“VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 1 — #1

Violence and Victims, Volume 00, Number 00, 2018

The Self-Report Delinquency Scale From

the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent to Adult Health Among
At-Risk for Delinquency Youths

Pedro Pechorro
School of Psychology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Katinea Moreira
Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies, Lisboa, Portugal

Miguel Basto-Pereira
William James Center for Research, ISPA—Instituto Universitário, Lisboa,
Portugal

João Pedro Oliveira

Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies, Lisboa, Portugal

James V. Ray
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida, College of
Health and Public Affairs, Orlando, Florida
Juvenile delinquency is a universal problem, with serious personal, economic, and social
consequences that span national boundaries. Thus, cross-culturally valid and reliable mea-
sures of delinquency are critical to providing a better understanding of the causes, corre-
lates, and outcomes of delinquency. The main aim of the present study was to examine the
psychometric properties of a Portuguese version of the self-report delinquency measure
items created for the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). A
sample (N = 412) of male (n = 200) and female (n = 212) at-risk for delinquency youths
agreed to participate in the present study. The measure demonstrated satisfactory psycho-
metric properties, namely in terms of its two-factor structure (violent and nonviolent delin-
quency), internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion-related
validity, and known-groups validity. Findings suggest the Add Health Self-Report Delin-
quency (AHSRD) is an interculturally valid and reliable measure of violent and nonviolent
delinquency among at-risk male and female youths.

Keywords: assessment; at-risk; self-report delinquency; youth; validation

© 2018 Springer Publishing Company 1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/xxxx.00.00.1234
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 2 — #2

Accurately measuring juvenile delinquency is one of the central methodological issues

in criminology. Questionnaires of self-report delinquency (SRD) have several benefits.
First, these measures play an important role in helping to unveil the prevalence and inci-
dence of crime beyond official data, as well comparing delinquency rates among countries
using the same criteria. For example, the International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD)
study (Enzmann et al., 2010) found that between 14.5% (Portugal) and 40.1% (Ireland) of
European youths (in a total of 25 countries) committed at least one delinquent act in the
last year. This is particularly relevant because this is an exponentially higher figure com-
pared to incidence rates based on official records of delinquency (United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime, 2017).
Second, it helps to examine and intervene on delinquency levels in groups without justice
involvement, such as student and community samples, or even more vulnerable groups
(e.g., individuals living in sensitive social housing). In this regard, Farrington, Ttofi, Crago,
and Coid (2014) followed 411 males between the ages of 8 and 48 years, and found that
only 30% of those who reported delinquent acts were convicted; nonetheless, the number
of self-reported crimes was related to the number of criminal conviction. Therefore, as
explained by Farrington et al. (2014), self-report measures provide extremely important
information that facilitates early intervention that would be impossible to obtain through
official records.
Because of this, since the first study on self-reported delinquency (Porterfield, 1943)
quite a few questionnaires have been created and tested. One of the most important studies
was conducted by Elliott and Ageton (1980), who tested a 47-item questionnaire covering
a broad range of delinquent acts and drug consumption habits (Elliott & Ageton, 1980).
This questionnaire was employed for the first time in the National Youth Survey (NYS)
longitudinal study. The authors took several steps to enhance the measurement of delin-
quency. Specifically, they included a wide range of delinquent behaviors that ranged from
major antisocial acts to minor crimes; however, acts that were trivial and highly prevalent
were excluded. Additionally, open-ended response sets were incorporated to more pre-
cisely capture the frequency of each delinquent act. These enhancements allow researchers
to overcome some of the major methodological limitations that have existed until the 1970s
(Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).
After Elliott and Ageton (1980), diverse questionnaires evaluating delinquency and
crime have been examined in terms of their psychometric properties. Measures of self-
reported delinquency have been correlated to several theoretically related variables in
dozens of studies, suggesting good convergent validity and discriminant validity. In terms
of convergent validity studies have found positive correlations with variables such as offi-
cial crime records (e. g., Farrington, Auty, Coid, & Turner, 2013), sensation seeking (e. g.,
White, Labouvie, & Bates, 1985), low self-control (e. g., Wiebe, 2006), substance abuse
(e. g., Watts & McNulty, 2015), self-serving cognitive distortions (e. g., Basto-Pereira,
Miranda, Ribeiro, & Maia, 2017), psychopathic traits (e. g., Vaughn, Howard, & DeLisi,
2008), dark triad traits of personality (e. g., Lau & Marsee, 2013), impulsivity (e. g., White
et al., 1994), conduct problems (e. g., Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003), and sex-
ual offenses (e. g., Sofocleous, 2013). Regarding discriminant validity studies have found
negative correlations with variables such as self-esteem (e.g., Barry, Grafeman, Adler, &
Pickard, 2007), perceived risk of punishment (e. g., Jensen, Erickson, & Gibbs, 1978),
emotional intelligence (e. g., Azeem, Hassan, & Masroor, 2014), parental nurturance (e.
g., Latimer, Kleinknecht, Hung, & Gabor, 2003), and moral reasoning (e. g., Raaijmakers,
Engels, & van Hoof, 2010).
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 3 — #3

