811595

research-article2018
IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18811595International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyPechorro et al.

Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
The Adapted Self-Report Comparative Criminology
2019, Vol. 63(6) 837­–853
Delinquency Scale for © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Adolescents: Validity sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18811595
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18811595
and Reliability Among journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Portuguese Youths

Pedro Pechorro1, Stephen Houghton2,

Mário R. Simões3, and Annemaree Carroll4

Abstract
Self-report delinquency scales have contributed greatly to the contemporary basis
of our understanding of juvenile delinquency. Nevertheless, they have not been
immune to criticism and further improvement and extensive measurement research
is still necessary. The present study examined the psychometric properties of one
such measure of self-reported delinquency, the Adapted Self-Report Delinquency
Scale (ASRDS). The ASRDS was administered to a Portuguese sample of male youths
(N = 470, 12-20 years of age), subdivided into a forensic sample (n = 217) and
a school sample (n = 253). The Portuguese version of the ASRDS demonstrated
satisfactory psychometric properties, in terms of its factor structure, internal
consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion-related validity, and
known-groups validity, thereby justifying its use among this population.

Keywords
assessment, crime, self-report delinquency, validation, youth

1University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

2The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
3University of Coimbra, Portugal
4University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Pedro Pechorro, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga,
Portugal.
Email: ppechorro@gmail.com
838 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

Data have clearly demonstrated the significant negative impact of juvenile offending
on educational, health, financial, vocational, and judicial systems worldwide (Deutsch,
Crockett, Wolff, & Russell, 2012; Kofler-Westergren, Klopf, & Mitterauer, 2010; see
World Health Organisation, 2014). In attempts undertaken to remediate this negative
impact, much has been learned about juvenile delinquency, including, for example, the
prevalence rates, types of offenses committed, age of onset of offending, and differ-
ences in offending behaviors according to race and sex and a range of other variables.
How best to measure juvenile offending has, however, remained highly contentious
(Ahonen, Loeber, Farrington, Hipwell, & Stepp, 2017).
Official records and/or self-reporting of offenses by juveniles themselves have
been the predominant sources of information gathering, and correlations between self-
report data and official arrest records have tended to range from .70 to .83 (e.g.,
Farrington, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Schmidt, 1996; Hindelang,
Hirschi, & Weis, 1981; Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). Although both approaches have
strengths, neither has been immune to criticism (see Payne & Piquero, 2018;
Thornberry & Krohn, 2005). Official records, for example, may be biased because
offenses are only recorded when they come to the attention of the juvenile justice sys-
tem (therefore many offenses often remain concealed: van Batenburg-Eddes et al.,
2012), and there is an overrepresentation of minorities in official records (Ahonen
et al., 2017). On the other hand, although self-report measures capture the extent of
delinquency (Kivivuori, 2011), they can be biased due to memory distortions, social
desirability, and acquiescent responses (Sibley et al., 2010).
Studies examining the concordance between officially recorded offending and self-
reported offenses offer some interesting insights into both approaches. For example,
Krohn, Lizotte, Phillips, Thornberry, and Bell (2013), utilising data from the Rochester
Youth Development Study (RYDS), found that as “official arrests increased, both
under and over-reporting among adolescents and young adults increased, at a decreas-
ing rate” (p. 414). Utilising the RYDS data to build on these findings, Emmert, Carlock,
Lizotte, and Krohn (2017) reported that underreporting and overreporting of arrests by
individuals throughout the adolescent-adult life course was consistent. In other words,
“when respondents misreport the number of arrests they have experienced, they do so
consistently, regardless of age” (p. 424).
Self-report measures also demonstrate that age of onset of offending typically pre-
cedes officially recorded offending, by up to 3 to 5 years (see Kirk, 2006; Loeber et al.,
2003; Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 2001; Thornberry & Krohn, 2005), thus providing a
“more accurate assessment of an individual’s early criminal career” (Payne & Piquero,
2018, p. 5). According to Emmert et al. (2017), it is the stability found in under- and
overreporting throughout the adolescent-adult span that is reassuring and “supports
the use of self-report measures as a valid indicator of delinquency” (p. 412). Moreover,
Farrington (1999) and Piquero, Schubert, and Brame (2014) drew attention to the
improved reliability and validity as one reason why self-report measures of juvenile
offending have become so widely used and hence a main source of information
gathering.
Pechorro et al. 839

