590784

research-article2015
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260515590784Journal of Interpersonal ViolencePechorro et al.

Article
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
123
The ReactiveProactive The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Aggression sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260515590784
Questionnaire: Validation jiv.sagepub.com

Among a Portuguese
Sample of Incarcerated
Juvenile Delinquents

Pedro Pechorro,1 James V. Ray,2 Adrian Raine,3

Joo Maroco,4 and Rui Abrunhosa Gonalves1

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of
the ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) among a forensic
sample of incarcerated male juvenile offenders (N = 221). The Portuguese
version of the RPQ demonstrated promising psychometric properties,
namely, in terms of factor structure, internal consistency, convergent validity,
discriminant validity, and concurrent validity that generally justifies its use
among this population. Statistically significant associations were found with
conduct disorder, age of criminal onset, age of first problem with the law,
crime seriousness, physical violence use in committing crimes, alcohol use,
cannabis use, cocaine/heroin use, and having unprotected sex. The findings
provide additional support for the extension of the RPQ across different
cultures, ethnic groups, and samples.

1University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

2University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
3University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
4ISPAInstituto Universitrio, Lisboa, Portugal

Corresponding Author:
Pedro Pechorro, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057
Braga, Portugal.
Email: ppechorro@gmail.com
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Keywords
youth violence, violent offenders, alcohol and drugs

Aggression is an important risk factor for various forms of antisocial behavior

including delinquency and conduct problems; however, research has also
uncovered considerable heterogeneity characterizing the aggression construct
(Cima & Raine, 2009). Moyer (1968) first introduced the notion of multiple
forms of aggression through an animal aggression typology (e.g., predatory,
irritable, and defensive). Research since has identified unique brain structures
and chemical compositions in the brain that underpin these forms of aggression
which has recently been applied to understanding aggression among humans,
particularly within the context of advancing risk assessment among offenders
(Bass & Nussbaum, 2010; Levi, Nussbaum, & Rich, 2010) and psychiatric
inpatients (Urheim et al., 2014). Although a somewhat oversimplification of
the Moyers model, a prominent conceptualization of aggression distinguishes
between reactive and proactive aggression (Vitaro, Barker, Boivin, Brendgen,
& Tremblay, 2006). These two types of aggression are said to differ with regard
to emotional processing. For instance, aggression that is reactive is said to be
motivated by perceived or actual provocation due to a hostile attribution bias
(Chase, OLeary, & Heyman, 2001). Alternatively, aggression that is proactive
is often described as being without emotion, cold-blooded, thought out, and
instrumental and to be motivated by external rewards (Blair, 2003).
Although some have argued against the utility of this distinction (Bushman
& Anderson, 2001), theory and research support this distinction. Numerous
theoretical perspectives have been advanced to account for this distinction
and identify the distinct causal mechanisms that underpin each form (see
Kempes, Matthys, di Vries, & van Engeland, 2005, for a review). For exam-
ple, reactive and proactive aggression have been linked to disruptions in dif-
ferent stages of social information processing (Crick & Dodge, 1996). In
addition, theories of conscience development suggest that proactive aggres-
sion is a result of low fear linked to the interaction between temperament and
inadequate socialization (Kochanska, 1993) and low physiological arousal
(Raine, 2002) while reactive aggression is contributed to heightened physio-
logical responses (e.g., heart rate) to fear (Kempes et al., 2005). Although an
extensive review of theories explaining the reactiveproactive dichotomy is
beyond the scope of the current study, these theories highlight the unique
causal pathways underpinning each.
In support of the reactiveproactive distinction and theoretical explana-
tions identifying unique causal pathways, research has found that the two
Pechorro et al. 3

types of aggression share associations with external criteria that are unique
from one another (e.g., Ang, Huan, & Florell, 2014). Specifically, reactive
aggression, but not proactive aggression is found to be related to emotional
dysregulation and internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety and depression)
whereas proactive aggression, but not reactive aggression, is found to be
associated with externalizing problems (e.g., delinquency, conduct problems,
and violence) and psychopathy (Card & Little, 2006; Cima & Raine, 2009).
These findings highlight the importance for research to distinguish between
the two types of aggression and the impact that such research can have on
theory as well as the prevention and treatment of aggression.
Given these consistent findings and theoretical distinctions, it is integral to
develop reliable and accurate measures that distinguish between reactive and
proactive aggression to further our understanding of the unique causal path-
ways and behavioral manifestations of each. One promising measure of
aggression is the ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine
et al., 2006). Although a considerable amount of research on the RPQ has been
accumulated, there are a few notable gaps in the extant research. First, few
studies have examined the associations between the reactive and proactive
subscales of the RPQ and measures of empathy and self-esteem. Both empa-
thy and self-esteem have been found to be important in both the etiology and
treatment of antisocial behaviors (e.g., Barry, Frick, & Killian, 2003). Thus,
examining such associations may not only help to elucidate the utility of mak-
ing the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression as measured by
the RPQ but may also provide insight into its nomological net. Second,
advancing our understanding of the aggression construct, particularly with
regard to the reactiveproactive dichotomy is an important line of research.
One approach to this is the cross-cultural validation of aggression measures.
Given the importance of cultural influences on aggression (Bergeron &
Schneider, 2005), validation of measures capturing reactive and proactive
aggression among culturally distinct populations can provide further support
for this dichotomy. Although the RPQ has been validated across various cul-
tures (e.g., Fossati et al., 2009; Fung, Raine, & Gao, 2009; Seah & Ang, 2008),
it has yet to be validated among a Portuguese sample of youth. In addition, the
majority of research has yet to validate the RPQ among justice-involved
youth. The current study examines the construct validity of the RPQ among a
unique sample of Portuguese youth detained in the juvenile justice system.