Nonetheless, current measures of self-reported delinquency are not free from limita-
tions. Some major constraints include the extension of the questionnaire, inability to dif-
ferentiate between violent and nonviolent forms of delinquency, and absence of measures
simultaneously valid for males and females, particularly among high-risk populations. In
this regard, Enzmann (2013) compared the nonresponse rate between the long version and
the short version of the ISRD-II questionnaire in a sample of 1,629 juveniles. The number
of items answered in each version depends on the answer to the filter question. In the longer
version, the questions regarding lifetime (delinquency and addiction behaviors) works as
a filter questions, followed by a set of questions about each specific act committed (e.g.,
when the participant committed the offense for the first time or if the offense was commit-
ted alone or in group), which means seven pages of questions regarding offending and two
and half pages regarding alcohol and drugs behavior questions, whereas the short version
of ISRD II (one and a half page) the questions regarding lifetime are immediately followed
only by a question about the frequency during the past year. As expected, the long version
of the questionnaire presented a nonresponse significantly higher (19.9%) than the short
version (12.1%), suggesting that the extension of the questionnaire had an impact on the
level of response rate. Second, most questionnaires fail to differentiate between violent
(e.g., assault, robbery, homicide) and nonviolent (e. g., shoplifting, graffiti, running away)
forms of delinquency, despite the fact that a large part of the theoretical framework distin-
guishes between trajectories primarily linked to violent versus nonviolent crime (Moffitt,
1993; Farrington & Loeber, 2012). Violent forms of crime are related with more serious,
versatile, and chronic forms of recidivism (e. g., Farrington, Ttofi, & Coid, 2009; Moffitt,
1993; Thornton, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2012). In addition, violent acts are more trau-
matic and damaging for the victims, both physically and psychologically, affecting their
day-to-day life (e. g., Barton, Weil, Jackson, & Hickey, 2017). Thus, self-reported delin-
quency questionnaires evaluating both violent and nonviolent forms of delinquency are
important tools to assess, prevent, and predict a criminal career.
Finally, meta-analyses and cross-cultural statistics have shown strong evidence that
males are more likely to have higher levels of antisocial outcomes, such as aggression
(Archer, 2004), criminal convictions (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2017),
official recidivism (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001), or even narcissism (Grijalva et al.,
2015) than females. Additionally, studies comparing self-reported delinquency between
sexes found higher levels of self-reported delinquency among males (e.g., Farrington et
al., 2009). Males and females tend to differ in the types and amount of offending com-
mitted, with males engaging in more criminal and violent activities, although the sex gap
narrows with minor offenses (Bacon, Burak, & Rann, 2014). However, as described by var-
ious authors (e.g., Basto-Pereira, Começanha, Ribeiro, & Maia, 2015; Gobeil, Blanchette,
& Stewart, 2016; Pechorro, Gonçalves, Marôco, Nunes, & Jesus, 2014), there is a lack of
research about females within this field, including research on the psychometric charac-
teristics of forensic assessment tools, which clearly limits the use of self-reported delin-
quency measures in female populations. Thus, valid and reliable measures of self-reported
delinquency for high-risk groups by both genders are a valuable contribution to deepen the
specific characteristics of crime among females.
To summarize, evaluating violent and nonviolent forms of self-reported delinquency in
both genders appears to be extremely relevant, not only for research but for social and
criminal policies. Therefore, the development of short questionnaires evaluating a broad
and prevalent range of crimes, and including scales with violent (e.g., serious aggression,
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 4 — #4

robbery, stabbing) and nonviolent forms of delinquency (e.g., theft, property damage, and
fraud) is a major priority in the psychometric field.

THE ADD HEALTH STUDY

The Add Health Study is a longitudinal study with a sample of more than 90,000 U.S.
high school students in grades 7 through 12 (Harris, 2013; Resnick et al., 1997; Sieving
et al., 2001). The primary aims of this longitudinal study are to provide information about
the health, family, social, and individual characteristics of U.S. adolescents, as well as to
explore risk and protective factors for each outcome (Harris, 2013; Resnick et al., 1997).
The health and health-related behavioral dimensions include crime-related dimensions,
namely drug use, alcohol abuse, delinquency, and violent behavior (Harris, 2013).
The delinquency scale in the Add Health Study (Add Health Self-Report Delinquency
[AHSRD]) is used to evaluate delinquent or criminal behavior in the last 12 months
(Thomas, 2015). The 17-item version includes items evaluating aggressive and violent
behavior (7 items) and nonviolent delinquency (10 items) and, for both dimensions, the
items range from high to low levels of severity. For example, items capturing nonviolent
delinquency range from running away from home to stealing something worth more than
$50 and items included in the aggressive and violent dimension range from getting into
a physical fight to shooting or stabbing someone (Thomas, 2015; Vazsonyi, Cleveland, &
Wiebe, 2006).
Over the years, several studies have been conducted using the AHSRD, suggesting good
convergent and divergent validity. Studies have shown direct correlations between different
dimensions of the scale (violent/nonviolent dimensions, general delinquency) and affilia-
tion to delinquent peers (Watts & McNulty, 2015), carrying a weapon (Sieving et al., 2001),
neighborhood disadvantage (Vazsonyi et al., 2006), low self-control (Wolfe & Hoffmann,
2016), and impulsivity (Vazsonyi et al., 2006). Inverse correlations have been found regard-
ing parental involvement (Cookston & Finlay, 2006) and school connectedness (Resnick
et al., 1997). In addition, data from the Add Health Longitudinal Study (Vazsonyi et al.,
2006) for males and females for all dimensions had reliability estimates that ranged from
𝛼 =.74 –.82, suggesting adequate internal consistency.
Thomas (2015) conducted the most extensive psychometric analysis of this question-
naire to date using a refined 10-item version collected during wave III (2001–2002) and
IV (2008). The exploratory factorial analysis clearly suggested a division between violen-
t/aggressive behavior and nonviolent delinquency in both waves (Thomas, 2015). In addi-
tion, as part of the Add Health Research, several studies used a two-factor structure for the
AHSRD in subsets of different ages, sexes, and ethnicities. All studies have found appro-
priate levels of internal consistency (e.g., Cota-Robles, Neiss, & Rowe, 2002; Vazsonyi et
al., 2006). However, to the best of our knowledge, the AHSRD psychometric properties
have never been tested in a sample outside the United States. Therefore, it is of great rele-
vance to conduct a full examination of the AHSRD psychometric proprieties, not only for
the Portuguese context, where there is a lack of self-reported delinquency questionnaires,
but also internationally, because it will allow us to begin testing, for the first time, the inter-
cultural consistency of this scale including its factorial structure.
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 5 — #5

The Current Study

The current study is the first to examine the psychometric properties of the AHSRD among
a Portuguese-speaking sample of at-risk for delinquency male and female youths, including
using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine its factor structure. It was predicted
that the AHSRD would: (a) confirm the presumed two-factor structure; (b) show adequate
internal consistency measure by Cronbach´s alpha and Omega coefficient; (c) show con-
vergent validity with measures of youth delinquency, dark triad of personality, sensation
seeking and self-control, and discriminant validity with a measure of self-esteem; (d) show
criterion-related validity (e.g., with alcohol use, drug use); and that (e) males would score
higher than females on the AHSRD and its factors.