One such widely used and validated self-report measure of juvenile delinquency is
the Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale (ASRDS; Carroll, Durkin, Houghton, &
Hattie, 1996). Developed and used extensively in Australia, the ASRDS requires
youths to self-report their delinquent activities across a range of frequently occurring
delinquent activities, including minor misdemeanors through to more serious offenses.
The ASRDS has a Grade Four (approximately 9-10 years of age) reading level and
incorporates adolescent age appropriate language. Exploratory and confirmatory fac-
tor analyses have consistently revealed seven internally consistent subscales, and
recent separate administrations of the ASRDS with Australian adolescents have pro-
duced satisfactory reliability coefficients across these (subscales): Abuse of Property
(α = .87-.91), Hard Drug-Related Offenses (α = .74-.89), Physical Aggression (α =
.85-.88), Stealing Offenses (α = .82-.90), School Misdemeanors (α = .86-.88), Soft
Drug (α = .84-.88), and Vehicle-Related Offenses (α = .88-.94; see Carroll, Houghton,
Durkin, & Hattie, 2009, for a comprehensive review; Carroll et al., 2006; Gunasekera,
Houghton, Glasgow, & Boyle, 2014; Gunasekera, Houghton, Glasgow, Carroll, &
Hunter, 2016; Houghton, Carroll, Tan, & Hopkins, 2008; Houghton, Tan, Khan, &
Carroll, 2013). These data provide confidence in using the ASRDS as a contemporary
measure of self-reported delinquency. However, the cross-cultural generalizability of
the ASRDS is yet to be tested as most studies have been exclusively based on Australian
samples.
The current study examines the psychometric properties of the ASRDS among a
forensic sample and a nonforensic community school sample of Portuguese male
youths, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). It was predicted that the ASRDS
would (a) confirm the presumed seven-factor structure; (b) show adequate internal
consistency as measured by Cronbach’s alpha and Omega coefficient; (c) show con-
vergent validity with measures of youth delinquency, psychopathic traits, dark triad
traits and sensation seeking, and discriminant validity with measures of self-esteem
and self-control; (d) show criterion-related validity (e.g., alcohol use, drug use); and
that (e) participants from the forensic sample would score higher on the ASRDS than
participants from the school sample.

Method
Participants
The sample comprised of 470 males (Mage = 15.91 years, SD = 1.41 years, range =
12-20 years) recruited in forensic and nonforensic school contexts. Of this total, 217
participants (Mage= 15.85 years, SD = 1.30 years, range = 13-20 years) formed the
forensic sample, and 253 participants (Mage = 15.97 years, SD = 1.50 years, range =
12-20 years) formed the nonforensic community school sample. No differences were
found between the participants in the forensic and nonforensic community school
samples for age (F = .907, p = .34), but the forensic sample had a greater proportion
of ethnic minorities (χ2 = 8.14, p ⩽ .01), a lower socioeconomic status (χ2 = 62.80,
p ⩽ .001) and its participants had fewer years of education (F = 773.87, p ⩽ .001).
840 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

The forensic sample was recruited from eight juvenile detention centers managed
by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice. These centers all admit males detained by the
court’s decision, which is the harshest sentence the court can give to adolescents. The
mean age of crime onset among the detained participants was 11.46 years (SD = 2.09)
and mean age of detention was 14.93 years (SD = 1.22). The nonforensic school
sample was recruited from public schools, managed by the Portuguese Ministry of
Education, located in disadvantaged zones in the greater Lisbon area. Approximately
9.6% of the participants in the school sample reported involvement with the law in the
last 12 months.

Measures
The ASRDS (Carroll et al., 1996) is based on Mak’s (1993) nine subscale Self-reported
Delinquency Scale. The ASRDS covers a wide spectrum of frequently occurring
delinquent activities ranging from minor misdemeanors to more serious offenses:
Abuse of Property (seven items, e.g., Deliberately damaged things in public places-
telephone boxes, street signs, road lamps); Hard Drug-Related Offenses (five items,
e.g., Used amphetamines [such as speed, ecstasy, uppers], LSD-also called acid, or
other hallucinogens); Physical Aggression (three items, e.g., Deliberately hurt or beat
up someone); Stealing Offenses (five items, e.g., Stolen money of $10 or more in one
go); School Misdemeanors (seven items, e.g., Disrupted the class by calling out or by
being out of your seat); Soft Drug (five items, e.g., Used marijuana [also called grass,
dope, hash, pot, weed, mull]; and Vehicle-Related Offenses (nine items, e.g., Driven
an unregistered car). Furthermore, one item reporting police warnings and one item
reporting court appearance are included in the scale to gain a measure of self-reported
official delinquency status. In addition, four “lie” items are interspersed among the
delinquency items to verify reliability (Mak, 1993). Participant’s report the frequency
with which they were engaged in delinquent acts during the last 12 months using a
6-point scale: never; 1-3 times; 4-6 times; once a month; more than once a month; and
more than once a week. A shorter version of the ASRDS was used in the present study.
(Internal consistency values will be given later in this article.)
The Self-Report Delinquency (SRD; Elliott, Ageton, & Huizinga, 1985) scale was
created for the original National Youth Survey (NYS), a longitudinal study of delin-
quent behavior among American youths. The SRD was developed with the intention
of including items that were representative of the full range of acts for which juveniles
could be arrested and involved a recall period of one year. Because the majority of
research concentrates on the general delinquency scale (24 items), the present valida-
tion study will also focus on that version of the scale. Each of the 24 SRD items are
responded to on a 9-point ordinal scale (ranging from never = 1 to 2-3 times a day =
9) and these are added to produce a total score, with higher scores indicative of higher
levels of juvenile delinquency. The Portuguese version of the SRD scale used a 5-point
ordinal scale (Pechorro, Lima, Simões, & DeLisi, 2019). The internal consistency for
the current study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .90.
Pechorro et al. 841