Construct Validation of the RPQ

Validation studies of the RPQ consistently find that this instrument has sound
psychometric properties. For instance, in their initial validation of the RPQ,
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Raine et al. (2006) reported Cronbachs alpha for the reactive and proactive
scales of .84 and .86, respectively. They also reported mean item-total
correlations of .45 to .58 for the reactive scale and .41 to .57 for the proactive
scale. Subsequent studies have found similar reliability estimates across dif-
ferent samples (e.g., Borroni, Somma, Andershed, Maffei, & Fossati, 2014;
Cima & Raine, 2009; Seals, Sharp, Ha, & Michonski, 2012). Although the
two scales tend to be highly correlated, research testing the factor structure of
the RPQ has found that a two-factor model fits the data far better than a single
factor (Baker, Raine, Liu, & Jacobson, 2008; Raine et al., 2006) supporting
the notion that the two types of aggression are distinct constructs.
In addition, a considerable amount of research utilizing the RPQ has found
that the reactive and proactive subscales show distinct associations with
external criteria, particularly criteria associated with antisocial behavior. For
instance, Raine et al. (2006) found that the proactive scale showed unique
positive associations with a number of externalizing behaviors including seri-
ous delinquency and initiating fights while the reactive scale was not uniquely
related to these outcomes among a community sample of adolescents. Miller
and Lynam (2006) found that the proactive, but not the reactive, scale was
associated with antisocial behaviors, including substance use, delinquency
(violent and property), and risky sexual behaviors (i.e., number of sexual
partners) among a college sample.
Another construct that has shown distinct associations with the RPQ
scales is psychopathy. Psychopathy is a construct that identifies a particularly
severe and violent subgroup of offenders, who show a lack of empathy,
remorse, guilt, and a callous disregard for others and are also often described
as calculating and cold-blooded (Cornell et al., 1996; Frick, Ray, Thornton,
& Kahn, 2014). These traits seem to have more conceptual overlap with pro-
active aggression as captured by the RPQ which is also more consistent with
Moyers (1968) concept of predatory aggression. However, those items on
RPQ that capture reactive scale are more conceptually in line with irritable
aggression in Moyers (1968) terms. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
proactive scale of the RPQ tends to show positive associations with measures
of psychopathy while the reactive scale is either unrelated (Cima & Raine,
2009; Raine et al., 2006; Seals et al., 2012; van Baardewijk, Vermeiren,
Stegge, & Doreleijers, 2011) or has a much weaker association (Borroni et
al., 2014) with psychopathy scores. Given this association, it would also be
expected that aggression, particularly proactive aggression, would correlate
negatively with empathy. A recent meta-analysis examining the aggression
empathy association did find a negative association; however, the strength of
the association was surprisingly weak (r = .11) and this remained weak even
when considering specific types of aggression (i.e., physical, sexual, and
Pechorro et al. 5

general; Vachon, Lynam, & Johnson, 2014). However, it is important to note

that this study did not focus solely on the RPQ and did not distinguish
between reactive and proactive aggression. Therefore, an important question
remains regarding the unique associations between the RPQ reactive and pro-
active scales and empathy.
Another construct that has been examined in association with aggression
is self-esteem as it has been hypothesized that individuals with low self-
esteem are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior to overcome feelings
of inadequacy or lack of power; however, empirical findings have been quite
mixed (Ostrowsky, 2010). As Ostrowsky (2010) points out, it is possible that
the two types of aggression have differential associations with self-esteem
and, thus, contribute to these mixed findings. Therefore, distinguishing
between reactive and proactive aggression may help to better understand the
association between self-esteem and aggression. However, few studies have
examined the unique associations between the reactive and proactive aggres-
sion scales of the RPQ and measures of self-esteem. In one notable excep-
tion, Maples et al. (2010) found that neither of the scales of the RPQ showed
bivariate associations with self-esteem. It is important to note, however, that
in this study they did not examine the unique associations between the dis-
tinct types of aggression and self-esteem by removing their shared variance.
Thus, while it would be expected that the reactive scale, and not the proactive
scale, would be negatively associated with self-esteem, more research is
needed that examines this association.

Cross-Cultural Validation of the RPQ

Another important issue regarding the validity of the RPQ is its usefulness in
distinguishing between reactive and proactive aggression among cross-cul-
tural samples. Not only does this line of research have direct implications for
the validity of the RPQ, but such research would also help to determine the
utility of the two as distinct types of aggression. Several recent studies have
begun to examine the validity of the RPQ across culturally distinct samples
(Ba & Yurdabakan, 2012; Cima, Raine, Meesters, & Popma, 2013; Fossati
et al., 2009; Fung et al., 2009; Pang, Ang, Kom, Tan, & Chiang, 2013; Seah
& Ang, 2008). For example, Seah and Ang (2008) examined the RPQ among
a junior high school sample in Singapore. They found that the reactive and
proactive scales had unique associations with several outcomes including
interpersonal relations (e.g., good peer social relationships). Specifically, the
reactive scale showed a negative association while the proactive scale was
unrelated to positive peer relations. Utilizing the same sample, Pang et al.
(2013) identified three distinct clusters of youth based on their scores on the
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

RPQ (i.e., low aggression, high reactive only, and high on both reactive and
proactive clusters). Interestingly, the group high on both reactive and proac-
tive clusters reported the highest levels of conduct problems (e.g., delin-
quency, rule breaking, and aggressive behavior). Fossati et al. (2009)
examined the psychometric properties of the RPQ among a sample of non-
referred Italian high school students. Most notably, they found that the proac-
tive scale showed a unique association with bullying behaviors while the
reactive scale was unrelated after accounting for the shared variance of the
proactive scale. Cima et al. (2013) tested the validity of the RPQ among a
Dutch sample that included youth and adults as well as offenders and non-
offenders. They found that both scales showed positive correlations with the
total scale and subscales (i.e., physical, verbal, anger, and hostility) of the
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992) with the exception of a
non-significant association between the proactive aggression scale and the
hostility scale. However, all the associations were reduced to non-signifi-
cance when looking at purely reactive and purely proactive aggression (i.e.,
residualized scores of reactive and proactive aggression). In addition, only
the proactive scale consistently showed unique positive associations with
multiple measures of psychopathy. It is also important to note that among
these studies those testing the factor structure of the RPQ found unanimous
support for the two-factor structure as being superior to the single-factor
model (Ba & Yurdabakan, 2012; Cima et al., 2013; Fossati et al., 2009; Fung
et al., 2009; Seah & Ang, 2008). However, despite the accumulation of
research supporting the cross-cultural generalizability of the RPQ, it has yet
to be validated among a Portuguese sample. In addition, with the exception
of Cima et al. (2013), these findings are based on community samples of
youth which may not generalize to justice-involved youth.

