 233 girls (Mage= 13.89 years; SD= .78). There

were 133 students from grade 7, 146 students from grade 8, and 171 students from grade 9.

The participants were recruited via a stratified sampling method from 6 secondary schools in

Yazd, in the middle of Iran, considering various socioeconomic statuses.

A subsample of 145 students including 69 girls (Mage= 13.6 years; SD= .93) and 76

boys (Mage = 13.8 years; SD= 1.05) were used to measure convergent validity. This sample
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 7

comprised of the minimum participants needed (N = 67) to achieve the desired statistical

power (i.e., 0.80) recommended by Cohen (1988) with the medium effect size (i.e., r = 0.30).

The RPQ was administered in a forensic context to establish criterion validity. Since

there was no girl in imprisonment, all the incarcerated boys (N=31) aged 15 to 19 (Mage =

17.4 years; SD= 1.01) in the juvenile detention centre of Yazd were recruited. This sample

size was enough to achieve an acceptable level of statistical power (Cohen, 1988) with a

medium effect size (i.e., r = 0.50).

Measure

Reactive–Proactive aggression questionnaire (RPQ)

Reactive–Proactive aggression questionnaire: Participants completed RPQ, a 23 items

questionnaire that is suitable for a wide age range and evaluates two functions of physically

and verbally aggressive behaviours (Raine et al., 2006). There are 11 items in the proactive

and 12 items in the reactive subscale. Each item is rated on a three-point scale scored with 0

(Never), 1 (Sometimes), and 2 (Often).

Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL)

The emotional and behavioural problems were assessed by the Youth Self-Report

(YSR) version of the child behaviour checklist for children aged 6-18 (Achenbach &

Rescorla, 2014). This report measure contains 113 items rated on a three-point scale (0 =

Absent, 1 = Occurs sometimes, 2 = Occurs often). It includes subscales that assess anxiety,

depression, somatic complaints, social problems, thought problems, attention problems, rule-

breaking behaviour and aggressive behaviour. Symptoms of Rule-Breaking Behaviour and

Aggressive Behaviour make externalizing problems score. There is excellent support for the

psychometric properties of CBCL among the Iranian population and different countries

(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2014). In this study, two subscales of aggressive and rule-breaking

behaviours were used to evaluate convergent validity.

Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 8

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

A self-report version of the SDQ (Goodman et al., 1998) measured emotional and

behavioural disorders. It comprises 25 items assessing positive and negative attributes of

children and adolescents across five subscales: Conduct Problems, Inattention- Hyperactivity,

Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behaviour. Items are rated on a three-

point Likert-type scale with 'not true' (scored 0), 'somewhat true' (achieved 1), and 'certainly

true (scored 2). The Persian version of SDQ demonstrated high validity and reliability in

several studies (Tehranidoust et al., 2007). In this study, only the conduct problem subscale

(α = 0.72) was used.

Procedure

Permission is asked from the developer of the original RPQ before the initial

questionnaire was translated and back-translated into Persian. Face and content validity are

assessed by two experts, causing a minor change in the phraseology. After the approval of the

study in the ethical board of the department of education, three schools were chosen by

chance from each educational region. Randomly selected participants completed the

questionnaire after their consent got obtained. The questionnaire was accomplished in a

group following that the written instruction was read to assure understanding. All subjects

were informed that they could withdraw at any time without negative consequences for them.

They were encouraged to ask any questions about understanding the content.

Permission was obtained from the state prisons organization to attend the juvenile

detention centre of Yazd. The same procedures were done for incarcerated boys, except that

questionnaire was read for five illiterate participants. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS

Statistics and SPSS Amos version 23.

Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 9

Statistical analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum-likelihood estimation was done to

examine the factor structure of the RPQ. We used Bollen- Stine bootstrapping due to the non-

normality of items at the multivariate level. Considering recommended setting at 5000

samples in bootstrapping analysis (Hair Jr et al., 2014), the bias-corrected confidence interval

at the 95% confidence level was computed based on 5000 bootstrap samples. Model fit of

different factor structures suggested for this scale were assessed. Therefore, the original two-

factor model has been compared with the one-factor, second-order, and three-factor models

(Smeets et al., 2017). All items are loaded on one latent factor named general aggression in

the one-factor model, while the factor variance was constrained at 1.00. Different Goodness

of fit indices were used for the investigation of model fit, including Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), Tucker–Lewis fit index (TLI), the Goodness of its index (GFI), and the Root Mean

Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Besides, model chi-square divided by degrees of

freedom (χ2/df) is also considered in a way that values less than 2 and 5 are held to be good

and acceptable, respectively (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The acceptable cutoff value for