The Antisocial Process Screening Devise (APSD-SR; Caputo, Frick, & Brodsky,
1999; Frick & Hare, 2001) is a multidimensional 20-item self-report measure
designed to assess psychopathic traits in adolescents. It was modeled after the
Psychopathy Checklist (Hare, 2003). Each item is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale
(ranging from never to often) and these are added together with higher scores indica-
tive of increased psychopathic features. Prior studies (e.g., Frick, Barry, & Bodin,
2000) have identified three main factors: Callous-Unemotional (six items), Narcissism
(seven items), and Impulsivity (five items). The Portuguese version of the APSD-SR
(Pechorro, Hidalgo, Nunes, & Jiménez, 2016; Pechorro, Maroco, Poiares, & Vieira,
2013) was used in the present study, the internal consistency for which, estimated by
Cronbach’s alpha, was .76.
The Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) is a brief 27-item measure of
the Dark Triad traits construct of personality. The SD3 assesses the dimensions of
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy with nine items each. Participants
indicate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree) with statements reflective of narcissism (e.g., “People see me as a
natural leader”), Machiavellianism (e.g., “It’s not wise to tell your secrets”), and psy-
chopathy (e.g., “People who mess with me always regret it”). Higher scores indicate
higher levels of Dark Triad traits. The Portuguese version of the SD3 was used
(Pechorro, Caramelo, Oliveira, Nunes, Curtis, & Jones, 2019), the internal consistency
for which, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .87.
The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS; Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch,
& Donohew, 2002) is a short self-report measure of general self-control. The BSSS
includes items making up the four basic facets of sensation seeking, namely: Experience
Seeking, Susceptibility to Boredom, Thrill and Adventure Seeking and Disinhibition.
The eight BSSS items are scored on a 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree) and these are then totaled, with higher scores indicating
higher levels of sensation seeking. The Portuguese version of the BSSS was used
(Pechorro, Castro, Hoyle, & Simões, 2018), the internal consistency for which, esti-
mated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .81.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989) is a brief self-report
measure that evaluates self-esteem in adolescents and adults. Each of the 10 RSES
items are rated using a 4-point ordinal scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree) (some items are reverse scored) and these are then added together, with higher
scores indicating higher levels of self-esteem. The Portuguese version of the RSES
was used (Pechorro, Marôco, Poiares, & Vieira, 2011), the internal consistency for
which, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .76.
The Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) is a
short self-report measure of general self-control. The BSCS uses a 5-point ordinal
scale (ranging from not at all like me to very much like me) (some items are reverse
scored) and the responses to the items are totaled with higher scores indicating higher
levels of self-control. The Portuguese version of the BSCS was used (Pechorro, Pontes,
DeLisi, Alberto, & Simões, submitted), the internal consistency for which, estimated
by Cronbach’s alpha, was .81.
842 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

In addition to the measures described, a questionnaire collected data pertaining to

the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, including age, ethnicity,
nationality, urban origin, years of education completed, socioeconomic status, parental
marital status, tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, and having unprotected sex (i.e.,
risky sex without condoms). Socioeconomic status was measured by considering both
parental level of education and profession, appropriate to the Portuguese reality.

Procedures
The ASRDS was translated into Portuguese following permission from the original
developers. During the translation and retroversion, standard adequate procedures
were followed (see Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger, 2005). The initial transla-
tion from English into Portuguese was completed by the first author and a colleague,
having in mind the importance of using language and terms that could be easily
understood by Portuguese youths (Curcio, Mak, & Knott, 2015). The questionnaire
was then independently back-translated into English by a native English speaker
with professional experience. The original and the back-translated items were com-
pared for nonequivalence of meaning, and discrepancies were revised until no
semantic differences were detected between the English version and the Portuguese
version. That is, the translated items had the same or similar meanings to the original
English items.
The results of a pilot test on a small group of juveniles, which were not included in
the present analysis, indicated the need to eliminate three items considered to be
redundant. These were Item 4 (“Stolen a bicycle or parts of a bicycle”), Item 9 (“Joy-
riding in a stolen car”), and Item 33 (“Tricked someone on the telephone”). The pilot
test was undertaken to ensure that Portuguese youths would be able to understand the
meaning of the items (i.e., that the wording and clarity of the items was congruent to
the comprehension and reading level of the youths) (See Appendix).
Authorization to access and assess young people from the forensic setting was
obtained from the General Directorate of Reintegration and Prison Services of the
Portuguese Ministry of Justice (DGRSP-MJ). The detainees, from the eight existing
male Portuguese Juvenile Detention Centers, were informed about the nature of the
study and asked to participate. The participation, which was completely voluntary,
included approximately 92% of the population.
Authorization to access and assess young people from the nonforensic community
school sample was obtained from the General Directorate of Education of the
Portuguese Ministry of Education (DGE-ME). The participants, from the public
schools located in the greater Lisbon area, were informed about the nature of the study
and invited to participate. Participation was voluntary and parental authorization was
obtained from all participants who accepted the invitation to participate. The participa-
tion rate was approximately 86%. Of those who did not participate, reasons included
straight out refusal, the inability to understand the Portuguese language and not having
authorization from parents or legal tutors. All measures were administered in an appro-
priate setting, and at time of administration it was stressed there were no right or
Pechorro et al. 843