Current Study
The current study attempts to build on prior research by addressing some of
the gaps in the literature regarding the RPQ and its subscales in several ways.
First, the main goal of the current study is to validate the RPQ among a
detained sample of Portuguese youth. This sample provides a unique context
for validating the RPQ and examining distinctions between reactive and pro-
active aggression more generally. Cultural differences in the socialization of
youth and variation in developmentally appropriate behavioral norms may
lead to differences in how aggression is captured in such measures (e.g.,
Bergeron & Schneider, 2005). That is, the psychometric properties (e.g.,
internal consistency) of the RPQ will be tested. In addition, the factor struc-
ture of the RPQ will be assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
Pechorro et al. 7

determine if the two-factor structure that distinguishes between reactive and

proactive factors found in prior studies best fit the data. The current study
will also examine the associations of the RPQ scales with relevant external
criteria known to have distinct associations with reactive and proactive
aggression (e.g., psychopathic personality traits, conduct disorder, age at first
arrest, risky sexual behavior, crime severity, physical violence, and substance
use). Based on prior research, it is expected that the proactive scale will show
more consistent and stronger associations with these criteria. Second, this
study will examine the convergent validity with the AQ and its subscales. It
is expected that both scales of the RPQ will show positive associations with
the subscales of the AQ with exception of the association between the RPQ
proactive scale and the AQ Hostility scale (i.e., Cima et al., 2013). Third, this
study will attempt to fill a gap in the literature by examining the distinct asso-
ciations between the reactive and proactive scales of the RPQ with empathy
and self-esteem. Although little research exists or is inconclusive regarding
these associations, it is expected that the proactive scale (but not the reactive
scale) will be negatively related to empathy, while the reactive scale (but not
the proactive scale) will be negatively related to self-esteem.

Method
Participants
The sample was recruited from inmates of the eight nation-wide juvenile
detention centers managed by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice. Two hun-
dred and twenty-one male participants aged 13 to 20 years (M = 16.75; SD =
1.41) agreed to voluntarily participate in the study. The participants were
mainly from an urban background (92.8%). In terms of ethnicity, 54.3% were
White Europeans, 39% were Black or mixed race, and 6.7% belonged to
other ethnic minorities. Regarding the socioeconomic status (SES), 59.9%
were classified as having low SES, 29% middle SES, and 11.1% high SES.
In terms of antisocial and risky behaviors, 59.7% of the participants reported
drinking alcohol often/very often, 64.3% reported using cannabis often/very
often, 7.3% reported using cocaine/heroin often/very often, and 41.1%
reported having unprotected sex often/very often.
On average, participants reported their first criminal problems beginning at
the age of 11.33 years (SD = 2.24), most were first detained before they were
16 years old (M = 15.46, SD = 1.31), and had been convicted to an average of
21 months in detention (M = 20.67, SD = 6.69). Most of them (87.6%) were
convicted of having committed serious and violent crimes (e.g., homicide,
robbery, assault, and rape). They were all detained by the courts decision.
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Measures
The RPQ (Raine et al., 2006) is a self-report measure that distinguishes
between reactive and proactive aggression. The RPQ consists of 23 items
rated on a 3-point ordinal scale (never = 0, sometimes = 1, often = 2). A total
of 11 items assess reactive aggression (e.g., Reacted angrily when provoked
by others) and 12 items assess proactive aggression (e.g., Hurt others to
win a game). Summed scores provide a measure of reactive or proactive
aggression, as well as total aggression. Higher scores indicate higher levels of
aggression (range of possible values 0-46). The RPQ is appropriate for use
with youth in late adolescence and young adults. Internal consistency for
adolescents has previously been reported as .86 for proactive aggression, .84
for reactive aggression, and .90 for total aggression (Raine et al., 2006). The
mean score (SD) of the RPQ for the current study was 20.39 (11.06).
The Buss-Perry Aggression QuestionnaireShort Form (BPAQ-SF; Bryant
& Smith, 2001) is a short version of the AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) consisting
of 12 Likert-type items rated on a 6-point ordinal scale. The BPAQ-SF is also
organized into four scales: Physical Aggression (PA; 3 items), Verbal
Aggression (VA; 3 items), Anger (A; 3 items), and Hostility (H; 3 items).
Bryant and Smith (2001) decided to change the original 5-point scale to a
6-point scale to eliminate the scales mid-point and force respondents to
decide whether each statement was characteristic of them, but in the present
study, we used the original 5-point scale (range of possible values 0-48). The
Portuguese form of the BPAQ-SF was used (Pechorro, Barroso, Poiares,
Oliveira, & Torrealday, in press) in this study. The internal consistency for the
present study, estimated by Cronbachs alpha, was as .77. The mean score
(SD) of the BPAQ-SF for the current study was 26.57 (8.35).
The Antisocial Process Screening DeviceSelf-Report (APSD-SR; Frick
& Hare, 2001; Muoz & Frick, 2007) is a multidimensional 20-item measure
designed to assess psychopathic traits in adolescents. It was modeled after the
Psychopathy ChecklistRevised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). Each item is scored
on a 3-point ordinal scale (never = 0, sometimes = 1, often = 2). The total
score, as well as each dimension score, is obtained by adding the respective
items. Some studies (e.g., Frick, OBrien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994)
reported two main factors (callous-unemotional and impulsivity/conduct
problems), while others (e.g., Frick, Barry, & Bodin, 2000) reported three
main factors: callous-unemotional, narcissism, and impulsivity. Higher
scores are indicative of an increased presence of psychopathic traits (range of
possible values 0-40). The Portuguese validation of the APSD-SR (Pechorro
et al., 2013) was used. The internal consistency for the current study, esti-
mated by Cronbachs alpha, was .81. The mean score (SD) of the APSD-SR
for the current study was 20.55 (6.66).
Pechorro et al. 9