METHOD

Participants
The sample was recruited from public schools managed by the Portuguese Ministry of
Education located in disadvantaged and impoverished zones with high rates of criminality
in the greater Lisbon area. The population that resides in these zones tends to suffer from
social exclusion, and has limited access to resources and economic opportunities. A school
sample of 412 participants (mean age = 13.19 years; standard deviation [SD] = 1.41; age
range = 12–17 years), subdivided into male participants (n = 200; mean age = 13.32 years;
SD = 1.41 years; age range = 12–17 years) and female participants (n = 212; mean age
= 13.08 years; SD = 1.41 years; age range = 12–17 years), participated voluntarily in the
current study.
The participants were White Europeans (74.9%) and members of ethnic minorities
(25.1%; e.g., Black Africans, mixed race from South America) from an urban background,
most had a low socioeconomic status (SES) (88.6%), and had completed an average of 6
years of education (M = 5.78; SD =.94; range = 4–10 years). Almost one-fifth (18.3%) of
the participants reported getting into problems with the law in the last 12 months and three
participants reported having been previously incarcerated in juvenile detention centers.

Measures
The AHSRD was designed for the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
Health), a prospective study of American adolescents in the seventh through the 12th grade
(Udry, 2003). The scale can be scored by adding the 10 items of the nonviolent factor and
the 7 items of the violent factor on a 4-point ordinal scale (ranging from None = 0 to Five
or more times = 3). Higher scores indicate higher levels of juvenile delinquency. Internal
consistency values will be given later in this article.
The SRD (Elliott, Ageton, & Huizinga, 1985) scale was created for the original NYS, a
longitudinal study of delinquent behavior among American youth. The SRD includes items
that are representative of a wide range of delinquent behaviors for which youths can be
detained. It has a 1 year recall period and can scored by adding the 24 items on a 9-point
ordinal scale (ranging from Never = 1 to Two-Three times a day = 9). Higher scores indicate
higher levels of juvenile delinquency. The Portuguese version of the SRD was used (Lima,
2016; Pechorro, Lima, Simões, & DeLisi, in press). The internal consistency for the current
study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was.91.
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 6 — #6

The Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) is a brief measure of the dark triad:
narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Designed for adults, it can also be used
with adolescents (Klimstra, Sijtsema, Henrichs, & Cima, 2014). The DD can be scored
by adding the 12 items on a 9-point ordinal scale (ranging from Strongly Disagree = 0 to
Strongly Agree = 8). Higher scores indicate higher levels of dark triad traits. The Portuguese
version of the DD was used (Pechorro, Jonason, Raposo, & Maroco, in press). The internal
consistency for the current study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was.78.
The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS; Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, &
Donohew, 2002) is a short self-report measure of sensation seeking. The BSSS includes
items of the four basic facets of sensation seeking, namely: Experience Seeking, Suscep-
tibility to Boredom, Thrill and Adventure Seeking, and Disinhibition. The BSSS can be
scored by adding the eight items on a 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from Strongly disagree
= 0 to Strongly agree = 4). Higher scores indicate higher levels of sensation seeking. The
Portuguese version of the BSSS was used (Pechorro, Castro, Hoyle, & Simões, in press).
The internal consistency for the current study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was.83.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989) is a brief self-report mea-
sure that evaluates self-esteem in adolescents and adults. The RSES can be scored by adding
the 10 items on a 4-point ordinal scale (ranging from Strongly Disagree = 0 to Strongly
Agree = 3) after reverse scoring the appropriate items. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of self-esteem. The Portuguese version of the RSES was used (Pechorro, Maroco, Poiares,
& Vieira, 2011). The internal consistency for the current study, estimated by Cronbach’s
alpha, was.77.
The Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) is a short
self-report measure of general self-control. A shorter refined version of the BSCS was later
developed by Maloney, Grawitch, and Barber (2012). This refined BSCS can be scored by
adding the eight items on a 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from Not at all like me = 0 to Very
much like me = 4) after reverse scoring the appropriate items. Higher scores indicate higher
levels of self-control. The Portuguese refined version of the BSCS was used (Pontes, 2016).
The internal consistency for the current study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was.83.
In addition to the measures described above, an ad hoc sociodemographic questionnaire
was designed to further describe the participants. This questionnaire included variables
such as participants’ age, gender, ethnic group, nationality, rural versus urban origin, years
of schooling completed, SES, parental marital status, tobacco use, alcohol use, cannabis
use, cocaine/heroin use, and having unprotected sex (these last five variables coded as 5-
point rating scales). SES was measured by taking into consideration both the parental level
of education and the parental profession, taking into consideration the economic and cul-
tural specificities of the Portuguese society (Simões, 2000). Three levels of SES were con-
sidered: low, middle, and high.