wrong answers and responses to each item should be considered in the context of what
the person generally thinks or feels.
Data were analyzed using SPSS v25 (IBM SPSS, 2017) and EQS 6.3 (Bentler &
Wu, 2015). The factor structure of the Portuguese language version of the ASRDS was
assessed using CFA performed with maximum likelihood (ML) robust estimation
methods. Standard goodness of fit indices were used, including Satorra-Bentler chi-
square/degrees of freedom, comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI),
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and Akaike information criterion
(AIC). A chi-square/degrees of freedom value < 5 is considered adequate, ⩽ 2 is con-
sidered good, and values = 1 are considered very good (West, Taylor, & Wu, 2012). A
CFI ⩾ .90 and RMSEA ⩽ .10 indicate adequate fit, whereas a CFI ⩾ .95 and RMSEA
⩽ .06 indicate good model fit (Blunch, 2016). An IFI ⩾ .90 is regarded as acceptable.
The model with the smallest AIC should be selected (West et al., 2012). The CFA was
performed on the scale items and only those with standardized loading above .30 were
retained. No modification indexes were considered to improve the measurement
models.
Analyses of variance were used to examine differences between the groups, includ-
ing partial eta squared ( η2p ) effect size. Pearson correlations were used to analyze
associations between scale variables, and Spearman correlations were used to analyze
associations between scale variables and ordinal variables (Field, 2013). Correlations
were considered low if below .20, moderate if between .20 and .50, and high if above
.50 (Ferguson, 2009). Mean inter-item correlations were considered good if between
.15 and .50. Corrected item-total correlations were considered adequate if above .20
and Cronbach’s alphas and Omega coefficients were considered adequate if above .70
(Dunn, Baguley, & Brunsden, 2014; Finch, Immekus, & French, 2016).

Results
Our initial step in examining the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of
the ASRDS was to attempt to confirm its presumed seven-factor structure by means of
CFA using the ML robust method. The following goodness of fit indexes were obtained
for the total sample: one-factor (SBχ2/df = 4.57, IFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA (90%
confidence interval [CI]) = .09 [.08, .09], AIC = 1439.71), and seven-factor (SBχ2/df
= 2.30, IFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA (90% CI) = .06 [.05, .06], AIC = 163.07).
Considering the CFA results obtained, we were able to find the strongest support in
terms of the goodness-of-fit indexes for the seven-factor model. The fit of the one-
factor model can only be considered marginally acceptable because of the SBχ2/df and
RMSEA values it obtained.
Table 1 displays the item loadings for the one-factor model and the seven-factor
model for the total sample. All items had loadings above .30, and thus, none were
removed from the model.
Table 2 presents the Pearson correlations between the ASRDS total and its seven
dimensions for the total sample. As can be seen, statistically significant positive high
correlations emerged.
844 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

Table 1.  Item Loadings for Seven-Factor and One-Factor Models of the ASRDS.

Items TB MVO DO A V SO PD 1-factor

Item 1 .91 .87
Item 2 .76 .77
Item 3 .35 .32
Item 4 .90 .85
Item 5 .85 .83
Item 6 .76 .66
Item 7 .76 .67
Item 8 .94 .86
Item 9 .55 .50
Item 10 .84 .74
Item 11 .96 .84
Item 12 .64 .51
Item 13 .67 .55
Item 14 .83 .76
Item 15 .52 .42
Item 16 .78 .71
Item 17 .60 .58
Item 18 .81 .75
Item 19 .88 .82
Item 20 .64 .68
Item 21 .82 .78
Item 22 .61 .49
Item 23 .68 .54
Item 24 .84 .75
Item 25 .47 .44
Item 26 .48 .40
Item 27 .49 .44
Item 28 .78 .76
Item 29 .61 .58
Item 30 .79 .76
Item 31 .48 .44
Item 32 .41 .39
Item 33 .62 .62
Item 34 .68 .64
Item 35 .58 .55

Note. ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; TB = theft and burglary; MVO = motor vehicle
offenses; DO = drug-related offenses; A = assault; V = vandalism; SO = school-related offenses;
PD = public disorder.

Internal consistency values (see Table 3) were then calculated. These values can be
considered good, with the exception of some of the mean inter-item correlations that
were above the recommended range of .15 to .50.
Pechorro et al. 845

Table 2.  Pearson Correlation Matrix.

ASRDS TB MVO DO A V SO PD
ASRDS 1  
TB .91*** 1  
MVO .84*** .70*** 1  
DO .84*** .69*** .65*** 1  
A .90*** .83*** .74*** .67*** 1  
V .80*** .70*** .55*** .61*** .70*** 1  
SO .86*** .79*** .66*** .66*** .77*** .68*** 1  
PD .84*** .75*** .59*** .70*** .70*** .66*** .73*** 1

Note. ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; TB = theft and burglary; MVO = motor vehicle
offenses; DO = drug-related offenses; A = assault; V = vandalism; SO = school-related offenses;
PD = public disorder.
***p<.001.

Table 3.  Cronbach’s Alphas, Omega Coefficients, Mean Inter-Item Correlations, and
Corrected Item-Total Correlation Ranges.