The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Essau, Sasagawa,

& Frick, 2006; Kimonis et al., 2008) is a 24-item self-report scale designed
to assess callous and unemotional traits in youth derived from the Callous-
Unemotional (CU) subscale of the Antisocial Process Screening Device
(APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001). Each item is scored on a 4-point scale (not
at all true = 0, somewhat true = 1, very true = 2, and definitely true = 3).
Scores are calculated by reverse-scoring the positively worded items and
then summing the items to obtain a total score. Using CFA it was possible
to identify three independent factors, namely, callousness, unemotional,
and uncaring. All items also loaded onto a general callous-unemotional
factor. Higher scores indicate an increased presence of the characteristics
associated (range of possible values 0-72). The Portuguese validation of
the ICU (Pechorro, Ray, Barroso, Maroco, & Gonalves, 2014) was used.
The internal consistency for the current study, estimated by Cronbachs
alpha, was .90. The mean score (SD) of the ICU for the current study was
31.70 (9.87).
The Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006) is a 20-item
self-report measure designed to assess empathy in youths. The BES was
developed as a concise and coherent scale with the aim of measuring two
distinct factors: affective empathy (11 items) and cognitive empathy (9
items). Each item is scored on a 5-point ordinal scale (from strongly disagree
= 1 to strongly agree = 5). Scores are calculated by reverse-scoring the posi-
tively worded items and then summing the items to obtain the total score and
the factors scores. Higher scores indicate an increased presence of the associ-
ated characteristics (range of possible values 20-100). The Portuguese ver-
sion of the BES was used (Pechorro, Ray, Salas-Wright, Maroco, &
Gonalves, 2015). The internal consistency for the current study, estimated
by Cronbachs alpha, was .91. The mean score (SD) of the BES for the cur-
rent study was 58.73 (14.01).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989) is a brief
self-report measure that evaluates self-esteem in adolescents and adults. The
RSES can be scored by simply adding the 10 items on a 4-point ordinal scale
(strongly disagree = 0, disagree = 1, agree = 2, strongly agree = 3) after
reverse scoring designated items (namely, Items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9). Higher
scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem (range of possible values 0-30). A
Portuguese version of the RSES was used (Pechorro, 2011). Pechorro,
Marco, Poiares, and Vieira (2011) found psychometric properties that jus-
tify the use of the RSES with Portuguese adolescent community and forensic
populations. Internal consistency for the present study, estimated by
Cronbachs alpha, was .77. The mean score (SD) of the RSES for the current
study was 17.03 (7.88).
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

The SellinWolfgang Index of Crime Seriousness (ICS; Wolfgang et

al., as cited in White et al., 1994) guided the delinquency seriousness
classification of the official court reports. Level 0 consists of no delin-
quency. Level 1 consists of minor delinquency committed at home such as
stealing minor amounts of money from mothers purse. Level 2 consists
of minor delinquency outside the home including shoplifting something
worth less than 5 euros, vandalism, and minor fraud (e.g., not paying bus
fare). Level 3 consists of moderately serious delinquency such as any
theft over 5 euros, gang fighting, carrying weapons, and joyriding. Level
4 consists of serious delinquency such as car theft and breaking and enter-
ing. Level 5 consists of having performed at least two of each of the
behaviors in Level 4.
In addition, a questionnaire was constructed to describe the sociodemo-
graphic and criminal characteristics of the participants. This questionnaire
included variables such as participants age, ethnic group, origin (rural vs.
urban), level of schooling completed, SES, parental marital status, previous
use of physical violence, drug use, and alcohol abuse. SES was measured by
considering both parental level of education and profession, appropriate to
the Portuguese reality (Simes, 1994).

Procedures
Authorization to validate the RPQ in Portugal was obtained from the first
author of the questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006). Appropriate procedures
(e.g., avoiding item bias or differential item functioning) were followed
during the translation and retroversion (Hambleton, Merenda, & Spielberger,
2005). The initial translation from English into Portuguese was completed
by the first and second authors of this article, who made sure that young
people would be able to properly understand the meaning of the items. The
questionnaire was then independently translated back into English by a
native English speaker with considerable professional experience in trans-
lating psychology-related scientific texts. No significant differences were
found between the back-translation and the original version, demonstrating
that the translated items had the same or very similar meanings as the origi-
nal English items.
Authorization to assess youths was obtained from the General
Directorate of Reintegration and Prison ServicesMinistry of Justice
(Direo-Geral de Reinsero e Servios PrisionaisMinistrio da
Justia). The detainees, from the eight existing Portuguese Juvenile
Detention Centers that admit male youths, were informed about the nature
of the study and asked to participate. We selected only male participants
Pechorro et al. 11

on account of the relative scarcity of females admitted to Portuguese

juvenile detention centers. Participation was strictly voluntary and par-
ticipants were explicitly informed that they could refuse or discontinue
the study at any time without penalty. The participation rate was approxi-
mately 92%, and no incentives were given for participation. Not all young
people agreed or were able to participate; reasons for this included refusal
to participate (5%), inability to participate due to not understanding the
Portuguese language (2%), and inability to participate due to security
issues (1%). Participants who were unwilling or unable to collaborate
were excluded. The measures were administered by means of individual
face-to-face interviews. It was stressed that there were no right or wrong
answers and that for each item the youth should consider what he gener-
ally thinks or feels. Institutional files were also used to complement the
information obtained (e.g., prior criminal activity and detentions). Some
of the information (e.g., sociodemographic variables) was obtained from
self-reports. The first author made the diagnosis of conduct disorder
(APA, 2013).
The data were analyzed using SPSS v22 (IBM SPSS, 2013) and EQS 6.2
(Bentler & Wu, 2008). The factor structure of the Portuguese language ver-
sion of the RPQ was assessed with CFA performed in EQS 6.2 (Bentler &
Wu, 2008; Byrne, 2006), with the robust estimation methods. Goodness-of-
fit indices were calculated, including SatorraBentler chi-square/degrees of
freedom, comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). A chi-square/degrees of free-
dom value 5 is considered acceptable, a value 2 is considered good, and =
1 very good (Marco, 2014; West, Taylor, & Wu, 2012). A CFI .90 and
RMSEA .10 indicate adequate fit, whereas a CFI .95 and RMSEA .06
indicate good model fit (Byrne, 2006). The IFI, also known as Bollens IFI,
is relatively insensitive to sample size; values that exceed .90 are regarded as
acceptable.
The CFA was performed on the original scale items and only items with
standardized loading above .45 were retained. Modification indexes were
considered to check if any suggestion of model modification would signifi-
cantly improve the measurement model. Polychoric correlations with robust
methodologies were used to perform the CFA on the ordinal items because
they provide more accurate estimates for the correlations between ordinal
items than Pearson correlations (Byrne, 2006). Pearson correlations were
used to analyze associations between scale variables, Spearman correlations
were used with ordinal variables, and point-biserial correlations were used to
analyze associations between nominal dichotomous variables and scale vari-
ables (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2015).
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Table 1. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Different Models of the RPQ.

