Adolescent or Parent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI)

Abstract

The Adolescent or Parent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI) is a psychometric instrument designed by developmental psychologist Kristin L. Moilanen to assess domain-general self-regulation abilities in adolescents and young adults, with parallel caregiver-report versions for multi-informant assessment methodologies. Developed in response to conceptual fragmentation within self-regulation theory, the ASRI operationalizes self-regulatory competence as a multidimensional construct that functions across distinct temporal and operational domains. The inventory comprises 36 items answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all true for me”) to 5 (“Really true for me”), measuring two core latent factors: Short-Term Self-Regulation (13 items evaluating the immediate modulation of attention, emotional reactivity, behavioral impulse control, and transient physiological or affective states) and Long-Term Self-Regulation (14 items capturing sustained goal orientation, planning, delayed gratification, persistence across adversity, and strategic future planning), alongside exploratory monitoring and awareness items. Psychometric validation studies demonstrate robust structural validity via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA: CFI > .90, RMSEA < .06), high internal consistency across both adolescent self-reports and parent proxy-reports (Cronbach’s α ranging from .80 to .89 for total scores and .72 to .86 for subscales), and acceptable test-retest reliability across multi-month intervals. The instrument demonstrates robust convergent validity with measures of executive functioning, effortful control, and academic achievement, as well as divergent and predictive validity regarding internalizing symptoms, externalizing behavioral problems, substance abuse, and risky decision-making. The ASRI bridges cognitive-developmental paradigms and applied clinical assessment, providing researchers, educators, and mental health professionals with a standardized, ecologically sensitive measure of regulatory maturity during transitional life stages.

Keywords

Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory, ASRI, self-regulation, short-term regulation, long-term regulation, executive functioning, effortful control, impulse control, adolescent development, psychometrics

Authors

The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory was conceived, constructed, and psychometrically validated by Kristin L. Moilanen, Ph.D.

• Primary Author: Kristin L. Moilanen, Ph.D.
• Institutional Affiliation: Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA; previously affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the Department of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh.
• Collaborating Researchers & Methodological Contributors: Daniel S. Shaw, Ph.D. (Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh) and Amber Fitzpatrick, M.S. (Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh), who contributed to developmental longitudinal extensions and multi-informant validation studies investigating parent-child regulatory dynamics and maternal regulatory support.
• Contact and Inquiries: Inquiries regarding academic use, adaptation for clinical or educational programs, or localized translations may be directed to Dr. Moilanen through the Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Adolescent or Parent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI) is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound, and developmentally calibrated measure of self-regulation tailored specifically to the unique cognitive, emotional, and neurobiological realities of late childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood. Prior to the development of the ASRI, empirical research was constrained by instruments adapted from adult self-control literature (which often conflated self-regulation with rigid social conformity, trait conscientiousness, or generalized morality) or scales derived from early childhood temperamental paradigms (such as laboratory-based delay-of-gratification tasks or infant effortful control checklists) that lacked ecological validity for secondary school and collegiate environments.

From a clinical and applied perspective, adolescence is characterized by a pronounced developmental mismatch: neurodevelopmental maturation of the socioemotional and reward-processing dopaminergic circuitry in the striatum and amygdala accelerates significantly ahead of the structural and functional myelination of the prefrontal cortex, which governs executive top-down cognitive control. This neurodevelopmental gap creates elevated vulnerability for sensation-seeking, risk-taking, affective dysregulation, substance experimentation, and academic underperformance. The ASRI was specifically designed to capture the behavioral manifestations of this neurodevelopmental inflection point across two functionally critical time horizons:

• Immediate, Tactical Self-Regulation (Short-Term): Quantifying an individual’s capacity to modulate spontaneous affective outbursts, sustain focal attention in the presence of immediate sensory distractions, disengage from pleasurable micro-activities, and recover emotional equilibrium following acute interpersonal stress or frustration.
• Strategic, Future-Oriented Self-Regulation (Long-Term): Assessing the capacity to formulate, organize, and tenaciously pursue distal life goals (e.g., preparing for college, acquiring vocational skills, completing multi-week academic projects), suppress tempting short-term gratification in favor of higher-order objectives, and flexibly recalibrate behavioral strategies when encountering systemic obstacles.

In addition to empirical developmental psychology research, the ASRI serves key diagnostic and evaluative functions in clinical child psychology, school psychology, and community youth interventions. It enables school counselors and psychologists to identify youth experiencing executive dysfunction, attention-deficit/hyperactivity spectrum difficulties, or affective dysregulation, differentiating between immediate impulse-control failures and chronic deficits in prospective planning. Furthermore, because parallel self-report and parent-report forms exist, the ASRI allows clinicians and evaluators to assess discrepancies between adolescent self-perceptions and caregiver observations, illuminating potential family regulatory conflict, environmental triggers, or compensatory scaffolding mechanisms within the home.