Alpha Omega MIIC CITCR

ASRDS total .96 .97 .41 .32-.83
Theft and burglary .86 .88 .56 .35-.84
Motor vehicle offenses .91 .92 .66 .56-.89
Drug-related offenses .83 .84 .46 .47-.70
Assault .86 .87 .61 .56-.78
Vandalism .76 .77 .35 .39-.66
School-related offenses .77 .78 .54 .58-.68
Public disorder .70 .71 .31 .33-.56

Note. ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; Alpha = Cronbach’s alpha; Omega = Omega
coefficient; MIIC = mean inter-item correlation; CITCR = corrected item-total correlation range.

Table 4 presents the convergent validity of the ASRDS with the SRD, the APSD-SR,
the SD3, the BSSS, and the discriminant validity with the RSES and the BSCS for the
total sample, the school sample and the forensic sample. The expected moderate to
high significant positive correlations were demonstrated in terms of convergent valid-
ity, and the expected low negative correlations were demonstrated in terms of dis-
criminant validity.
The criterion-related validity of the ASRDS was then examined with variables such
as tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, and risky unprotected sex (see Table 5) for the total
sample, the school sample, and the forensic sample. The expected moderate to high sig-
nificant positive correlations were demonstrated in terms of criterion-related validity.
With reference to the known-groups validity, a comparison of the participants from
the forensic sample with participants from the nonforensic community school sample
846 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

Table 4.  Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity.

SRD APSD-SR SD3 BSSS RSES BSCS

Total sample
 ASRDS .85*** 56*** .48*** .37*** −.13* −.21***
School sample
 ASRDS .72*** .37*** .41*** .20*** −.17** −.15*
Forensic sample
 ASRDS .81*** .43*** .45*** .14* −.08 −.17**

Note. ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; SRD = Self-Report Delinquency; APSD-SR
= Antisocial Process Screening Device–Self-Report; SD3 = Short Dark Triad; BSSS = Brief Sensation
Seeking Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; BSCS = Brief Self-Control Scale.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Table 5.  Criterion-Related Validity.

Tobacco Alcohol Cannabis Cocaine/Heroin Risky sex

Total sample
 ASRDS .42*** .53*** .55*** .42*** .43***
School sample
 ASRDS .24*** .31*** .27*** .20*** .22***
Forensic sample
 ASRDS .21*** .33*** .41*** .23*** .18**

Note. ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale.

***p < .001.

revealed that participants from the former sample scored significantly higher on the
ASRDS total score (F = 779.84, p ⩽ .001, η2p = .63) and its dimensions: theft and
burglary (F = 828.46, p ⩽ .001, η2p = .64), motor vehicle offenses (F = 303.94, p ⩽
.001, ηp = .39), drug-related offenses (F = 267.60, p ⩽ .001, η2p = .36), assault (F
2

= 498.76, p ⩽ .001, ηp = .52), vandalism (F = 273.05, p ⩽ .001, η2p = .37), school-

2

related offenses; (F = 709.44, p ⩽ .001, ηp = .60), and public disorder (F = 347.03,

2

p ⩽ .001, η2p = .43).

Discussion
The main objective of the current investigation was to examine the psychometric prop-
erties of the Portuguese translation of the ASRDS (Carroll et al., 1996) among
Portuguese male youths from forensic and nonforensic contexts. We hypothesized that
the ASRDS would confirm the presumed seven-factor structure; show adequate inter-
nal consistency; show convergent validity with measures of youth delinquency, psy-
chopathic traits, dark triad traits and sensation seeking, and discriminant validity with
measures of self-esteem and self-control; show criterion-related validity (e.g., alcohol
Pechorro et al. 847

use, drug use); and that participants from the forensic sample would score higher on
the ASRDS than participants from the school sample.
The strongest support was found for the seven-factor model. All factor loadings
were satisfactory, with the lowest being .35 for Item 3 and the highest .96 for Item 11.
Other studies (e.g., Carroll et al., 1996; Carroll et al., 2006; Houghton & Carroll, 2002)
have found supporting evidence for the seven-factor model of the ASRDS corroborat-
ing it is the best option in terms of factor structure. However, even considering that the
one-factor model only obtained a marginally adequate fit, our findings are consistent
with previous studies using other self-reported delinquency measures (e.g., Farrington
et al., 1996; Gold, 1970; Hindelang, 1971) and support the notion that all types of
delinquent behaviors are in some way related to one another. The correlations between
the different factors of the ASRDS were high (i.e., above .50).
The internal consistencies for the ASRDS, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha and
Omega coefficient, revealed values well above the recommended minimum of .70 for
the total scale and its factors (Finch et al., 2016). The omega values were, as expected,
higher than the alpha values, but it (i.e., omega coefficient) was used because it pro-
vides a better estimation of true reliability (Dunn et al., 2014). With reference to the
mean inter-item correlations, some factors (i.e., theft and burglary, motor vehicle
offenses, assault, and school-related offenses) demonstrated higher than recommended
values, suggesting some excessive homogeneity between the items that comprise
them. However, the ASRDS total score and the remaining dimensions presented ade-
quate values. In terms of the corrected item-total correlation range, the values were all
above the recommended value (see Finch et al., 2016).
The convergent validity of the ASRDS with measures of youth delinquency, psy-
chopathic traits, dark triad of personality and sensation seeking revealed mostly mod-
erate to high statistically significant positive correlations, thereby demonstrating the
expected construct overlap; this is in line with that found in previous studies using
self-reported delinquency measures (e.g., Harden, Quinn, & Tucker-Drob, 2012; Lau
& Marsee, 2013). The highest correlations obtained for the total sample was with the
other self-reported delinquency measure used in the present study, followed by the
measures of psychopathic traits, the dark triad traits of personality, and sensation seek-
ing, respectively. With regard to discriminant validity (Finch et al., 2016), the ASRDS
showed the expected low negative correlations with self-esteem and self-control (e.g.,
Barry, Grafeman, Adler, & Pickard, 2007).
The concurrent validity of the ASRDS with tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine/
heroin, and risky unprotected sex also demonstrated consistent moderate to strong
statistically significant positive associations. Based on previous investigations using
self-reported delinquency measures (e.g., Sitnick, Shaw, & Hyde, 2014), this was
expected. The highest correlation obtained for the total sample was with cannabis use,
while the lowest correlations obtained were with tobacco and cocaine/heroin use.
These findings are also consistent with previous research conducted among institu-
tionalized juvenile offenders and “high at-risk” youths (Pinto, Fernandes, Mesquita, &
Maia, 2015; Widom, Schuck, & White, 2006).
848 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