RPQ S-2/df IFI CFI RMSEA

1-factor 2.45 .85 .85 .08 [.07, .09]
2-factor 1.98 .90 .90 .07 [.06, .08]

Note. RPQ = ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire; S-B2 = SatorraBentler chi-

square; df = degrees of freedom; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index;
RMSEA (90% CI) = root mean square error of approximation (90% confidence interval).

Results
Our first step in examining the psychometric properties of the Portuguese
version of the RPQ was to attempt to replicate, by means of CFA using the
Maximum likelihood (ML) robust method, the different factor structures pro-
posed for this instrument (Raine et al., 2006). Shown in Table 1 are the good-
ness-of-fit indices we obtained regarding the different models, namely,
one-factor model and two-factor model. We were able to find the strongest
support in terms of goodness-of-fit indices for the two-factor model.
Table 2 displays the item loadings for the two-factor inter-correlated struc-
ture estimated with the ML method. All items had loadings above .45, and
thus, none were removed from the model. It is worth mentioning that Item 13
had the lowest loading.
Table 3 presents the correlations among the RPQ total and its dimensions,
Cronbachs alpha, mean inter-item correlation, and corrected item-total cor-
relation range. These results can be considered good.
The convergent validity of the RPQ total and its dimensions with the
BPAQ-SF, the APSD-SR, and the ICU revealed mostly moderate and moder-
ate-high statistically significant positive correlations; the exception was the
Unemotional dimension of the ICU which was always non-significant. The
discriminant validity revealed only non-significant correlations with the
BES, and mostly negative significant correlations with the RSES (see Table 4).
Results shown in Table 4 also reveal some unique associations between the
RPQ reactive and proactive scales and criterion measures based on partial
correlations controlling for shared variance between criterion measures and
the other RPQ scale. For instance, the reactive scale was unrelated to the
APSD-CU Scale, the ICU total, and the ICU Uncaring subscale while the
proactive scale had a significant positive partial correlation with these three
measures. In addition, the proactive subscale showed a unique negative cor-
relation with the BES Affective dimension once the effects of the reactive
subscale were partialed out. Alternatively, the proactive scale was unrelated
Pechorro et al. 13

Table 2. RPQ Item Loadings for the Confirmatory Two-Factor Inter-Correlated

Robust Structure.

RPQ Items Factor 1 Factor 2

Reactive
1. Yelled at others when they have annoyed you. .64
3. Reacted angrily when provoked by others. .65
5. Gotten angry when frustrated. .64
7. Had temper tantrums. .52
8. Damaged things because you felt mad. .62
11. Become angry or mad when you dont get your way. .64
13. Gotten angry or mad when you lost a game. .48
14. Gotten angry when others threatened you. .51
16. Felt better after hitting or yelling at someone. .66
19. Hit others to defend yourself. .63
22. Gotten angry or mad or hit others when teased. .71
Proactive
2. Had fights with others to show who was on top. .71
4. Taken things from other students. .69
6. Vandalized something for fun. .65
9. Had a gang fight to be cool. .72
10. Hurt others to win a game. .65
12. Used physical force to get others to do what you want. .68
15. Used force to obtain money or things from others. .71
17. Threatened and bullied someone. .81
18. Made obscene phone calls for fun. .52
20. Gotten others to gang up on someone else. .66
21. Carried a weapon to use in a fight. .62
23. Yelled at others so they would do things for you. .77

Note. RPQ = ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire.

to the BPAQ Hostility and Anger Scales while the reactive scale showed a
significant, unique positive association with these two scales. Also, the reac-
tive scale showed a significant negative association with the RSES while the
proactive scale was unrelated.
The concurrent validity of the RPQ and its dimensions with Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American
Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) conduct disorder diagnostic (coded No =
0, Yes = 1), age of crime onset, age of first problem with the law, crime seri-
ousness, and use of physical violence (coded No = 0, Yes = 1) revealed mostly
statistically significant correlations of moderate effect sizes (see Table 5).
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Table 3. Correlations Matrix, Cronbachs Alpha, Mean Inter-Item Correlation,

and Corrected Item-Total Correlation Range.

RPQ Total RPQ Rea RPQ Pro Alpha MIIC CITCR

RPQ total 1 .93 .37 .40-.77
RPQ Rea .90*** 1 .86 .37 .44-.65
RPQ Pro .94*** .69*** 1 .91 .47 .50-.76

Note. RPQ = ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire; RPQ Rea = reactive dimension;

RPQ Pro = proactive dimension; Alpha = Cronbachs alpha; MIIC = mean inter-item
correlation; CITCR = corrected item-total correlation range.
***Significant at the .001 level.

Table 4. Convergent Validity of RPQ With BPAQ-SF, APSD-SR, and ICU, and
Discriminant Validity With BES and RSES.

RPQ Total RPQ Reactive RPQ Proactive

BPAQ-SF total .65*** .61*** (.48***) .51*** (.30***)
BPAQ-SF PA .53*** .41*** (.20*) .54*** (.42***)
BPAQ-SF VA .58*** .52*** (.37***) .47*** (.29***)
BPAQ-SF A .52*** .54*** (.47***) .31*** (.06ns)
BPAQ-SF H .23** .23** (.18*) .14ns (.05ns)
APSD-SR total .68*** .59*** (.25***) .65*** (.42***)
APSD-SR Imp .61*** .57*** (.32***) .55*** (.26***)
APSD-SR Nar .63*** .56*** (.24***) .60*** (.37***)
APSD-SR CU .20** .12ns (.05ns) .23** (.20**)
ICU total .40*** .32*** (.05ns) .40*** (.27***)
ICU Cal .47*** .41*** (.15*) .46*** (.26***)
ICU Unc .29*** .24*** (.05ns) .29*** (.19**)
ICU Une .03ns .05ns (.15*) .08ns (.17*)
BES total .08ns .12ns (.09ns) .03ns (.09ns)
BES Aff .00ns .07ns (.12ns) .06ns (.15*)
BES Cog .12ns .13ns (.11ns) .10ns (.00ns)
RSES .24** .27*** (.26**) .10ns (.04ns)

Note. Partial correlations are in parenthesis. RPQ = ReactiveProactive Aggression

Questionnaire; BPAQ-SF = Buss-Perry Aggression QuestionnaireShort Form; APSD-SR =
Antisocial Process Screening DeviceSelf-Report; ICU = Inventory of Callous-Unemotional
Traits; BES = Basic Empathy Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; BPAQ-SF PA =
Physical Aggression dimension; BPAQ-SF VA = Verbal Aggression dimension; BPAQ-SF A =
Anger dimension; ns = non-significant; BPAQ-SF H = Hostility; APSD-SR Imp = Impulsivity
dimension; APSD-SR Nar = Narcissism dimension; APSD-SR CU = Callous-Unemotional
dimension; ICU Cal = Callousness dimension; ICU Unc = Uncaring dimension; ICU Une =
Unemotional dimension; BES Aff = Affective dimension; BES Cog = Cognitive dimension.
*Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level.
Pechorro et al. 15

Table 5. Concurrent Validity of the RPQ With Conduct Disorder Diagnostic,

Age of Crime Onset, Age of First Problem With the Law, Crime Seriousness,
Previous Physical Violence, Alcohol Use, Cannabis Use, Cocaine/Heroin Use, and
Unprotected Sex.