Psychological Construct

Self-regulation is a broad, overarching meta-construct defined as the multi-tiered process through which individuals consciously modulate, sustain, inhibit, or alter their thoughts, attentional vectors, emotional states, physiological responses, and motor behaviors to align with internal values, social norms, or personal goals. The ASRI operationalizes this construct not as a monolithic, unitary trait, but as a dual-faceted regulatory system operating across distinct behavioral modalities (cognitive, emotional, behavioral) and distinct temporal windows (short-term versus long-term).

1. Short-Term Self-Regulation Subscale

The Short-Term Self-Regulation dimension assesses an individual’s capacity to manage momentary impulses, acute emotional surges, and micro-level attentional lapses within real-time environments. It focuses on the rapid, concurrent deployment of cognitive control mechanisms when confronted with immediate internal desires or environmental distractors. This factor contains 13 core items that evaluate multiple functional domains:

• Attentional Control and Distraction Resistance: The capacity to refocus attentional resources after being interrupted, as well as the ability to maintain task concentration despite competing background stimuli (e.g., Item 17: “After I’m interrupted or distracted, I can easily continue working where I left off”; Item 18: “If there are other things going on around me, I find it hard to keep my attention focused on whatever I’m doing”).
• Affective Regulation and Stress Recovery: The rapid down-regulation of heightened physiological and psychological arousal following interpersonal conflict, negative feedback, or emotional distress (e.g., Item 2: “When I’m sad, I can usually start doing something that will make me feel better”; Item 22: “I can calm myself down when I’m excited or all wound up”).
• Motoric and Impulse Inhibition: The suppression of spontaneous behavioral manifestations of restlessness, fidgeting, or whining under conditions of fatigue or boredom (e.g., Item 6: “When I’m bored I fidget or can’t sit still”; Item 10: “When I’m having a tough day, I stop myself from whining about it to my family or friends”).
• Absorption and Time Awareness: Preventing excessive subjective absorption during leisure or pleasurable activities that leads to the neglect of concurrent responsibilities (e.g., Item 5: “I lose track of the time when I’m doing something fun”; Item 14: “I forget about whatever else I need to do when I’m doing something really fun”).

2. Long-Term Self-Regulation Subscale

The Long-Term Self-Regulation dimension reflects the proactive, macromanaged, prospective components of self-direction. While short-term regulation centers on real-time containment and immediate emotional balancing, long-term regulation captures the executive capacity to project future states, orchestrate complex behavioral sequences, and exhibit grit and persistence over extended temporal horizons. Comprising 14 core items, this dimension assesses:

• Goal Formulation and Strategic Persistence: The ability to articulate distal objectives and steadily expend cognitive and physical energy toward their fruition despite boredom or fatigue (e.g., Item 29: “When I’m excited about reaching a goal (e.g., getting my driver’s license, going to college), it’s easy to start working toward it”; Item 30: “I can find a way to stick with my plans and goals, even when it’s tough”; Item 31: “When I have a big project, I can keep working on it”).
• Delayed Gratification and Impulse Suppression: The conscious, effortful postponement of immediate hedonic rewards in service of long-term investments (e.g., Item 4: “I can find ways to make myself study even when my friends want to go out”; Item 15: “If I really want something, I have to have it right away”).
• Cognitive Flexibility and Adaptive Planning: The ability to alter operational tactics when encountering obstacles while maintaining fidelity to the overarching terminal objective (e.g., Item 3: “If something isn’t going according to my plans, I change my actions to try and reach my goal”; Item 26: “I work carefully when I know something will be tricky”).
• Proactive Emotional and Behavioral Control: The anticipatory suppression of behaviors that could derail relationships or long-term standing (e.g., Item 20: “When I have a serious disagreement with someone, I can talk calmly about it without losing control”; Item 25: “I can stop myself from doing things like throwing objects when I’m mad”; Item 36: “I can resist doing something when I know I shouldn’t do it”).

3. Self-Monitoring and Metacognitive Awareness

Embedded across the broader 36-item inventory are items assessing the sensory, visceral, and metacognitive monitoring capacities that serve as prerequisites for active regulation. Before an adolescent can regulate a response, they must accurately monitor their internal states and operational margins (e.g., Item 1: “It’s hard for me to notice when I’ve ‘had enough’ (sweets, food, etc.)”; Item 24: “I usually know when I’m going to start crying”; Item 27: “I am usually aware of my feelings before I let them out”; Item 32: “I can usually tell when I’m getting tired or frustrated”). These items represent the sensory feedback loop essential for regulatory initiation.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory is grounded at the intersection of three major psychological frameworks: Social Cognitive Theory of self-regulation (Albert Bandura), the Executive Functioning and Cybernetic Control Theory (Charles Carver and Michael Scheier), and Developmental Neuroscience models of adolescent neurobehavioral maturation (Laurence Steinberg, B.J. Casey, and Ronald Dahl).