Finally, in terms of known-groups validity, the results of the comparison between

youths from the forensic context and youths from the nonforensic community school
context confirmed that the former do indeed score higher on the ASRDS and its fac-
tors. The majority of previous research using self-reported delinquency measures sup-
ports such a difference.
The findings from the present research also have important practical implications.
First and foremost, given that juvenile delinquency is one of the most serious problems
in modern society, permeating all countries worldwide, the validation of the ASRDS
for use in another country (Portugal) is and of itself important. Indeed, child and ado-
lescent psychiatrists and clinical and forensic specialists, and school based educators
now have access to an easily administered self-report instrument that measures differ-
ent aspects of delinquent behavior. Furthermore, given that school forms a large part
of the daily lives of adolescents per se and also shapes their future opportunities, edu-
cators have a particularly important role to play in identifying and preventing delin-
quency. Specifically, it is known that many adolescents in schools are in a transitory
state towards becoming delinquent (see Carroll et al., 2009). Therefore, by providing
access to an instrument that identifies such adolescents, there is great potential to
break escalating trajectories of delinquency and in doing so prevent the harmful
sequelae such as educational failure, school dropout, substance use, and incarceration,
associated with transition into adult criminality. The spectrum of minor to serious
frequently occurring delinquent activities included in the Portuguese version of the
ASRDS makes it ideally suitable for use in school contexts.

Limitations and Conclusions

There are a number of limitations to acknowledge. First, the samples were conve-
nience samples, and this may raise questions regarding generalizability. 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). Furthermore, that the mea-
sures used in the current study were self-report 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). Also, the battery of
questionnaires we used was probably excessive in terms of difficulties for the adoles-
cents with mild intellectual disability who usually comprise a sizable portion of foren-
sic samples. Further research pertaining to the psychometric properties of the ASRDS
is needed (e.g., cross-validation using clinical and forensic samples), however, so that
more conclusive outcomes can be achieved. Nevertheless, despite the limitations high-
lighted, the present research findings provide additional support for use of the ASRDS.
In conclusion, our study is the first to demonstrate that the ASRDS provides a sound
overall assessment of self-reported delinquency across different samples and cultures.
Among Portuguese-speaking samples of young males from forensic and nonforensic
contexts, the psychometric properties of the ASRDS were sound. Therefore, the ASRDS
can be considered a useful instrument to measure specific dimensions of juvenile delin-
quency or a more general overreaching dimension of juvenile delinquency.
Pechorro et al. 849

Appendix
Portuguese Translation of the Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale.

Items
  1. Roubaste mais de 10 €?
  2. Arrombaste uma casa com intenção de roubar?
  3. Roubaste menos de 10 €?
  4. Roubaste coisas de outras pessoas (exemplo: telemóvel)?
  5. Roubaste coisas numa loja?
  6. Conduziste um carro ou mota a mais de 120 km/h?
  7. Passaste um semáforo vermelho quando conduzias um carro ou mota?
  8. Roubaste um carro ou mota?
  9. Participaste em corridas de carros ou motas?
10. Guiaste sem teres carta de condução?
11. Guiaste um carro ou mota roubados?
12. Compraste bebidas alcoólicas?
13. Bebeste bebidas alcoólicas em sítios públicos (exemplo: em discotecas)?
14. Fumaste haxixe (“ganza”) ou marijuana (“erva”)?
15. Usaste drogas duras (exemplo: ecstasy, cocaína ou heroína)?
16. Vendeste drogas a outras pessoas?
17. Guiaste um carro ou mota quando estavas bêbado?
18. Participaste num roubo usando a força ou uma arma?
19. Usaste a força para conseguir coisas de outras pessoas (exemplo: dinheiro)?
20. Estiveste envolvido num acidente de carro ou mota e a seguir fugiste?
21. Andaste armado ou usaste algum tipo de arma (exemplo: faca, pistola)?
22. Estragaste de propósito material da escola (exemplo: cadeira, porta)?
23. Estragaste de propósito coisas públicas (exemplo: jardim, caixote do lixo)?
24. Estragaste de propósito coisas de outras pessoas (exemplo: carro, partir vidros)?
25. Ateaste de propósito um fogo?
26. Abanaste ou bateste em máquinas de venda automática (exemplo: de bebidas)?
27. Pintaste graffitis em sítios públicos?
28. Envolveste-te em lutas entre grupos?
29. Bateste em alguém?
30. Foste suspenso ou expulso da escola?
31. Viste filmes pornográficos?
32. Fizeste telefonemas a ameaçar ou insultar alguém?
33. Não pagaste bilhete (exemplo: nos transportes públicos)?
34. Faltaste às aulas sem justificação?
35. Fugiste de casa?