CFI is 0.90, indicating adequate fit (Hoyle, 1995). Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended that

CFI >.95, TLI ≥.95 and RMSEA <.06 indicate a good-fitting model. Akaike information

criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and expected cross-validation index

(ECVI) were used for non-nested models' comparison in the way that the lowest value

indicates better fit (Brown, 2015; Kline, 2015). Since factor loadings are considered

meaningful when they are above .30 (Pechorro et al., 2018), items with standardized loading

lower than that value were removed. No modification indexes (i.e., estimates resulting from

validity assessment of constrained parameters in the model) were used to improve the model

fit. Then measurement invariance of the primary model was assessed, using multigroup CFA

(Milfont & Fischer, 2010). This approach addresses whether there are differences in the
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 10

measurement of latent constructs across various groups. At first, the configural model is

defined in which all parameters were allowed to be freely estimated across groups. This

model is the baseline for comparison and estimates the equivalence of the overall factor

structure in groups. At the next step, metric invariance would be assessed to investigate

whether the same observations indicate the same latent constructs across different groups.

Therefore, while item intercepts are still allowed to be freely estimated, the factor loadings

are constrained to be equivalent across groups. At the final step, scalar invariance examines

the similarity of item intercepts across groups. Support for scalar invariance allows us for

comparison of factor means between groups(Lee, 2018). In each step, the baseline model is

compared with the constrained model. The difference between these nested models is

assessed based on the significance of the chi-square difference test as well as ΔCFI and the

ΔRMSEA (Tracey & Xu, 2017). Therefore, a significant deterioration in the fitness of the

more constrained model alongside ΔCFI> 0.01 and ΔRMSEA> 0.015 are considered

evidence of non-invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

In the last step, the psychometric properties of the two-factor model were investigated

across genders. Internal consistency was assessed using Omega and Alpha coefficients, mean

inter-item correlation (MIIC) and corrected item-total correlations (CITC). Omega and Alpha

values ≥ .70, the minimum mean inter-item correlations within the range of .15 to .20 and

corrected item-total correlations above .20 were considered adequate internal consistency

(Clark & Watson, 2016; Hair, 2009; Pechorro et al., 2018). Convergent validity was

examined using correlation analysis between the residual scores of reactive and proactive

aggression and conduct problem, aggressive and rule-breaking behaviours. Criterion validity

was examined by comparing the reactive and proactive scores between individuals with and

without delinquency.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 11

Results

Factor structure and invariance assessment

As can be seen in Table 1, all models showed better fit to data compared to the null

model. However, the two-factor model (χ2 /df = 1.92; TLI = .86; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .04)

fit the data better than the one-factor model (χ2 /df = 2.08; TLI = .82; CFI = .84; RMSEA =

.05), second-factor model (χ2 /df = 2.86; TLI = .70; CFI = .72; RMSEA = .06), and three-

factor model (χ2 /df = 1.87; TLI = .86; CFI = .87; RMSEA = .05), considering the lowest

amount of AIC, BIC and ECVI. All item loadings exceed the recommended value of 0.30

(Pechorro et al., 2018), except for item 15.

In the next stage, two groups were defined based on gender to evaluate the

measurement invariance of the RPQ and the impact of gender on the model fit. The result of

multiple group CFA presented in Table 2 indicated that loadings of items have a different

pattern across genders (Tracey & Xu, 2017). The comparison of the baseline model with the

metric model revealed non-equality of factor loading across genders. As shown in Table 2,

although ΔRMSEA was not more than 0.015, ΔCFI exceeded 0.01 showing weak invariance

was not established (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Moreover, the chi-square difference test

(Δχ2=161.59, df= 23, P< .05) showed a significantly poorer fit for the model with constrained

factor loadings across groups. Further assessment was not justified because the least strict

model was not confirmed to be equal. (Lee, 2018; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).

Factor loadings of items were examined across genders to explore the exact

dissimilarity of model form between groups. The result indicated different items with factor

loading less than .30 across genders (items 4, 15, 18, 21 among girls and 13 and 15 among

boys). The result of confirmatory factor analysis revealed a better fit of the two-factor

structure of the RPQ after removing items with factor loadings less than the threshold

compared to the various models proposed for the RPQ in both groups (Table 3). Therefore,
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 12

the two-factor intercorrelated structures were considered the best representation of the RPQ,

considering reasonable fit and numerous researches supporting evidence for this model. The

standardized item loadings for the two-factor model for each group and the total sample are

presented in Table 4.