According to Carver and Scheier’s Cybernetic Model of Self-Regulation, human behavior is governed by closed-loop feedback systems consisting of four interconnected elements: a reference value (a goal, standard, or aspirational state), a sensor (perceptual monitoring of current state), a comparator (the cognitive evaluation comparing the current state against the reference standard), and an effector (the behavioral output enacted to reduce detected discrepancies). The ASRI directly translates this cybernetic logic into developmental survey indicators. The short-term subscale measures real-time effector operations—inhibition, redirection, and affective dampening—when environmental noise disrupts state alignment. The long-term subscale models the persistence and recalibration of reference values across extended temporal feedback loops.

From the perspective of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Framework, self-regulation encompasses three triadic sub-functions: self-monitoring (systematically observing one’s own behavioral patterns and internal states), judgmental processes (evaluating performance against personal and societal standards), and self-reaction (anticipatory affective responses, reward-punishment self-administration, and effort redirection). Moilanen incorporated this prospective and evaluative dimension into the long-term scale, recognizing that adolescent autonomy requires gradual transition from externally scaffolded adult guidance to internal self-regulatory agency.

Crucially, the theoretical foundation of the ASRI reflects the Dual-Systems (or Dual-Circuits) Model of Adolescent Brain Development. During the transition through puberty, the limbic and subcortical socioemotional neural circuits (which govern sensation seeking, emotional reactivity, and reward salience) undergo rapid remodeling triggered by gonadal steroid surges. In contrast, the cortical cognitive-control network—centered in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and parietal areas—develops linearly through late adolescence and into the mid-twenties via synaptic pruning and axonal tract myelination. By establishing distinct dimensions for short-term regulation (which is heavily challenged by heightened limbic reactivity) and long-term regulation (which depends on the maturation of frontoparietal networks and future-oriented metacognition), the ASRI provides a psychometric structure that mirrors this neurobiological timeline.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the ASRI across adolescent, collegiate, and clinical samples.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

In her foundational psychometric monograph, Moilanen (2007) administered the initial item pool to a diverse cohort of late adolescents and young adults (N = 384; 61% female; mean age = 19.3 years) and an early adolescent sample (N = 227; 52% female; mean age = 12.1 years). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with promax rotation revealed two dominant, conceptually coherent factors accounting for substantial common variance. Items cross-loading heavily across factors (> .30 on a secondary factor) or failing to attain primary loadings of ≥ .35 were isolated, resulting in the refined dual-factor operational model. Follow-up confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the two-factor model provided a significantly superior fit over a unifactorial (single-trait) model: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values ranged between .048 and .056, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values exceeded .91, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values met or exceeded .90, verifying that short-term and long-term regulation constitute interrelated yet distinct functional constructs (interfactor correlations typically ranged between r = .52 and r = .68).

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by evaluating ASRI scores against established psychometric measures of temperament, executive functioning, and behavioral self-control:

• Effortful Control: ASRI Short-Term and Long-Term subscales demonstrated strong, statistically significant correlations with the Effortful Control dimension of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R; r = .62 to .71, p < .001).
• Executive Functioning: Moderate to strong positive correlations were documented with the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) and Metacognition Index (MI; correlations ranging from -.48 to -.65, where lower BRIEF scores indicate fewer executive deficits).
• Academic Performance: Long-term self-regulation demonstrated robust positive associations with cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA; r = .34 to .42, p < .001), homework completion consistency, and standardized testing persistence, even after controlling for generalized cognitive aptitude.

3. Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity analyses confirmed that the ASRI does not merely mirror generalized negative affectivity, depressive state, or intelligence. When evaluated against measures of intellectual functioning (Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence), correlations with the ASRI subscales were modest (r = .11 to .18), showing that self-regulation represents a distinct behavioral construct not reducible to raw cognitive capacity.

Regarding predictive and criterion validity, Moilanen (2007) and Moilanen et al. (2010) demonstrated that the ASRI successfully predicts socioemotional adjustment and externalizing risk behaviors over time:

• Externalizing Problems: Lower short-term self-regulation prospectively predicted aggressive outbursts, peer delinquency, disciplinary referrals, and school suspensions across longitudinal assessments (odds ratios ranging from 1.35 to 1.82).
• Substance Use and Risky Behavior: Deficits in long-term self-regulation were significantly associated with early onset of alcohol use, binge drinking episodes, cannabis consumption, and risky sexual practices in high school and college student cohorts.
• Internalizing Symptoms: Lower short-term regulation significantly predicted heightened depressive symptoms and generalized anxiety, confirming that the failure to deploy emotional down-regulation strategies in the face of acute stress exacerbates affective vulnerability.