Author’s Note
Pedro Pechorro is also affiliated with University of Coimbra, Portugal.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the following Portuguese juvenile detention centers for their collaboration:
Bela Vista, Mondego, Navarro de Paiva, Olivais, Padre António Oliveira, Santo António, Santa
Clara, and Prisão-Escola de Leiria.
850 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was partly supported by the Portuguese Foundation
for Science and Technology (FCT; Grant SFRH/BPD/86666/2012).

References
Ahonen, L., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Hipwell, A. E., & Stepp, S. D. (2017). What is
the hidden figure of delinquency in girls? Scaling up from police charges to self-reports.
Victims & Offenders, 12, 761-776. doi:10.1080/15564886.2016.1185486
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
Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (2015). Supplement to EQS 6.3 for Windows user’s guide. Temple City,
CA: Multivariate Software.
Blunch, N. (2016). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and
EQS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caputo, A., Frick, P., & Brodsky, S. (1999). Family violence and juvenile sex offending.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 338-356. doi:10.1177/0093854899026003004
Carroll, A., Durkin, K., Houghton, S., & Hattie, J. (1996). An adaptation of Mak’s self-report
delinquency scale for western Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology,
48, 1-7. doi:10.1080/00049539608259498
Carroll, A., Hemingway, F., Bower, J., Ashman, A., Houghton, S., & Durkin, K. (2006).
Impulsivity in juvenile delinquency: Differences among early-onset, late-onset, and non-
offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 517-527. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9053-6
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Durkin, K., & Hattie, J. (2009). Adolescent reputations and risk:
Developmental trajectories to delinquency. New York, NY: Springer.
Curcio, A. L., Mak, A. S., & Knott, V. E. (2015). The Australian Self-Report Delinquency Scale:
A revision. The Australian Journal of Psychology, 67, 166-177. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12075
Deutsch, A. R., Crockett, L. J., Wolff, J. M., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Parent and peer pathways
to adolescent delinquency: Variations by ethnicity and neighbourhood context. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1078-1094. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9754-y
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
Elliott, D., Ageton, S., & Huizinga, D. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Emmert, A. D., Carlock, A. L., Lizotte, A. J., & Krohn, M. D. (2017). Predicting adult under- and
over-reporting of self-reported arrests from discrepancies in adolescent self-reports of arrests:
A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 412-428. doi:10.1177/0011128715575141
Farrington, D. (1999). Editorial: Validity of self-reported delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 9, 293-295. doi:10.1002/cbm.327
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., van Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L.
(1996). Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on
Pechorro et al. 851

boys, mothers, and teachers: Concurrent and predictive validity for African-Americans and
Caucasians. Criminology, 34, 493-517. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01217.x
Ferguson, C. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532-538. doi:10.1037/a0015808
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London, England:
Sage.
Finch, W., Immekus, J., & French, B. (2016). Applied psychometrics using SPSS and AMOS.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Frick, P., Barry, C., & Bodin, S. (2000). Applying the concept of psychopathy to children:
Implications for the assessment of antisocial youth. In C. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and
forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frick, P., & Hare, R. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD): Technical man-
ual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.
Gunasekera, S., Houghton, S., Glasgow, K., & Boyle, C. (2014). From stability to mobil-
ity: African secondary school aged adolescents’ transition to mainstream schooling. The
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 31, 1-17. Doi:10.1017/edp.2014.4
Gunasekera, S., Houghton, S., Glasgow, K., Carroll, A., & Hunter, S. C. (2016). A comparison
of goal setting and reputational orientations of African adolescents from refugee back-
grounds in intensive English centers and mainstream secondary school classrooms. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47, 355-375. doi:10.1177/0022022115624016
Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological
tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harden, K., Quinn, P., & Tucker-Drob, E. (2012). Genetically influenced change in sensation
seeking drives the rise of delinquent behavior during adolescence. Developmental Science,
15, 150-163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01115.x
Hare, R. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: Technical manual (2nd ed.). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hindelang, M. (1971). Age, sex, and the versatility of delinquent involvements. Social Problems,
18, 522-535. doi:10.2307/799726
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Houghton, S., & Carroll, A. (2002). Longitudinal rates of self-reported delinquency of at-risk
and not at-risk high school students. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
35, 99-113. doi:10.1375/acri.35.1.99
Houghton, S., Carroll, A., Tan, C., & Hopkins, S. (2008). Self-reported delinquency and
reputational orientations of high school and incarcerated adolescent loners and non-
loners. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19, 205-227. doi:10.1080/
14789940701637865
Houghton, S., Tan, C., Khan, U., & Carroll, A. (2013). Rates of self-reported delinquency
among Western Australian male and female high school students: The male–female gender
gap. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60, 74-84. doi:10.1
080/1034912X.2013.786540
Hoyle, R., Stephenson, M., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E., & Donohew, R. (2002). Reliability and
validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
401-414. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00032-0
852 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(6)