Internal consistency

The omega coefficient for RPQ total score, reactive and proactive subscales among

girls was almost .84, .78 and .68, respectively. In the other group, omega coefficient was as

follow: total score = .85, reactive subscale= .74 and proactive subscale= .77. The result of

internal consistency for the RPQ subscales, estimated by Cronbach's alpha, can be considered

acceptable except for the proactive subscale among girls (Table 5).

CITC for reactive aggression ranged .33 to .45 for boys (M= 7.86, SD= 3.50) and .33

to .55 for girls (M= 8.76, SD= 3.94). For proactive aggression, CITC ranged .30 to .44 for

girls (M= 2.03, SD= 2.07) and .32 to .56 for boys (M= 3.47, SD= 3.24). Reactive and

proactive aggression scores were significantly correlated among girls (r= .61, p <001) and

boys (r= .63 p <001).

Convergent validity

In a subsample of 145 students (76 males and 69 females), convergent validity was

assessed separately for each gender, evaluating the relationship between one subscale of SDQ

(conduct problem) and two subscales of CBCL (aggressive and rule-breaking behaviours)

and the two RPQ subscales. Once more, we rerun the correlation analysis with residuals of

reactive and proactive aggression scores, considering the substantial correlation between the

two types of aggression.

In males, standardized residuals of reactive aggression were significantly correlated

with rule-breaking (r= .26, p< .05) and aggressive behaviours subscales of CBCL (r= .36, p<

.01). Aggressive behaviours subscales of CBCL also significantly correlated with the residual
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 13

of reactive aggression scores among girls (r= .30, p< .05). While purely proactive aggression

did not show any significant correlation among boys, it was significantly associated with

rule-breaking (r= 28, p< .05) and aggressive behaviours scores (r= 24, p< .05) in the other

group. Besides, the result revealed that the raw score of both factors and the RPQ total score

were significantly correlated with other variables in a positive direction (Table 6). A

marginally significant correlation between residual reactive aggression and conduct problem

scores (r= 22, p= .06) was seen among girls. In both groups, the strongest correlations were

between the raw score of reactive aggression and aggressive behaviours (Male: r= .64,

Female: r= .54, p< .001).

criterion validity

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the aggression scores of 50

students aged 15 with a sample of incarcerated boys (N=31). As shown in table 7, there was

no significant difference in reactive aggression scores between incarcerated individuals

(M=8.93, SD=3.66) and non-incarcerated sample (M=7.86, SD=3.50); t (79) = 1.32, p= .19).

But result demonstrated a significant effect for grouping in proactive aggression scores, t (79)

= 2.32, p= 02., showing incarcerated boys obtained higher scores (M=4.49, SD=.80) than the

other group (M=3.12, SD=.44). Hedges' g was calculated (g = 0.94) to assess the effect size

due to the different sample sizes of the compared groups (Lakens, 2013).

Discussion

This study investigated the factor structure and psychometric properties of reactive

and proactive aggression questionnaires across genders among Iranian adolescents. Overall,

the result confirmed the cross-cultural stability of two distinct types of aggression,

representing a better fit of the two-factor intercorrelated model than the other proposed

structures.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 14

This result is consistent with research confirming this model's generalizability among

various cultures (Cima et al., 2013; Fung et al., 2009; Goodman et al., 1998; Raine et al.,

2006). However, there are studies indicating different factor structures (Brugman et al., 2017;

Colins, 2016; Pang et al., 2013; Smeets et al., 2017). This discrepancy might be justified by

the variety of attitudes in various cultures, causing different expressions of aggression.

Besides, findings could be influenced by the different samples among these studies.

Therefore, these subtypes of aggression could be more distinguishable in non-clinical

samples (Smeets et al., 2017).

Although the CFA revealed that the two-factor model had a better fit than different

suggested models, the fit indices did not reach the acceptable cut off value. However, similar

results in a study by Toro et al. (2020) showed better model fit indicators after executing

residual covariances. In this study, similarly, the modification indexes suggested covariances

of the measurement error among the items of the same factor; however, no post-hoc alteration

to the model was done to prevent data-driven changes.

The model's poor fit can also be rooted in the wording and ambiguity of phrases so

that some items can be interpreted as both reactive and proactive. This idea is also confirmed

by various studies reporting the cross-loading of several items of RPQ (Brugman et al., 2017;

Fossati et al., 2009). The result of an explorative factor analysis conducted among adults,

which revealed that only a subset of items (1, 5, 7, 11, and 14 for reactive and items 2, 6, 9,

10, 12, and 20 for proactive aggression) could differentiate adequately between these two

subscales (Lobbestael et al., 2013). Moreover, this scale examines aggressive behaviours

coupled with aggressive feelings. For example, in the reactive subscale, items 5,11,13,14 and

somehow 22 tended to examine the feeling of aggression more. It is also suggested that these

two forms of aggression would be better distinguished with behavioural observations and the

questionnaires disentangling form and function (Polman et al., 2007) or based on the target of
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 15

aggression (whether person or object). Future studies should consider the association between

such measures and the RPQ factor structure. Furthermore, this result can lend support for the

dimensional compared to the categorical approach due to the fuzzy distinction between these

two types of aggression (Dodge, 1991) and their considerable corelation. Besides, proactive

aggression could be displayed with a delay from prior provocation (Merk et al., 2005),

making distinguishing these subtypes based on a questionnaire more complicated.