Procedures
Authorization to translate and use the Add Health delinquency items was obtained from the
Add Health program (http://www. cpc. unc. edu/projects/addhealth). The classical proce-
dure of back-translation was used (van de Vijver, 2016). The translation from English into
Portuguese was completed by the first two authors, with the back-translation into English
being completed by a professional native English speaker translator. Discrepancies were
revised until no semantic differences were detected between the English version and the
Portuguese version of the SRD measure.
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 7 — #7

The General Directorate of Education of the Portuguese Ministry of Education (DGE-

ME) granted the permission to assess the participants coming from public schools of the
greater Lisbon area. The participants were informed about the nature of the study and asked
to voluntarily collaborate. The participation rate was around 86%. Some youths did not
agree to collaborate or were able to collaborate (e.g., some refused to participate, some did
not have authorization from their legal tutors). The measures were administered in small
group settings. Parental authorization was mandatory and was previously obtained.
The SPSS v25 (IBM SPSS, 2017) and EQS 6.3 (Bentler & Wu, 2015) were used to
analyze the data. The factor structure of the SRD scale was assess using maximum like-
lihood (ML) robust methods and polychoric correlations. The following goodness of fit
indices were used: 𝜒 2 /df values < 5 are considered adequate, ≤ 2 are good, and = 1 are
very good. Comparative fit index (CFI) ≥.90 and root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) <.10 indicate adequate fits, while CFI ≥.95 and RMSEA ≤.06 indicate good
model fits. IFI values above.90 are considered acceptable. Only items with standardized
loading above.30 were retained (Blunch, 2016). The models tested can be considered reflec-
tive models (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000).
Pearson correlations were used to analyze associations between scale variables, and
Spearman correlations were used to analyze associations between ordinal variables and
scale variables. Correlations were considered low if below.20, moderate if between.20
and.50, and high if above.50. To compare the male and female groups analysis of variances
(ANOVAs) and chi-square tests were used (Field, 2013) with effect sizes (Eta squared –
𝜂p 2 and phi, respectively). Cronbach’s alpha and omega coefficients (considered satisfac-
tory if above.70), mean interitem correlations (MIICs; considered good if within the.15–
.50 range), and corrected item-total correlation ranges (CITCRs; considered adequate if
above.20) were used to examine reliability (Finch, Immekus, & French, 2016). The omega
coefficient was used due to the fact it is considered a better estimator of reliability that does
not underestimate reliability like alpha does due to measurement error; also, the omega is
robust even when assumptions of unidimensionality are violated (Dunn, Baguley, & Bruns-
den, 2014).

RESULTS

In the initial stage of data analysis, the sociodemographic variables were examined taking
into account the gender of the participants (Table 1). No differences were found between
males and females regarding age (F[1, 410] = 2.736; p =.10; 𝜂 2 =.01), years of education
(F[1, 410] = 3.439; p =.06; 𝜂 2 =.01), ethnicity (𝜒 2 =.00; p = 1; phi =.00); nationality (𝜒 2
= 3.164, p =.08; phi =.09), and SES(𝜒 2 = 3.262; p =.25; phi =.09).
We started our analysis of the psychometric properties of the AHSRD by attempting to
confirm the proposed factor structures for this instrument by means of CFA using the ML
robust method. The following goodness of fit indexes were obtained using the total sample:
one-factor model (S-B𝜒 2 /df = 1.67; IFI =.98; CFI =.98; RMSEA [90% CI] =.04 [.03–.05];
AIC =-38.84), two-factor model (S-B𝜒 2 /df = 1.64; IFI =.98; CFI =.98; RMSEA [90% CI]
=.04 [.03–.05]; AIC =-42.20), two-factor second-order model (S-B𝜒 2 /df = 1.28; IFI =.87;
CFI =.86; RMSEA [90% CI] =.03 [.01–.04]; AIC = -.71.18). The one-factor model and
the two-factor model showed adequate support in terms of recommended cutoff criteria
regarding the goodness of fit indexes. However, the fit indices associated with the two-factor
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 8 — #8

TABLE 1. Sociodemographic Variables

Males Females

Age (years) 13.32 (1.41) 13.08 (1.41)

Education (years) 5.85 (.89) 5.68 (.97)
Ethnicity (%) 74.9% 75%
25.1% 25%
White
89.5% 83.5%
Minorities
10.5% 16.5%
Nationality 91.5% 85.8%
8% 13.3%
Portuguese
.5% .9%
Other countries
SES (%)
Low
Middle
High

Note. SES = socioeconomic status.

model were slightly better (i.e., lower S-B𝜒 2 /df and AIC). The two-factor second-order
model presented some goodness of fit indexes that were not acceptable (e.g., IFI, CFI) and
several item loadings that were below the recommended.30 value. The first two models
were then nested and compared using the △S-B𝜒², with the two-factor model yielding a
better fit than the one-factor model (△S-B𝜒² [1] = 45.85, p ≤.001). Overall, the two-factor
model obtained the best fit.
Table 2 displays the item loadings for the two-factor model estimated with the ML robust
method for the total sample. All items presented loadings above the recommended level
of.30. The correlations between both factors (r =.66; p ≤.001), between the AHSRD non-
violent factor and the total score (r =.93; p ≤.001), and between the AHSRD Violent factor
and the total score (r =.89; p ≤.001) were always high (i.e., above.50).
We then calculated Cronbach’s alphas, omega coefficients, MIICs, and CITCRs for the
AHSRD (see Table 3). These values obtained can be considered good.
Table 4 presents the convergent validity of the AHSRD with the SRD, the DD, the BSSS
and the BSCS, and the discriminant validity with the RSES. The expected moderate to high
positive significant correlations were demonstrated in terms of convergent validity. The
exception of the BSCS which presented a low negative correlation. In terms of discriminant
validity the expected null or negative correlations were also demonstrated.
The criterion-related validity of the AHSRD with variables such as tobacco use, alcohol
use, drug use, and unprotected sex was also examined (see Table 5). The expected moderate
to high positive significant correlations were demonstrated in terms of criterion-related
validity.
With regard to the known-groups validity, a comparison of the male and female par-
ticipants revealed that males scored significantly higher in terms of AHSRD total scores
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 9 — #9

TABLE 2. Item Loadings for the Total Sample

In the Past 12 Months How Often Did You… 1factor 2factor 2factor
NV V

Nonviolent .57 .58 .37

1. Paint graffiti or signs on someone else’s .46 .46 .65

property or in a public place? .57 .60 .78
2. Deliberately damage property that didn’t .50 .51 .57
belong to you? .73 .75 .87
3. Take something from a store without .55 .55 .88
paying for it? .81 .82 .87
4. Drive a car without its owner’s .73 .75
permission? .72 .75
5. Steal something worth more than €50? .76 .76
6. Go into a house or building to steal .38
something? .63
7. Sell marijuana or other drugs? .78
8. Steal something worth less than €50? .57
9. Buy, sell, or hold stolen property? .86
10. Use someone else’s credit or bank card .87
without their permission or knowledge? .87
Violent
11. Get into a serious physical fight?
12. Hurt someone badly enough to need
bandages or care from a doctor or nurse?
13. Use or threaten to use a weapon to get
something from someone?
14. Take part in a fight where a group of your
friends was against another group?
15. Pull a knife or a gun on someone?
16. Shot or stabbed someone?
17. Use a weapon in a fight?