IBM SPSS. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics base 25. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure
of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41. doi:10.1177/1073191113514105
Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on
inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
22, 107-129. doi:10.1007/s10940-006-9004-0
Kivivuori, J. (2011). Discovery of hidden crime: Self-report delinquency surveys in criminal
policy context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kofler-Westergren, B., Klopf, J., & Mitterauer, B. (2010). Juvenile delinquency: Father absence,
conduct disorder, and substance abuse as risk factor triad. International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health, 9, 33-43. doi:10.1080/14999013.2010.483345
Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Phillips, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., & Bell, K. A. (2013). Explaining
systematic bias in self-reported measures: Factors that affect the under-and over-reporting
of self-reported arrests. Justice Quarterly, 30, 501-528. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.606226
Lau, K., & Marsee, M. (2013). Exploring narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism in
youth: Examination of associations with antisocial behavior and aggression. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 22, 355-367. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9586-0
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., White, H. R., . . .
Beyers, J. M. (2003). The development of male offending: Key findings from fourteen years
of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. In T. P. Thornberry & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of
delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 93-136).
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. doi:10.1007/0-306-47945-1_4
Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79. doi:10.1080/00049539308259122
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior: Conduct
disorder, delinquency and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Payne, J. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). The concordance of self-reported and officially recorded
criminal onset: Results from a sample of Australian prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 64,
448-471. doi:10.1177/0011128716682440
Pechorro, P., Caramelo, V., Oliveira, J. P., Nunes, C., Curtis, S., & Jones, D. (2019). The Short
Dark Triad (SD3): Adaptation and psychometrics among at-risk male and female youths.
Deviant Behavior, 40, 273-286. doi:10.1080/01639625.2017.1421120
Pechorro, P., Castro, A., Hoyle, R., & Simões, M. (2018). The Brief Sensation-Seeking Scale:
Latent structure, reliability, and validity from a sample of youths at-risk for delinquency.
Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 18, 99-113. doi:10.1080/2473285
0.2018.1435073
Pechorro, P., Hidalgo, V., Nunes, C., & Jiménez, L. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of
the Antisocial Process Screening Device: Self-Report among incarcerated male juvenile
offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60,
1856-1872. doi:10.1177/0306624X15588903
Pechorro, P., Lima, R., Simões, M., & DeLisi, M. (2019). Validity and reliability of the self-
report delinquency among a sample of at-risk youths. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and
Psychology, 30, 1-16. doi:10.1080/14789949.2018.1439991
Pechorro, P., Marôco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. (2011). Validação da Escala de Auto-Estima
de Rosenberg com adolescentes portugueses em contexto forense e escolar [Validation of
Pechorro et al. 853

the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale with Portuguese adolescents in forensic and school con-
texts]. Arquivos de Medicina, 25, 174-179.
Pechorro, P., Maroco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. (2013). Validation of the Portuguese ver-
sion of the Antisocial Process Screening Device–Self-Report (APSD-SR) with a focus on
delinquent behavior and behavior problems. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 57, 112-126. doi:10.1177/0306624X11427174
Pechorro, P., Pontes, C., DeLisi, M., Alberto, I., & Simões, M. (submitted). Escala Breve de
Autocontrolo: Validação e invariância numa amostra de jovens portugueses [Brief Self-
Control Scale: Validation and invariance in a sample of Portuguese youths]. Revista
Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica.
Pinto, R., Fernandes, A., Mesquita, C., & Maia, A. (2015). Childhood adversity among insti-
tutionalized 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
Piquero, A. R., Schubert, C. A., & Brame, R. (2014). Comparing official and self-report records
of offending across gender and race/ethnicity in a longitudinal study of serious youthful
offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 526-556.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Sibley, M. H., Pelham, W. E., Molina, B. S. G., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M., Babinski, D.
E., & Biswas, A. (2010). Inconsistent self-report of delinquency by adolescents and young
adults with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 645-656. Doi:10.1007/
s10802-010-9409-3
Sitnick, S., Shaw, D., & Hyde, L. (2014). Precursors of adolescent substance use from early
childhood and early adolescence: Testing a developmental cascade model. Development
and Psychopathology, 26, 125-140. doi:10.1017/S0954579413000539
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
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency
and crime. Criminal Justice, 4, 33-83.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the explanation of
continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Advances in crimi-
nological theory: Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (Vol. 14,
pp. 183-209). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
van Batenburg-Eddes, T., Butte, D., van de Looij-Jansen, P., Schiethart, W., Raat, H., de
Waart, F., & Jansen, W. (2012). Measuring juvenile delinquency: How do self-reports
compare with official police statistics? European Journal of Criminology, 9, 23-37.
doi:10.1177/1477370811421644
West, S., Taylor, A., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation
modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-231).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Widom, C. S., Schuck, A. M., & White, H. R. (2006). An examination of pathways from child-
hood 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
World Health Organisation. (2014). Youth violence. Retrieved from http://www.who.int
/mediacentre/factsheets/fs356/en/