In this paper, the measurement invariance of the RPQ was examined across genders.

In line with studies indicating variants of the RPQ across genders among different

populations (Rodríguez et al., 2009; Toro et al., 2020), the result of CFA revealed two

distinctive patterns of item loading across genders. Hence, the comparison of aggression

between Iranian boys and girls based on this measure is not justified. Moreover, the result did

not support replicating the factor structure presented by Raine et al. (2006) across genders.

There was no making obscene phone calls, carrying weapons, and taking things from other

students as proactive aggression in girls. But, boys did not show madness and anger after

losing in games as reactive aggression. In addition, it seems the trait of proactive aggression

among Iranian adolescents did not include using force to obtain money, considering poor

factor loading of item 15 in both groups.These findings are comparable with studies

indicating measurement invariance of the RPQ after modification of the model. For example,

a study by Baker et al. (2008) reported the invariance of the RPQ across genders after

implementing certain constraints (e.g., letting for correlation of error variance). Structural

invariance of the RPQ was also confirmed among Portuguese youth after excluding item 21

(Pechorro et al., 2018).

The impact of gender on the expression of aggression alongside cultural issues should

be considered to interpret these findings. Additionally, because few studies investigated the

measurement invariance of the RPQ across genders, it is suggested to ascertain the variant of
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 16

this scale by further researches. Moreover, keeping in mind that there were different ages in

each group in this research, further study on the invariance assessment of this scale would

benefit from more homogeneous samples.

Another purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the RPQ

across genders. Omega and Alpha coefficients indicated sufficient internal consistency of the

RPQ (Deng & Chan, 2017; Nunnally, 1994), except for the proactive subscale in females.

Because the inter-relatedness of the items in each subscale was not poor, heterogeneity in this

subscale is not the case (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). However, further investigation is needed

to examine whether a low omega coefficient might result from the reduction in the items of

the proactive subscale (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) or the inability of this questionnaire to

measure proactive aggression in girls (Brugman et al., 2017).

The total score of the RPQ, like previous studies, was correlated to subscales of

CBCL and SDQ in both groups, supporting convergent validity of the RPQ (Bartels et al.,

2018). In line with previous studies (Fossati et al., 2009; Raine et al., 2006), residual scores

were used to take into account the variance shared with the other aggressive dimension due to

a moderate correlation between both subscales. When the residual scores were used, rule-

breaking behaviours were significantly associated with purely proactive aggression among

girls. This result is consistent with the notion that this kind of aggression is more instrumental

and planned (Fossati et al., 2009). In contrast, the rule-breaking score was correlated with a

purely reactive score among boys, suggesting that boys who demonstrate aggression followed

by provocation tend to engage in delinquency and violate rules.

Furthermore, the aggressive behaviour subscale of CBCL showed a moderate

correlation with purely reactive aggression in both groups, suggesting reactive aggression is a

predominant form of aggression (Thomson & Centifanti, 2018). However, the association

between aggressive behaviours and purely proactive aggression was significant only among
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 17

girls, confirming distinctive patterns of association across genders (Connor et al., 2003). This

result implied that girls with high aggressive behaviours display both profiles of aggression

which is consistent with researches indicating the mixture of both kinds of aggression among

the more aggressive individuals (Colins, 2016; Euler et al., 2017; Fossati et al., 2009; Merk et

al., 2005).

Since residual proactive aggression did not show any significant correlation among

boys, further investigation is needed to figure out the reason behind these results. There might

be some issues with the male's proactive subscale. On the other hand, using the residual score

to control for the effect of the other dimension may contribute to these results due to

increasing error variance (Raine et al., 2006). Besides, keeping in mind that these correlates

are in common between reactive and proactive aggression, subsequent studies should notice

more specific variables to support more evidence that each type of aggression comes in

combination with differential correlates. Overall, our hypothesis regarding convergent

validity of the RPQ scale was supported while the correlates of the RPQ subscales differed

partly across genders. Therefore, this paper provides more evidence for reactive and

proactive aggression independence in line with previous researches (Connor, 2004).