Notes. AHSRD = Add Health Self-Report Delinquency; 1factor = one-factor model; 2fac-
tor NV = two-factor nonviolent; 2factor V = two-factor violent.

(F[1, 410] = 31.535; p ≤.001; 𝜂 2 =.08; M[SD] males = 21.33[6.60]; M[SD] females =
18.50[2.74]), AHSRD nonviolent scores (F[1, 410] = 20.126; p ≤.001; 𝜂 2 =.05; M[SD]
males = 12.07[4.10]; M[SD] females = 10.68[1.53]), and AHSRD violent scores (F[1, 410] =
34.417; p ≤.001; 𝜂2 =.08; M[SD] males = 9.27[3.14]; M[SD] females = 7.82[1.54]).
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 10 — #10

10

TABLE 3. Internal Consistency

Alpha Omega MIIC CITCR

AHSRD total .90 .94 .35 .32 –.68

AHSRD nonviolent .85 .88 .36 .30 –.65
AHSRD Violent .81 .93 .38 .36 –.59
Note. AHSRD = Add Health Self-Report Delinquency; alpha = Cronbach´s alpha; CITCR
= corrected item-total correlation range; omega = omega coefficient; MIIC = mean
interitem correlation.

TABLE 4. Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity

SRD DD BSSS BSCS RSES

AHSRD total .89** .40** .29** -.10* -.09

AHSRD non-violent .82** .36** .22** -.08 -.09
AHSRD violent .80** .37** .33** -.09 -.07
Notes. AHSRD = Add Health Self-Report Delinquency; BSCS = Brief Self-Control Scale;
BSSS = Brief Sensation Seeking Scale; DD = Dirty Dozen; r = Pearson correlation; RSES
= Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SRD = Self-Report Delinquency scale.
*p <.05. **p <.001.

TABLE 5. Criterion-Related Validity

Tobacco Alcohol Cannabis Coca/Hero UnpSex

AHSRD total .33* .50* .50* .58* .44*

AHSRD non-violent .28* .50* .43* .54* .45*
AHSRD violent .33* .41* .49* .53* .35*
Notes. AHSRD = Add Health Self-Report Delinquency; coca/hero = cocaine/heroin use; r
S = Spearman correlation; unpsex = unprotected sex.
*p <.001.

DISCUSSION

The primary aim of the present study was to assess the psychometric properties of the
AHSRD among a sample of male and female juvenile at-risk youths. We hypothesized
that: (a) the presumed two-factor structure of the AHSRD would be confirmed; (b) ade-
quate internal consistency measured by Cronbach´s alpha and omega coefficient would be
demonstrated; (c) convergent validity with measures of youth delinquency, dark triad of
personality, sensation seeking and self-control, and discriminant validity with a measure
of self-esteem would be demonstrated; (d) criterion-related validity (e.g., alcohol use, drug
use) would be demonstrated; and that (e) males would score higher than females on the
AHSRD and its factors.
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 11 — #11

11

In the current study, we found the strongest support for the two-factor model, with the
respective factors distinguishing between violent and nonviolent offending, which is con-
sistent with prior research (Boisvert, 2009; Felson & Haynie, 2002; Haynie & South, 2005;
Thomas, 2015). All factor loadings were satisfactory, with the lowest being.37 for item 11
(“Get into a serious physical fight”) and the highest.88 for item 16 (“Shot or stabbed some-
one”). However, the fact that the one-factor model also obtained a good fit is consistent
with previous studies using self-reported delinquency measures (e. g., Farrington, Loeber,
Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Schmidt, 1996; Gold, 1970; Hindelang, 1971) and
corroborates the notion that all types of delinquent behaviors are in some way related to
one another and may reflect some underlying propensity toward general antisocial behav-
ior (Jessor, 1991).
The analysis of the internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha and omega coef-
ficient revealed good values well above the recommended minimum of.70 for the total
scale and its factors (Finch et al., 2016). As expected the omega values were higher than
the alpha values (Dunn et al., 2014). With regard to the MIICs, adequate values were also
found within the recommended value range revealing an adequate homogeneity between
the items (.15–.50). In terms of the CITCR, the values were all above the recommended
value (Finch et al., 2016). Taken together with these findings from the factor analysis, the
Portuguese version of the AHSRD demonstrates both cross-cultural validity and reliability.
Although direct tests of this are necessary (e.g., measurement invariance across cultures),
similar factor structure and adequate estimates of reliability support the notion that results
from the AHSRD are comparable across culturally distinct samples.
The convergent validity of the AHSRD with measures of youth delinquency, dark triad
of personality, and sensation seeking revealed mostly moderate to high statistically signifi-
cant positive correlations demonstrating the expected construct overlap in line with the ones
found in previous studies using self-reported delinquency measures (e. g., Harden, Quinn,
& Tucker-Drob, 2012; Lau & Marsee, 2013). The highest correlations were obtained with
the other self-reported delinquency measure used in the present study (positive), followed
by dark triad traits of personality (positive; e.g., Jonason & Tost, 2010), sensation seeking
(e.g., White et al., 1985), and finally with self-control (negative; e.g., Wiebe, 2006). With
regard to discriminant validity (Finch et al., 2016), the AHSRD showed the expected non-
significant correlations with self-esteem because these are nonoverlapping constructs (e.g.,
Barry et al., 2007).
The concurrent validity of the AHSRD with tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine/heroin,
and unprotected sex also demonstrated consistent moderate to strong statistically signifi-
cant positive associations. These findings are consistent with previous investigations using
self-reported delinquency measures (e.g., Sitnick, Shaw, & Hyde, 2014). The highest cor-
relations obtained were with cocaine/heroin use, while the lowest correlations obtained
were with tobacco use. These findings are consistent with previous research using alterna-
tive measures of delinquency among samples of high at-risk youths and institutionalized
juvenile offenders in Portugal (Pinto, Fernandes, Mesquita, & Maia, 2015) and the United
States (Widom, Schuck, & White, 2006).
In terms of known-groups validity the result of the comparison of males and females
confirmed that males do indeed score higher on the AHSRD. This gender difference is also
supported by the majority of previous research using self-reported delinquency measures
—males engage in delinquency more frequently and engage in more serious and violent
forms of delinquency (e. g., Bendixen & Olweus, 1999; Canter, 1982). This may be one
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 12 — #12

