This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Michie, C. Articles by Cooke, D. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Structure of Violent Behavior

A Hierarchical Model

Glasgow Caledonian University

David J. Cooke

Glasgow Caledonian University, The Douglas Inch Centre

Common difficulties in measures of violent behavior are their multidimensional nature, the nonempirical ordering of violent acts, the inclusion of undiscriminating items, and differential precision of measurement across the range of seriousness. Data collected on a sample of 250 male Scottish prisoners, using the MacArthur Community Violence Screening Instrument, are examined using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis. A hierarchical model with a coherent superordinate factor overarching two lower order factors—violence based on weapon use and violence without weapon use—provide the best fit to the data. The ordering of the items on the scale does not conform to the order indicated by IRT analysis. Items vary considerably in the amount of information they provide, with the precision of measurement of the total scale being poor at high levels of the scale. Ways of improving the measurement of violence are discussed.

Key Words: violence • self-report • item response theory • MCVSI

References

• Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-332.[CrossRef][ISI]
• American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
• Barling, J., O’Leary, K. D., Jouriles, E. N., Vivian, D., & MacEwan, K. E. (1987). Factor similarity of the conflict tactics scales across samples, spouses, and sites: Issues and implications. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 37-54.
• Barratt, E. S. (1994). Impulsiveness and aggression. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 61-79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1995). EQS for Windows [computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivarate Software.
• Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical expression. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. London: Sage.
• Chen, W. H. (1993). IRT-LD: A computer program for the detection of pairwise local dependence between test items (Research Memorandum 93-2). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
• Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265-289.
• Conacher, G. N. (1997). Pharmacological approaches to impulsive and aggressive behavior. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity, assessment and treatment (pp. 394-408). New York: Guilford.
• Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (1997). An item response theory evaluation of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist. Psychological Assessment, 9, 2-13.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (1999). Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 55-68.
• Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2000, April). Post-diction and prediction of different forms of violence in a Scottish prison sample. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference of Psychology and Law, Limassol, Cyprus.
• Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1998). The functioning of the Screening Version of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: An item response theory analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 3-13.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341-349.
• Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Greenbaum, P. E., & Dedrick, R. F. (1998). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18. Psychological Assessment, 10, 149-155.
• Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
• Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hornung, C. A., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 675-692.[CrossRef]
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
• Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Marshall, L. L. (1992a). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7(3), 103-121.[CrossRef]
• Marshall, L. L. (1992b). The severity of violence against men scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7(3), 189-203.
• Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. (1994). Towards a rejuvenation of risk assessment research. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 1-17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Oxford, UK: Westview.
• Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 21-59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Male-female aggressor-victim differences in the factor structure of the modified Conflicts Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 366-382.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Santor, D. A., & Ramsay, J. O. (1999). Progress in the technology of measurement: Applications of item response models. Psychological Assessment, 10, 345-359.
• Schafer, J. (1996). Measuring spousal violence with the conflicts tactics scale: Notes on reliability and validity issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 572-585.[Abstract]
• Steadman, H., Mulvey, E. P., Monahan, J., Robbins, P. C., Appelbaum, P., Grisso, T., et al. (1998). Violence by people discharged from acute psychiatric inpatient facilities and by others in the same neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 393-401.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Steadman, H., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., et al. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 83-100.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1996). Uses of Item Response Theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychological Measurement, 1(1), 81-97.
• Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactic (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.[CrossRef]
• Straus, M. A. (1990). New scoring methods for violence and new norms for the conflict tactics scale. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 535-559). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
• Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.[Abstract]
• Thissen, D. (1991). Multilog user’s guide (Version 6). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
• Van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
• Warr, M. (1994). Public perceptions and reactions to violent offending and victimization. In A. J. Reiss & A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, Vol. 4: Consequence and control (pp. 1-66). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Wechsler, D. (1997). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-third edition. London: Psychological Corporation.
• Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Zinbarg, R. E., Barlow, D. H., & Brown, T. A. (1997). Hierarchical structure and general factor saturation of the anxiety sensitivity index: Evidence and implications. Psychological Assessment, 9, 277-284.[CrossRef][ISI]

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. J. Cooke, C. Michie, and J. Skeem Understanding the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised: An exploration of methodological confusion The British Journal of Psychiatry, May 1, 2007; 190(49): s39 - s50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Michie, C. Articles by Cooke, D. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?