Data on this study support the studies suggesting that proactive aggression is related

to delinquency and antisocial behaviours (Brendgen et al., 2001; Deng & Chan, 2017), as

incarcerated boys showed a significantly higher level of proactive aggression but not reactive

form. This result contrasts with the study showing the association between delinquency and

the severity of aggression but not the types (Stickle et al., 2012). However, this result lends

support for the association between severe aggression, psychopathic and callous-unemotional

traits and proactive but not reactive aggression (Brugman et al., 2017; Cima & Raine, 2009;

Cima et al., 2013). This result signifies differential trajectories for these two kinds of

aggression (Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Raine et al., 2006). However, the non-significance result
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 18

of mean difference of reactive aggression between normal and incarcerated groups is

consistent with the fact that a moderate level of reactive aggression is normative (Brugman et

al., 2017; Fossati et al., 2009; Raine et al., 2006), suggesting reactive aggression as a

relatively common type (Cima et al., 2013; Fung et al., 2009).

Furthermore, this study can provide evidence for the ability of this scale to screen

adolescents with proactive aggression, despite a disagreement on the existence of a solely

proactive aggressive population (Merk et al., 2005; Smeets et al., 2017) or the ability of the

RPQ in recognizing such group (Brugman et al., 2017). However, this result contrasts with

research reporting significantly higher reactive and proactive aggression scores in violent

offenders than non-offender (Cima et al., 2013). This discrepancy could be explained through

disparate types of crimes in our study, including violent and non-violent together.

The current study confronts some limitations. This study is the first to examine the

psychometric properties of the RPQ while comparing the RPQ factor structure across two

genders in Iranian populations. Since there is strong evidence for validation of the theoretical

factor structure of the RPQ across different cultures, the result of the current study should be

considered with care. More study is needed to examine whether this result is affected by the

data's artefact or actual cultural context differences. Therefore, the results in this regard

should be interpreted cautiously. This cross-sectional study could not present the differential

pathways of these two types of aggression as well as the temporal stability of the RPQ. A

future longitudinal study is encouraged to measure the invariance of factor structure across

time. Since this study used one source of information for all assessments, future examination

for the evaluation of criterion validity of the RPQ should consider observational assessment

and multiple informants like friends, parents and teachers, as well as computational

instruments. In this study, the psychometric properties of the RPQ were confirmed among

non-clinical adolescents. We suggest replicating this study with a higher risk sample to
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 19

evaluate the usefulness of this brief and easy answer questionnaire for the clinical population,

considering the co-occurrence of these two types of aggression among high aggressive

individuals (Merk et al., 2005). Therefore, regarding the moderate to a strong correlation

between these subtypes of aggression (Fossati et al., 2009; Hubbard et al., 2010; Poulin &

Boivin, 2000; Raine et al., 2006) and concerns about the usefulness of this distinction,

repetition of this study among cases with the extreme score is suggested.

Since there was not any female incarcerated, the generalizability of the result in this

regard is limited. Regarding a severity model of reactive and proactive aggression against a

typology model (Stickle et al., 2012), future researches should take into account the severity

of aggression and psychiatric diagnosis in the relationship between types of aggression and

delinquency in a larger sample including both genders (Cima et al., 2013). Such studies

would provide the possibility to compare the exclusive role of reactive and proactive

aggression in various types of crimes across genders.

Altogether, this study adds to the knowledge of two distinct forms of aggression

among Iranian adolescents. Data in this study did not support the invariance of the original

factor structure of the RPQ across genders, implying boys and girls express reactive and

proactive aggression differently. However, the two-factor structure represented the data as a

reasonable well-fitting model with adequate reliability and validity across genders. This study

signifies future investigation of the distinctive correlation between these two forms of

aggression and emotional and cognitive deficits across both genders and ages. In this regard,

scales dissociating different facets of aggression alongside functions are recommended to

configure better the distinctive correlates of reactive and proactive aggression. Such studies

would confirm unique etiological and consequential pathways and shed light on producing

more efficient and specific intervention and prevention strategies through attention to specific