12

reason why males have been studied in greater depth and detail than females in the con-
text of juvenile delinquency. That is, it may be perceived that reductions in male-oriented
behaviors will result in the greatest impact in terms of reducing societal cost and harm
(Bacon et al., 2014). However, these gender differences may also be due to the fact that the
behaviors captured on the AHRSD (and other delinquency measures) are male-oriented,
whereas, female-oriented behaviors (e.g., running away, prostitution, sexual promiscuity)
are not included. Thus, future measures of delinquency should consider those behaviors
that are more prevalent among females.
Nonetheless, the findings regarding the convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and
known-groups validity further support the use of the AHSRD among Portuguese youth.
That is, these findings suggest that the AHSRD is capturing the same aspects of the propen-
sity for delinquent behavior among this population of youth given that the associations
identified in the current sample are similar to those found in studies that have relied on U.S.
samples as well as research that has relied on alternative measures of delinquency.

Limitations and Conclusions

The current findings should be considered with the context of a few limitations. First, the
convenience sample used was mostly composed of White participants with a low SES.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the current study did not allow for an examination
of the stability of the features assessed over time (i.e., temporal stability). Third, the fact
that the measures used in the current study where presented in the self-report format may
be problematic in terms of shared methods variance (i.e., variance may be attributable to
the measurement method rather than to the constructs that the measures are assumed to
represent). Further psychometric research is needed (e. g., cross-validation using clinical
and forensic samples) to arrive at more concrete conclusions. Despite these limitations, our
findings does provide support for use of the AHSRD with at-risk for delinquency youths.
Overall, findings suggest that the AHSRD provides a good overall assessment of self-
reported delinquency, supporting its use across different samples and cultures. Our study
was the first to examine the psychometric properties of the AHSRD among a Portuguese-
speaking sample of at-risk for delinquency male and female youths. We must conclude that
the AHSRD can be considered a useful instrument if one intends to specifically measure
the propensity for violent and nonviolent aspects of juvenile delinquency. The potential
research benefits in terms of using a self-report measure such as the AHSRD with at-risk
youth populations are considerable. We hope that our research contributes to promoting
further violent and nonviolent delinquency investigations on youth populations.

REFERENCES

1. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review.

Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
2. Azeem, S., Hassan, B., & Masroor, U. (2014). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
self-reported delinquency among college boys. Pakistan Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 67–84.
3. Bacon, A., Burak, H., & Rann, J. (2014). Sex differences in the relationship between sensation
seeking, trait emotional intelligence and delinquent behavior. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &
Psychology, 25, 673–683. doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.943796
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 13 — #13

13

4. Barry, C., Grafeman, S., Adler, K., & Pickard, J. (2007). The relations among narcissism, self-
esteem, and delinquency in a sample of at-risk adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 933–
942. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.12.003
5. Barton, M., Weil, F., Jackson, M., & Hickey, D. (2017). An investigation of the influence of the
spatial distribution of neighborhood violent crime on fear of crime. Crime and Delinquency, 63,
1757–1776. doi:10.1177/0011128716671874
6. Basto-Pereira, M., Começanha, R., Ribeiro, S., & Maia, A. (2015). Long-term predictors of crime
desistance in juvenile delinquents: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, A review journal, 25(B), 332–342. doi:10.1016/j. avb.2015.09.012
7. Basto-Pereira, M., Miranda, A., Ribeiro, S., & Maia, A. (2017). In M. Sánchez, & T. Sánchez The
psychometric properties of a questionnaire for measuring delinquency and crime (D-CRIM).
Avances en Psicología, 2015 (pp. 856–867). Granada: Asociación Española de Psicología Con-
ductual (AEPC),
8. Bendixen, M., & Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early adolescence and
adolescence: psychometric properties and substantive findings. Criminal Behaviour and Mental
Health, 9, 323–354. doi:10.1002/cbm.330
9. Bentler, P., & Satorra, A. (2010). Testing model nesting and equivalence. Psychological Methods,
15, 111–123. doi:10.1037/a0019625
10. Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (2015). Supplement to EQS 6.3 for Windows user’s guide. Temple City, CA:
Multivariate Software.
11. Blunch, N. (2016). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and
EQS. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
12. Boisvert, D. (2009). Rethinking Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A behavioral
genetic approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
13. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical
information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
14. Canter, R. (1982). Sex differences in the Self-Report Delinquency. Criminology, 20, 373–393.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1982.tb00467.x
15. Cookston, J. T., & Finlay, A. K. (2006). Father involvement and adolescent adjustment: Longitu-
dinal findings from Add Health. Fathering, 4, 137–158. doi:10.3149/fth.0402.137
16. Cota-Robles, S., Neiss, M., & Rowe, D. C. (2002). The role of puberty in violent and nonviolent
delinquency among Anglo American, Mexican American, and African American boys. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 17, 364–376. doi:10.1177/07458402017004003
17. Cottle, C., Lee, R., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidi-
vism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 28, 367−394.
doi:10.1177/0093854801028003005
18. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the
pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–
412. doi:10.1111/bjop.12046
19. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between
constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155
20. Elliott, D., Ageton, S., & Huizinga, D. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
21. Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-
reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45(1), 95–110.
doi:10.2307/2095245
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 14 — #14