RPQ Total RPQ Reactive RPQ Proactive

CD .33*** .29*** (.08ns) .32*** (.16*)
ACO .29*** .25*** (.07ns) .29*** (.15*)
AFPL .20** .16* (.03ns) .20** (.12ns)
ICS .33*** .26*** (.04ns) .34*** (.24***)
PPV .30*** .20** (.05ns) .34*** (.28***)
Alcohol .41*** .31*** (.01ns) .43*** (.31***)
Cannabis .38*** .26*** (.06ns) .42*** (.34***)
Cocaine/heroin .28*** .21** (.00ns) .30*** (.23**)
Unprotected sex .27*** .17* (.06ns) .31*** (.27***)

Note. Partial correlations are in parenthesis. RPQ = ReactiveProactive Aggression

Questionnaire; CD = DSM-5 conduct disorder diagnosis; ns = non-significant; ACO = age of
crime onset; AFPL = Age of first problem with the law; ICS = index of crime seriousness;
PPV = previous physical violence; DSM-5 = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(5th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
*Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level.

Regarding the DSM-5 conduct disorder diagnostic, a very high prevalence

rate of 94.1% was found in our sample. The correlations between the RPQ
total score and its dimensions with alcohol use, cannabis use, cocaine/heroin
use, and having unprotected sex (all coded as 5-point ordinal scales) also
revealed statistically significant correlations of moderate effect size (see
Table 5). It is important to point out that once the shared variance between
external criteria and the subscales of the RPQ was controlled for, only the
proactive subscale showed significant associations (positive with the excep-
tion of age of onset) while the reactive subscale was unrelated to these
outcomes.

Discussion
The present study had as its aim the analysis of the psychometric properties
of the RPQ among detained Portuguese youths. We were able to find the
strongest support for the two-factor inter-correlated model, while the single-
factor first-order model did not fit the data well. All factor loadings were rela-
tively high, with the lowest being .48. Other studies (e.g., Baker et al., 2008;
Ba & Yurdabakan, 2012; Cima et al., 2013; Raine et al., 2006; Seah & Ang,
2008) have found supporting evidence for the two-dimensional structure of
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

the RPQ as the best option, supporting some degree of relatedness between
the two separable types of aggression (Kempes et al., 2005; Polman, Orobio
de Castro, Koops, van Boxtel, & Merk, 2007).
The correlation matrix of the RPQ and its dimensions were typically sta-
tistically significant indicating strong effect sizes. The proactive aggression
score was significantly correlated with the reactive aggression score (r = .69;
p .001). This value was similar to the ones found in prior studies (e.g., Cima
et al., 2013; Raine et al., 2006). The analysis of the internal consistency
revealed good to very good values, with values exceeding the recommended
minimum Cronbachs alpha of .70 (Cortina, 1993; Kaplan & Saccuzzo,
2009), somewhat higher than those reported in previous studies (e.g., Fossati
et al., 2009; Fung et al., 2009). Regarding the mean inter-item correlations,
practically no problems were found because the RPQ total, the proactive
dimension, and the reactive dimension were within the recommended value
range of .15 to .50 (Clark & Watson, 1995; Domino & Domino, 2006), reveal-
ing an adequate homogeneity between the items. In terms of the corrected
item-total correlation range, the values were all above the minimum recom-
mended value of .20 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994), the lowest one being .40 and the highest .77.
The convergent validity (American Psychological Association, 1999;
Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009) of the RPQ total, the reactive dimension and the
proactive dimensions with the BPAQ-SF and the APSD-SR revealed mostly
moderate to high statistically significant positive correlations demonstrating
the expected overlap in line with the ones found in previous studies (e.g.,
Cima et al., 2013). The exceptions were the RPQ proactive dimension with the
BPAQ-SF Hostility dimension, and the RPQ reactive dimension with the
APSD-SR CU dimension, which revealed non-significant correlations. The
convergent validity with the ICU and its dimensions revealed moderate statis-
tically positive significant correlations, with the exception of the Unemotional
dimension of the ICU which always showed non-significant correlations.
With regard to discriminant validity (American Psychological Association,
1999; Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009), the RPQ total and the reactive dimension
revealed the expected negative significant correlations with the RSES, while
the proactive dimension showed a non-significant correlation. These results
seem to confirm Ostrowskys (2010) hypothesis that reactive aggressors will
tend to have lower self-esteem. The discriminant validity with the BES
showed only non-significant correlations, which are in line with Vachon et
al.s (2014) recent meta-analysis which found very weak associations
between these constructs. Based on the results of their meta-analysis, these
authors questioned the spending of several hundred million dollars each year
on empathy training programs for offenders.
Pechorro et al. 17