underlying mechanisms.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 20

References

Atkins, M. S., Stoff, D. M., Osborne, M. L., & Brown, K. (1993). Distinguishing
instrumental and hostile aggression: does it make a difference? Journal of abnormal
child psychology, 21(4), 355-365.
Baker, L. A., Raine, A., Liu, J., & Jacobson, K. C. (2008). Differential genetic and
environmental influences on reactive and proactive aggression in children. Journal of
abnormal child psychology, 36(8), 1265-1278.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. prentice-hall.
Bartels, M., Hendriks, A., Mauri, M., Krapohl, E., Whipp, A., Bolhuis, K., Conde, L. C.,
Luningham, J., Ip, H. F., & Hagenbeek, F. (2018). Childhood aggression and the co-
occurrence of behavioural and emotional problems: results across ages 3–16 years
from multiple raters in six cohorts in the EU-ACTION project. European child &
adolescent psychiatry, 27(9), 1105-1121.
Bobadilla, L., Wampler, M., & Taylor, J. (2012). Proactive and reactive aggression are
associated with different physiological and personality profiles. Journal of Social and
clinical psychology, 31(5), 458-487.
Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Lavoie, F. (2001). Reactive and proactive
aggression: Predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating
effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of abnormal child
psychology, 29(4), 293-304.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford
publications.
Brugman, S., Cornet, L. J., Smeijers, D., Smeets, K., Oostermeijer, S., Buitelaar, J. K.,
Verkes, R. J., Lobbestael, J., de Kogel, C. H., & Jansen, L. M. (2017). Examining the
reactive proactive questionnaire in adults in forensic and non‐forensic settings: A
variable‐and person‐based approach. Aggressive Behavior, 43(2), 155-162.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus
instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological review, 108(1), 273.
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and
adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment.
International journal of behavioral development, 30(5), 466-480.
Cenkseven-Önder, F., Avci, R., & Çolakkadioglu, O. (2016). Validity and Reliability of the
Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire in Turkish Adolescents. Educational
Research and Reviews, 11(20), 1931-1943.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
Cima, M., & Raine, A. (2009). Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to different
subtypes of aggression. Personality and individual differences, 47(8), 835-840.
Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C., & Popma, A. (2013). Validation of the Dutch Reactive
Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential correlates of reactive and proactive
aggression from childhood to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 99-113.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2016). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences [Internet]. Statistical
Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 567.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 21

Colins, O. F. (2016). Assessing reactive and proactive aggression in detained adolescents

outside of a research context. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 47(1), 159-
172.
Conaty, J. (2006). The correlates of proactive and reactive aggression in early childhood.
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
Connor, D. F. (2004). Aggression and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents:
Research and treatment. Guilford Press.
Connor, D. F., Steingard, R. J., Anderson, J. J., & Melloni, R. H. (2003). Gender differences
in reactive and proactive aggression. Child psychiatry and human development, 33(4),
279-294.
Deng, L., & Chan, W. (2017). Testing the difference between reliability coefficients alpha
and omega. Educational and psychological measurement, 77(2), 185-203.
Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. The
development and treatment of childhood aggression, 16(5), 201-218.
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 53(6), 1146.
Euler, F., Steinlin, C., & Stadler, C. (2017). Distinct profiles of reactive and proactive
aggression in adolescents: Associations with cognitive and affective empathy. Child
and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 11(1), 1-14.
Fossati, A., Raine, A., Borroni, S., Bizzozero, A., Volpi, E., Santalucia, I., & Maffei, C.
(2009). A cross-cultural study of the psychometric properties of the Reactive–
Proactive Aggression Questionnaire among Italian nonclinical adolescents.
Psychological assessment, 21(1), 131.
Fung, A. L.-C., Raine, A., & Gao, Y. (2009). Cross-cultural generalizability of the reactive–
proactive aggression questionnaire (RPQ). Journal of personality assessment, 91(5),
473-479.
Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European child
& adolescent psychiatry, 7(3), 125-130.
Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research.
European business review.
Hecht, L. K., & Latzman, R. D. (2018). Exploring the differential associations between
components of executive functioning and reactive and proactive aggression. Journal
of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 40(1), 62-74.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling:
a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Hubbard, J. A., McAuliffe, M. D., Morrow, M. T., & Romano, L. J. (2010). Reactive and
proactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: Precursors, outcomes, processes,
experiences, and measurement. Journal of personality, 78(1), 95-118.
Justice, N. C. f. J., & Justice, U. S. O. o. J. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National
Report. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Kaat, A. J., Farmer, C. A., Gadow, K. D., Findling, R. L., Bukstein, O. G., Arnold, L. E.,
Bangalore, S. S., McNamara, N. K., & Aman, M. G. (2015). Factor validity of a
proactive and reactive aggression rating scale. Journal of child and family studies,
24(9), 2734-2744.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 22