14

22. Enzmann, D. (2013). The impact of questionnaire design on prevalence and incidence rate of self-
reported delinquency: Results of an experiment modifying the ISRD-2 questionnaire. Journal
of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 147–177. doi:10.1177/1043986212470890
23. Enzmann, D., Marshall, I., Killias, M., Junger-Tas, J., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010).
Self-reported youth delinquency in Europe and beyond: First results of the second international
self-report delinquency study in the context of police and victimization data. European Journal
of Criminology, 7, 159–183. doi:10.1177/1477370809358018
24. Farrington, D. P. (1999). Validity of self-reported delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and Mental
Health, 9, 293–295. doi:10.1002/cbm.327
25. Farrington, D., Auty, K., Coid, J., & Turner, R. (2013). Self-reported and official offending
from age 10 to age 56. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 19, 135–151.
doi:10.1007/s10610-012-9195-x
26. Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2012). Two approaches to developmental/life-course theorizing.
In F. T. Cullen, & P. Wilcox The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 226–252.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W., & Schmidt, L. (1996).
Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on boys, moth-
ers, and teachers: Concurrent and predictive validity for African-American and Caucasians.
Criminology, 34, 493–517. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01217.x
28. Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Coid, J. W. (2009). Development of adolescence-limited,
late onset, and persistent offenders from age 8 to age 48. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 150–163.
doi:10.1002/ab.20296.
29. Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., Crago, R. V., & Coid, J. W. (2014). Prevalence, frequency, onset,
desistance and criminal career duration in self-reports compared with official records. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 24, 241–253. doi:10.1002/cbm.1930.
30. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE Pub-
lications.
31. Finch, W., Immekus, J., & French, B. (2016). Applied psychometrics using SPSS and AMOS.
Charlotte. NC: Information Age Publishing.
32. Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
doi:10.2307/3151312
33. Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. A. (2003). Callous–unemo-
tional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and
self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 457–470. doi:10.1023/A:
1023899703866
34. Gobeil, R., Blanchette, K., & Stewart, L. (2016). A meta-analytic review of correctional interven-
tions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus gender-informed approaches. Criminal Jus-
tice and Behavior, 3, 301–322. doi:10.1177/009385481 5621100
35. Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
36. Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T.
(2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141,
261–310. doi:10.1037/a0038231
37. Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological
tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Harden, K., Quinn, P., & Tucker-Drob, E. (2012). Genetically influenced change in sensation seek-
ing drives the rise of delinquent behavior during adolescence. Developmental Science, 15(1),
150–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01115.x
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 15 — #15

15

39. Harris, K. M. (2013). The Add Health study: Design and accomplishments. Carolina Popula-
tion Center: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from http://www. cpc. unc.
edu/projects/addhealth/documentation/guides/DesignPaperWIIV. pdf
40. Haynie, D. L., & South, S. J. (2005). Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Social Forces,
84, 361–374. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0104
41. Hindelang, M. (1971). Age, sex, and the versatility of delinquent involvements. Social Problems,
18, 522–535. doi:10.2307/799726
42. Hoyle, R., Stephenson, M., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E., & Donohew, R. (2002). Reliability and valid-
ity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401–414.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00032-0
43. IBM SPSS. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics base 25. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
44. Jensen, G., Erickson, M., & Gibbs, J. (1978). Perceived risk of punishment and self-reported delin-
quency. Social Forces, 57(1), 57–78. doi:10.2307/2577626
45. Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and
action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 597–605. doi:10.1016/1054-139X(91)90007-K
46. Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Kosterman, R. (2003).
Predictive, concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self-reported delinquency. Crim-
inal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 179–197. doi:10.1002/cbm.541
47. Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 611–615. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031
48. Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. doi:10.1037/a0019265
49. Klimstra, T., Sijtsema, J., Henrichs, J., & Cima, M. (2014). The Dark Triad of personality in
adolescence: psychometric properties of a concise measure and associations with adolescent
adjustment from a multi-informant perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 84–92.
doi:10.1016/j. jrp.2014.09.001
50. Latimer, J., Kleinknecht, S., Hung, K., & Gabor, T. (2003). The correlates of self-reported delin-
quency: An analysis of the national longitudinal survey of children and youth. Canada: Research
and Statistics Division, Department of Justice.
51. Lau, K., & Marsee, M. (2013). Exploring narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism in youth:
Examination of associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal of Child and Fam-
ily Studies, 22, 355–367. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9586-0
52. Lima, R. (2016). Delinquência juvenil: Adaptação da Self-Reported Delinquency Scale ao con-
texto português [Juvenile delinquency: Adaptation of the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale to
the Portuguese context]. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades
e Tecnologias. Lisbon, Portugal.
53. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour:
A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.100.4.674
54. Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency: Results from an instru-
ment for New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 21, 227–240.
doi:10.1177/000486588802100405
55. Paschall, M. J., Bersamin, M., & Flewelling, R. L. (2005). Racial/ethnic differences in the asso-
ciation between college attendance and heavy alcohol use: A national study. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 66, 266–274. doi:10.15288/jsa.2005.66.266
56. Pechorro, P., Castro, A., Hoyle, R., & Simões, M. (in press). The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale:
Latent structure, reliability, and validity among at-risk for delinquency youths. Journal of Foren-
sic Psychology: Research and Practice. doi:10.1080/24732850.2018.1435073
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 16 — #16