The concurrent validity of the RPQ total, reactive dimension and proac-
tive dimension with DSM-5s conduct disorder diagnosis (APA, 2013)
revealed some moderate statistically significant positive correlations.
Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Vitaro et al., 1998), we found unique asso-
ciations between the proactive dimension and measures of antisocial behav-
ior (e.g., conduct disorder, age of crime onset, crime seriousness, and
substance use). For instance, the negative correlations with age of crime
onset were only significant for proactive aggression once partial correlations
were considered. The remaining variablesnamely, crime seriousness, pre-
vious use of physical violence, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine/heroin, and unpro-
tected sexrevealed consistent positive partial associations with the
proactive dimension but not with the reactive dimension, corroborating the
notion that proactive aggression can be viewed as more serious and patho-
logical (Raine et al., 2006; Tucker et al., 2015).
Our findings provide some additional support for the extension of the RPQ
across different cultures, ethnic groups, and samples. This was the first study to
investigate the psychometric properties of the RPQ among a forensic sample of
incarcerated Portuguese male juvenile delinquents. We were able to demonstrate
some appropriate psychometric properties (e.g., factor structure, internal consis-
tency) that justify the future use of the RPQ with the Portuguese youth popula-
tion. We also demonstrated a degree of interdependence between different
proactive and reactive aggression types, and moderately strong associations with
other related measures. However, one potential limitation of the RPQ, and mea-
sures of aggression more generally, is that it fails to capture more nuanced aspects
of aggression as delineated by Moyer (1968). That is, the RPQ potentially only
captures cognitive forms of proactive aggression where such behavior is well
thought out for instrumental gain. On the other hand, it does not capture proactive
aggression carried out in an impulsive manner. Likewise, the RPQ does not dis-
tinguish between reactive aggression triggered by anger and reactive aggression
triggered by fear. Identifying these different aspects of reactive and proactive
aggression is important as they potentially have distinct etiologies (e.g., Bass &
Nussbaum, 2010; Levi et al., 2010). Thus, there is a need to develop measures of
aggression that capture these distinct forms of each type of aggression.
Some additional limitations of our study must warrant consideration.
Some caution is advised as further psychometric procedures are needed and
must be done in the near future (e.g., cross-validation using other samples,
temporal stability). Also, most measures in the current study were based on
self-report, so future research should seek to utilize multiple methods as
well as multiple informants across different samples. As our results were
cross-sectional in nature and limit conclusions, future longitudinal studies
assessing associations over time would be useful. We hope that our study
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

may guide future research/use of the RPQ with Portuguese youth, promote
the research on aggression in southern European countries, and contribute to
the betterment of treatment programs of violent juvenile offenders in
Portugal and Portuguese speaking countries.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the following Portuguese juvenile detention centers for their col-
laboration: Bela Vista, Mondego, Navarro de Paiva, Olivais, Padre Antnio Oliveira,
Santo Antnio, Santa Clara, and Priso-Escola de Leiria.

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 conducted at Psychology
Research Centre, University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation
for Science and Technology (FCT) with co-financing of the European Social Fund
POPH/FSE (Grant SFRH/BPD/86666/2012) and the Portuguese Ministry of Education
and Science through national funds and co-financed by FEDER under the PT2020
Partnership Agreement (UID/PSI/01662/2013).

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of men-
tal disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psycho-
logical tests. Washington, DC: Author.
Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., & Florell, D. (2014). Understanding the relationship between
proactive and reactive aggression, and cyberbullying across United States and
Singapore adolescent samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 237-254.
doi:10.1177/0886260513505149
Baker, L. A., Raine, A., Liu, J., & Jacobson, K. C. (2008). Differential genetic and
environmental influences on reactive and proactive aggression in children. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1265-1278. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9249-1
Barry, C. T., Frick, P. J., & Killian, A. L. (2003). The relation of narcissism and
self-esteem to conduct problems in children: A preliminary investigation.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 139-152. doi:10.1207/
S15374424JCCP3201_13
Bass, S. L. S., & Nussbaum, D. (2010). Decision making and aggression in foren-
sic psychiatric inpatients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 365-383.
doi:10.1177/0093854809360043
Pechorro et al. 19

Ba, A. U., & Yurdabakan, . (2012). Factor structure of the reactive-proactive

aggression questionnaire in Turkish children and gender, grade-level, and socio-
economic status differences in reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 284-297. doi:10.1177/0734282911428892
Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (2008). EQS for Windows users guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B. (2005). Explaining cross-national differences in peer-
directed aggression: A quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 116-137.
doi:10.1002/ab.20049
Blair, R. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 182(1), 5-7. doi:10.1192/bjp.182.1.5
Borroni, S., Somma, A., Andershed, H., Maffei, C., & Fossati, A. (2014). Psychopathy
dimensions, Big Five traits, and dispositional aggression in adolescence: Issues
of gender consistency. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 199-203.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.019
Bryant, F., & Smith, B. (2001). Refining the architecture of aggression: A measure-
ment model for the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Research in
Personality, 35, 138-167. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2302
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public:
Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-
489. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.6-7.477
Buss, A., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Card, N. A., & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood
and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial
adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 466-480.
doi:10.1177/0165025406071904
Chase, K. A., OLeary, K. D., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Categorizing partner-violent
men within the reactiveproactive typology model. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 69, 567-572. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.567
Cima, M., & Raine, A. (2009). Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to differ-
ent subtypes of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 835-840.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.031
Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C., & Popma, A. (2013). Validation of the Dutch
Reactive Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential correlates of reactive and
proactive aggression from childhood to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 39,
99-113. doi:10.1002/ab.21458
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective
scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.7.3.309
Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996).
Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 64, 783-790. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.64.4.783
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applica-

tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mecha-
nisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993-1002.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01778.x
Domino, G., & Domino, M. (2006). Psychological testing: An introduction (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Essau, C., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in community
sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454-469. doi:10.1177/1073191106287354
Fossati, A., Raine, A., Borroni, S., Bizzozero, A., Volpi, E., Santalucia, I., & Maffei,
C. (2009). A cross-cultural study of the psychometric properties of the Reactive
Proactive Aggression Questionnaire among Italian nonclinical adolescents.
Psychological Assessment, 21, 131-135. doi:10.1037/a0014743
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 practitioners guide
(pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frick, P., & Hare, R. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device: Technical
manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health System.
Frick, P., OBrien, B., Wootton, J., & McBurnett, K. (1994). Psychopathy and con-
duct problems in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700-707.
Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional
traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct
problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 1-57. doi:10.1037/a0033076
Fung, A. L.-C., Raine, A., & Gao, Y. (2009). Cross-cultural generalizability of the
ReactiveProactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 91, 473-479. doi:10.1080/00223890903088420
Hambleton, R., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (2005). Adapting educational and psy-
chological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hare, R. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklistrevised: Technical manual (2nd
ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic
Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611. doi:10.1016/j.adoles-
cence.2005.08.010
Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications,
and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Kempes, M., Matthys, W., de Vries, H., & van Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and
proactive aggression in children: A review of theory, findings and the relevance
for child and adolescent psychiatry. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
14, 11-19. doi:10.1007/s00787-005-0432-4
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child tem-
perament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-347.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02913.x
Pechorro et al. 21