Kempes, M., Matthys, W., De Vries, H., & Van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and proactive
aggression in children A review of theory, findings and the relevance for child and
adolescent psychiatry. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 14(1), 11-19.
Kempes, M., Matthys, W., Maassen, G., van Goozen, S., & van Engeland, H. (2006). A
parent questionnaire for distinguishing between reactive and proactive aggression in
children. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 15(1), 38-45.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford
publications.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a
practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 863.
Lee, S. T. (2018). Testing for Measurement Invariance: Does your measure mean the same
thing for different participants? APS Observer, 31(8).
Lickley, R. A., & Sebastian, C. L. (2018). The neural basis of reactive aggression and its
development in adolescence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(3), 313-333.
Lobbestael, J., Cima, M., & Arntz, A. (2013). The relationship between adult reactive and
proactive aggression, hostile interpretation bias, and antisocial personality disorder.
Journal of personality disorders, 27(1), 53-66.
Merk, W., Orobio de Castro, B., Koops, W., & Matthys, W. (2005). The distinction between
reactive and proactive aggression: Utility for theory, diagnosis and treatment?
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 197-220.
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups:
Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of psychological
research, 3(1), 111-130.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education.
Pang, J. S., Ang, R. P., Kom, D. M., Tan, S. H., & Chiang, A. Q. (2013). Patterns of Reactive
and Proactive Aggression in Young Adolescents in S ingapore. Social Development,
22(4), 794-812.
Pechorro, P., Ayala-Nunes, L., Kahn, R., & Nunes, C. (2018). The Reactive–Proactive
Aggression Questionnaire: Measurement invariance and reliability among a school
sample of Portuguese youths. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 49(4), 523-
533.
Pechorro, P., Ray, J. V., Salas-Wright, C. P., Maroco, J., & Goncalves, R. A. (2015).
Adaptation of the Basic Empathy Scale among a Portuguese sample of incarcerated
juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(7), 699-714.
Polman, H., de Castro, B. O., Koops, W., van Boxtel, H. W., & Merk, W. W. (2007). A meta-
analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and
adolescents. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 35(4), 522-535.
Poulin, F., & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and proactive aggression: evidence of a two-factor
model. Psychological assessment, 12(2), 115.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and
reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research.
Developmental review, 41, 71-90.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke‐Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., Stouthamer‐
Loeber, M., & Liu, J. (2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire:
Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys.
Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on
Aggression, 32(2), 159-171.
Rodríguez, J. M. A., Fernández, M. E. P., & Ramírez, J. M. (2009). Cuestionario de agresión
reactiva y proactiva: un instrumento de medida de la agresión en adolescentes. Revista
de psicopatología y psicología clínica, 14(1), 37-49.
Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 23

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation

modeling. psychology press.
Seah, S. L., & Ang, R. P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression
in Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and peer
relations. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for
Research on Aggression, 34(5), 553-562.
Smeets, K., Oostermeijer, S., Lappenschaar, M., Cohn, M., Van der Meer, J., Popma, A.,
Jansen, L., Rommelse, N., Scheepers, F., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2017). Are proactive and
reactive aggression meaningful distinctions in adolescents? A variable-and person-
based approach. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 45(1), 1-14.
Stickle, T. R., Marini, V. A., & Thomas, J. N. (2012). Gender differences in psychopathic
traits, types, and correlates of aggression among adjudicated youth. Journal of
abnormal child psychology, 40(4), 513-525.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal
of medical education, 2, 53.
Tehranidoust, M., Shahrivar, Z., Pakbaz, B., Rezaei, A., & Ahmadi, F. (2007). Validity of
farsi version of strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Advances in cognitive
science, 8(4), 33-39.
Thomson, N. D., & Centifanti, L. C. (2018). Proactive and reactive aggression subgroups in
typically developing children: The role of executive functioning, psychophysiology,
and psychopathy. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 49(2), 197-208.
Toro, R. A., García-García, J., & Zaldívar-Basurto, F. (2020). Factorial Analysis and
Invariance Testing for Age and Gender of the Reactive-Proactive Aggression
Questionnaire (RPQ). International Journal of Psychological Research, 13(1), 62-70.
Tracey, T. J., & Xu, H. (2017). Use of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in examining
measurement invariance in counseling psychology research. The European Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 6(1), 75-82.
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Barker, E. D. (2006). Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: A
developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(1),
12-19.
Vitaro, F., Gendreau, P. L., Tremblay, R. E., & Oligny, P. (1998). Reactive and proactive
aggression differentially predict later conduct problems. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39(3), 377-385.

Acknowledgements

Ethics approval for this project was granted by the Psychology department of Shahid

Beheshti University Ethics Committee. All participants provided informed consent for their

participation.