16

57. Pechorro, P., Gonçalves, R., Marôco, J., Nunes, C., & Jesus, S. (2014). Age of crime onset and
psychopathic traits in female juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1101–1119. doi:10.1177/0306624X13489864
58. Pechorro, P., Jonason, P., Raposo, V., & Maroco, J. (in press). Dirty Dozen: A concise
measure of Dark Triad traits among at-risk youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies.
doi:10.1037/a0019265
59. Pechorro, P., Lima, R., Simões, M., & DeLisi, M. (in press). Validity and reliability of the Self-
Report Delinquency among a sample of at-risk Youths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psy-
chology. doi:10.1080/14789949.2018.1439991
60. Pechorro, P., Maroco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. (2011). Validação da Escala de Auto-Estima
de Rosenberg com adolescentes portugueses em contexto forense e escolar [Validation of the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale with Portuguese adolescents in forensic and school contexts].
Arquivos de Medicina, 25, 174–179.
61. Pinto, R., Fernandes, A., Mesquita, C., & Maia, A. (2015). Childhood adversity among institution-
alized male juvenile offenders and other high-risk groups without offense records in Portugal.
Violence and Victims, 30, 600–614. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00002
62. Pontes, C. A. (2016). Delinquência juvenil: Contributo para a validação da Escala Breve de Auto-
controlo em jovens portugueses. [Juvenile delinquency: Contribution to the validation of the
Brief Self-Control Scale among Portuguese adolescents]. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Univer-
sidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias. Lisbon, Portugal.
63. Porterfield, A. L. (1943). Delinquency and outcome in court and college. American Journal of
Sociology, 49, 199–208. doi:10.1086/219369
64. Raaijmakers, Q., Engels, R., & van Hoof, A. (2010). Delinquency and moral reasoning in ado-
lescence and young adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 247–258.
doi:10.1080/01650250544000035
65. Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., James, J.,., . . . Udry,
J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study
on Adolescent Health. JAMA, 278, 823–832. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038
66. Resnick, M., Ireland, M., & Borowsky, I. (2004). Youth violence perpetration: What protects?
What predicts? Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 35. e10. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.01.011
67. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown, CT: Wes-
leyan University Press.
68. Sieving, R. E., Beuhring, T., Resnick, M. D., Bearinger, L., Shew, M., Ireland, M., & Blum,
R. (2001). Development of adolescent self-report measures from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 73–81. doi:10.1016/S1054-
139X(00)00155-5
69. Silverman, J. R., & Caldwell, R. M. (2005). The influence of parental emotional support and
monitoring on self-reported delinquent impulsive behavior and noncompliance among juve-
nile offenders: An examination of gender differences. International Journal of Forensic Mental
Health, 4, 159–174. doi:10.1080/14999013.2005.10471221
70. Simões, M. R. (2000). Investigações no âmbito da Aferição Nacional do Teste das Matrizes Pro-
gressivas Coloridas de Raven [Investigations in the context of the national standardization of
the Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices test]. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
71. Sitnick, S., Shaw, D., & Hyde, L. (2014). Precursors of adolescent substance use from early child-
hood and early adolescence: Testing a developmental cascade model. Development and Psy-
chopathology, 26(1), 125–140. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000539
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 17 — #17

17

72. Sofocleous, G. T. (2013). Sexual and non-sexual juvenile offenders: Developmental antecedents
and behavioral outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York, NY: Columbia Uni-
versity.
73. Tangney, J., Baumeister, R., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment,
less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.
doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
74. Thomas, E. (2015). Discovering the psychometric properties of a delinquency and criminal-
ity scale: A look at the Add Health study. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Retrieved from:
http://gradworks.umi.com/15/91/1591300.html
75. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and
crime. In D., Duffee, R. Crutchfield, S. Mastrofski, L. Mazerolle, & D. McDowall Criminal
justice: Innovations in measurement and analysis (Vol 4;. 33–83. Washington, DC: Department
of Justice.
76. Thornton, A. J. V., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2012). Prevalence of women’s vio-
lent and nonviolent offending behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1399–1427.
doi:10.1177/0886260511425789.
77. Udry, J. (2003). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health), waves I and II,
1994–1996; wave III. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill. 2001–2002
78. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2017). UNODC statistics. Retrieved from
https://data.unodc.org
79. van de Vijver, F. (2016). Test adaptations. In F., Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K. Geisinger, &
D. Iliescu The ITC international handbook of testing and assessment (pp. 364–376. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
80. Vaughn, M. G., Howard, M. O., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Psychopathic personality traits and delin-
quent careers: An empirical examination. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 407–
416. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.08.001
81. Vazsonyi, A. T., Cleveland, H. H., & Wiebe, R. (2006). Does the effect of impulsivity on delin-
quency vary by neighborhood disadvantage? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 511–541.
doi:10.1177/0093854806287318
82. Watts, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (2015). Delinquent peers and offending: Integrating
social learning and biosocial theory. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 13, 190–206.
doi:10.1177/1541204014523797.
83. Welsh, B. C., Loeber, R., Stevens, B. R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Cohen, M. A., & Farrington, D.
P. (2008). The costs of juvenile crime in urban areas: A longitudinal perspective. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 6, 3–27. doi:10.1177/1541204007308427
84. White, H., R, Labouvie., E., & W, Bates, E. (1985). The relationship between sensation-seeking
and delinquency: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22,
197–211. doi:10.1177/0022427885022003002
85. White, J., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D., Needles, D., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994).
Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 103, 192–205. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.103.2.192
86. Widom, C. S., Schuck, A. M., & White, H. R. (2006). An examination of pathways from childhood
victimization to violence: The role of early aggression and problematic alcohol use. Violence
and Victims, 21, 675–690. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.21.6.675
87. Wiebe, R. P. (2006). Using an expanded measure of self-control to predict delinquency. Psychol-
ogy, Crime and Law, 12, 519–536. doi:10.1080/10683160500254953
 “VV-D-17-00165_print” — 2018/11/17 — 5:41 — page 18 — #18

18

88. Williams, J., & Gold, M. (1972). From delinquent behavior to official delinquency. Social Prob-
lems, 20, 209–229. doi:10.2307/799615
89. Wolfe, S. E., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2016). On the measurement of low self-control in Add Health
and NLSY79. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 619–650. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2016.1168428
Disclosure. The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any com-
mercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.

Acknowledgments The delinquency items used in the present article are from Add Health, a pro-
gram project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bear-
man, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded
by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Spe-
cial acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original
design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health web-
site (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921
for this study.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Pedro Pechorro, PhD, Por-
tugal