Leech, N., Barrett, K., & Morgan, G. (2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Levi, M. C., Nussbaum, D. S., & Rich, J. B. (2010). Neuropsychological and person-
ality characteristics of predatory, irritable, and nonviolent offenders: Support for
a typology of criminal human aggression. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27,
633-655. doi:10.1177/0093854810362342
Maples, J. L., Miller, J. D., Wilson, L. F., Seibert, L. A., Few, L. R., & Zeichner, A.
(2010). Narcissistic personality disorder and self-esteem: An examination of dif-
ferential relations with self-report and laboratory-based aggression. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44, 559-563. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.012
Marco, J. (2014). Anlise de Equaes Estruturais: Fundamentos tericos, software
& aplicaes [Structural equations analysis: Theoretical foundations, software
and applications]. Pero Pinheiro, Portugal: ReportNumber, Ltd.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2006). Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities
and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1469-1480.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.004
Moyer, K. E. (1968). Kinds of aggression and their physiological basis.
Communications in Behavioral Biology, Part A, 2, 65-87.
Muoz, L., & Frick, P. (2007). The reliability, stability, and predictive utility of the
self-report version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 299-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00560.x
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Ostrowsky, M. K. (2010). Are violent people more likely to have low self-esteem or
high self-esteem? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 69-75. doi:10.1016/j.
avb.2009.08.004
Pang, J. S., Ang, R. P., Kom, D. M., Tan, S. H., & Chiang, A. Q. (2013). Patterns
of reactive and proactive aggression in young adolescents in Singapore. Social
Development, 22, 794-812. doi:10.1111/sode.12024
Pechorro, P. (2011). Juvenile delinquency: Study of some psychological and relational
variables with an emphasis on psychopathic traits (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
Pechorro, P., Barroso, R., Poiares, C., Oliveira, J., & Torrealday, O. (in press).
Validation of the Buss-Perry Aggression QuestionnaireShort form among
Portuguese juvenile delinquents. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.
Pechorro, P., Marco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. (2011). Validao da Escala de
Auto-Estima de Rosenberg com adolescentes portugueses em contexto forense e
escolar [Validation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale with Portuguese adoles-
cents in forensic and school contexts]. Arquivos de Medicina, 25(5/6), 174-179.
Pechorro, P., Marco, J., Poiares, C., & Vieira, R. (2013). Validation of the
Portuguese version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device Self-Report with
a focus on delinquent behavior and behavior problems. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 112-126. doi:10.1177/030
6624X11427174
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Pechorro, P., Ray, J., Barroso, R., Maroco, J., & Gonalves, R. (2014). Validation
of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits among a Portuguese sample
of detained juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/03066
24X14551256
Pechorro, P., Ray, J., Salas-Wright, C., Maroco, J., & Gonalves, R. (2015).
Adaptation of the Basic Empathy Scale among a Portuguese sample of incarcer-
ated juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 699-714. doi:10.1080/10
68316X.2015.1028546
Polman, H., Orobio de Castro, B., Koops, W., van Boxtel, H., & Merk, W. (2007).
A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in
children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 522-535.
doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9109-4
Raine, A. (2002). Annotation: The role of prefrontal deficits, low autonomic arousal,
and early health factors in the development of antisocial and aggressive behavior.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 417-434.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., . . .
Liu, J. (2006). The reactiveproactive aggression questionnaire: Differential
correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 159-171. doi:10.1002/ab.20115
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Seah, S. L., & Ang, R. P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive
aggression in Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal
traits, and peer relations. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 553-562. doi:10.1002/
ab.20269
Seals, R. W., Sharp, C., Ha, C., & Michonski, J. D. (2012). The relationship between
the youth psychopathic traits inventory and psychopathology in a US Community
sample of male youth. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 232-243. doi:10.1
080/00223891.2011.650303
Simes, M. (1994). Investigao no mbito da aferio nacional ao Teste das Matrizes
Progressivas Coloridas de Raven [Researches regarding the national validation
of Ravens Coloured Progressive Matrices Test] (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). Faculdade de Psicologia e Cincias da Educao da Universidade de
Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
Tucker, C., Van Gundy, K., Wiesen-Martin, D., Sharp, E., Rebellon, C., & Stracuzzi, N.
(2015). Proactive and reactive sibling aggression and adjustment in adolescence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 965-987. doi:10.1177/0886260514539760
Urheim, R., Rypdal, K., Melkevik, O., Hoff, H. A., Mykletun, A., & Palmstierna,
T. (2014). Motivational dimensions of inpatient aggression. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 24, 141-150. doi:10.1002/cbm.1894
Vachon, D., Lynam, D., & Johnson, J. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy
and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
140, 751-773. doi:10.1037/a0035236
Pechorro et al. 23

van Baardewijk, Y., Vermeiren, R., Stegge, H., & Doreleijers, T. (2011). Self-reported
psychopathic traits in children: Their stability and concurrent and prospective
association with conduct problems and aggression. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 236-245. doi:10.1007/s10862-010-9215-4
Vitaro, F., Barker, E., Boivin, M., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. (2006). Do early
difficult temperament and harsh parenting differentially predict reactive and
proactive aggression? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 681-691.
doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9055-6
Vitaro, F., Gendreau, P.L., Tremblay, R.E., & Oligny, P. (1998). Reactive and proac-
tive aggression differentially predict later conduct problems. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 377385.
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: The Guilford Press.
White, J., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Jeglum-Bartusch, D., Needles, D., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relation to delin-
quency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192-205.

Author Biographies
Pedro Pechorro, PhD in psychology and PhD in legal medicine and forensic sci-
ences, is professor at School of Psychology, University of Minho, Portugal. His
research interests include youth psychopathy, conduct disorder, and psychometrics.
James V. Ray, PhD in psychology, is professor at University of Texas at San Antonio,
USA. His research interests include psychopathy and conduct disorder.
Adrian Raine, PhD in psychology, is professor at University of Pennsylvania, USA.
His research interests include psychopathy, aggression, and neuropsychology.
Joo Maroco, PhD in statistics, is professor at ISPAInstituto Universitrio,
Portugal. His research interests include psychology, statistics, and psychometrics.
Rui Abrunhosa Gonalves, PhD in psychology, is professor at School of Psychology,
University of Minho, Portugal. His research interests include psychopathy and
aggression.