Data availability statement

Datasets that support the findings of this study can be freely and openly available in

Psych Archives at http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4371

 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 24

Table 1

Model Fitting Results of the RPQ for the Total Sample

Model χ2 df ECVI BIC AIC CFI GFI TLI RMSEA

Null Model 1845.90 253 4.21 1986.41 1891.90

One- Factor Model 480.41 230 1.27 761.43 572.41 .84 .91 .82 .05

Second- Order Model 663.84 232 1.67 932.64 751.84 .72 .89 .70 .06

Three- Factor Model 425.88 227 1.16 725.23 523.88 .87 .92 .86 .05

Two- Factor Model 399.72 208 1.09 674.63 489.72 .88 .93 .86 .04

Note. All χ2 values are statistically significant (Bollen-Stine bootstrap P = 0.001).

.
 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 25

Table 2

The Goodness of Fit Indices for the Assessment of Cross-Gender Invariance of the RPQ

Model χ2 df ECVI AIC CFI TLI RMSEA Δ CFI Δχ2

Male 368.87 229 2.35 508.87 .84 .82 .05

Female 384.72 229 2.26 524.72 .81 .79 .05

Configural 753.60 458 2.30 1033.60 .83 .80 .038

Metric 915.19 481 2.56 1149.19 .75 .73 .045 .08 161.59**
 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 26

Table 3

Model Fitting Results of the RPQ Across Genders

Group χ2 df ECVI AIC BIC CFI GFI TLI RMSEA

Null Model 1129.66 253 2.65 508.87

One- Factor Model 381.58 230 2.19 473.58 629.06 .82 .86 .81 .05
Male
Second- Order Model 492.61 232 2.68 580.61 729.34 .70 .85 .67 .07

Three- Factor Model 367.27 227 2.15 465.27 630.88 .84 .87 .82 .05

Two- Factor Model 283.09 188 1.70 369.09 514.42 .88 .90 .86 .04

Null Model 1080.49 253 5.05 1172.49

One- Factor Model 398.44 230 2.11 490.44 649.18 .79 .87 .77 .05
Female
Second- Order Model 496.71 232 2.52 584.71 736.56 .68 .84 .65 .07

Three- Factor Model 378.15 227 2.05 476.25 645.25 .81 .87 .79 .05

Two- Factor Model 300.40 151 1.79 416.40 512.99 .82 .88 .80 .06
 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 27

Table 1

RPQ Two-Factor intercorrelated Structure with Standardized Item Loadings

Items Reactive Proactive

Male Female Total Male Female Total

1. Yell when annoyed .47 .41 .44

3. Angry when provoked .33 .36 .36

5. Get angry when frustrated .48 .37 .42

7. Temper tantrum .51 .60 .55

8. Damage things due to madness .56 .47 .51

11. Angry when opposed .43 .56 .47

13. Angry when lose a game Deleted .47 .37

14. Angry when threatened .44 .46 .47

16. Feel better after hitting/ yelling .53 .53 .53

19. Hit others to defend .42 .51 .45

22. Hit when teased .50 .64 .57

2. Fight for status .48 .47 .47

4. Take things .62 Deleted .44

6. Vandalize for fun .57 .50 .55

9. Gang fights .47 .43 .48

10. Hurt to win .37 .43 .42

12. Manipulate using force .48 .39 .47

15. Get money by force Deleted Deleted Deleted

 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 28

17. Threaten and bullying others .60 .57 .57

18. Obscene phone calls .47 Deleted .39

20. Gang manipulation .40 .39 .40

21. Carry weapon .43 Deleted .36

23. Yell to manipulate .43 .48 .45

Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 29

Table 5

Internal Consistency for the RPQ across genders

Female Male

Omega Alpha MIIC CITCR Omega Alpha MIIC CITCR

Reactive 0.78 .77 0.24 0.35–0.55 0.74 .74 0.22 0.33–0.45

proactive 0.68 .67 0.21 0.30–0.44 0.78 .77 0.23 0.32–0.56

Total aggression 0.83 .83 0.21 0.30- 0.54 0.85 .85 0.21 0.30- 0.53
 Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 30

Table 6

Convergent Validity of the RPQ across genders

Variable Purely reactive Purely proactive Raw Reactive Raw Proactive Total Score

Rule breaking .14 .28* .35** .42** .43***

Aggressive
Female .30* .24* .50** .47** .55***
behavior

Conduct disorder .22 .14 .35** .30* .37**

Rule breaking .26* .19 .56** .53** .59**

Aggressive
Male .36** .12 .64** .54** .64**
behavior

Conduct disorder .10 .15 .30** .32** .33**

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Psychometric Properties of the RPQ 31

Table 7

Independent Samples T-Test for Comparison of the Incarcerated Boys and Non-

Incarcerated Adolescents on the RPQ Scores

95% CI for Cohen's d

t df p Lower Upper

Reactive 1.32 79 0.19 -0.54 2.69

Proactive 2.32 79 0.02 0.28 3.65