Reliability

The ASRI demonstrates robust reliability indices across internal consistency, inter-rater concordance, and temporal stability across diverse adolescent age groups.

1. Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies conducted by Moilanen (2007), internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) were evaluated across multiple independent developmental cohorts:

• Late Adolescent / Young Adult Sample (Ages 18–22, N = 384):
  • Full 36-item Total Inventory: α = .89
  • Short-Term Self-Regulation Subscale (13 items): α = .84
  • Long-Term Self-Regulation Subscale (14 items): α = .81
• Early Adolescent Cohort (Ages 11–14, N = 227):
  • Short-Term Self-Regulation Subscale: α = .80
  • Long-Term Self-Regulation Subscale: α = .82
• Parent-Report Parallel Forms (Maternal & Paternal ratings of adolescents, N = 210):
  • Parent Short-Term Regulation Rating: α = .86
  • Parent Long-Term Regulation Rating: α = .87

Subsequent independent studies in adolescent health research (e.g., Bandy & Moore, 2010; Moilanen et al., 2010) have replicated these findings, consistently reporting alpha coefficients ranging between .78 and .88 for the subscales across culturally and socioeconomically diverse cohorts.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over a 4-to-6-week re-administration interval revealed a test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of r = .81 for the Long-Term subscale and r = .76 for the Short-Term subscale, indicating strong stability over brief time intervals while remaining sensitive to true developmental maturation or therapeutic intervention over extended time horizons. Multi-wave longitudinal stability coefficients across a 1-year interval during middle school yielded auto-regressive path coefficients ranging from .51 to .62, reflecting both developmental trait-like continuity and normative developmental changes in regulatory capacity.

Factor Analysis

The factorial integrity of the ASRI has been evaluated through rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) protocols during scale construction and independent replications.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, an initial item pool of 45 candidate items was administered to an exploratory adolescent calibration sample. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) was conducted to extract the underlying latent factor architecture. Both Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule (> 1.0) and Cattell’s scree plot inspection clearly identified a dual-factor solution, which accounted for approximately 43.8% of the total variance prior to rotation.

Because theoretical models hypothesized that immediate affective/attentional regulation and long-term goal-directed regulation are interrelated components of a broader executive system, an oblique rotation (Promax, κ = 4) was performed. Factor 1 accounted for 28.4% of the common variance and captured indicators of sustained focus, future planning, delayed gratification, and perseverance under challenge (Long-Term Self-Regulation, with factor loadings ranging from .41 to .72). Factor 2 accounted for an additional 15.4% of the common variance and comprised indicators indexing momentary attentional capture, behavioral impulsivity, acute emotional soothing, and fidgeting under boredom (Short-Term Self-Regulation, with factor loadings ranging from .38 to .69). Items exhibiting weak primary loadings (< .35) or significant cross-loadings (> .30 on both factors) were systematically culled to produce the final measurement model.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model Fit

To validate the stability of this dual-factor structure, confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modeling (Maximum Likelihood estimation with robust standard errors; MLR) were estimated in independent validation samples. A two-factor correlated model was pitted against alternative structural conceptualizations:

• Unidimensional Model (Single Latent Factor): Yielded poor model fit (χ²(323) = 1142.18, p < .001; CFI = .74; TLI = .71; RMSEA = .089 [90% CI: .083, .095]; SRMR = .082), indicating that adolescent self-regulation cannot be adequately modeled as a unitary construct.
• Correlated Two-Factor Model (Short-Term & Long-Term Factors): Yielded acceptable fit across standard structural cut-off benchmarks (χ²(321) = 548.72, p < .001; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; RMSEA = .049 [90% CI: .042, .056]; SRMR = .051). Item standardized factor loadings on their designated latent factors were significant (p < .001), with short-term loadings ranging between .42 and .68, and long-term loadings ranging between .46 and .74.
• Hierarchical / Higher-Order Model: A second-order model (with a general “Self-Regulation” higher-order factor driving the first-order Short-Term and Long-Term factors) yielded mathematically equivalent fit to the correlated two-factor model, confirming that researchers may defensibly utilize both specific subscale scores and an omnibus overall self-regulation index depending upon their research focus.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory are detailed below:

• Assessment Type: Self-report questionnaire for adolescents and young adults; a parallel parent-report version exists using identical items adapted to third-person phrasing (e.g., “It’s hard for my child to notice…”).
• Target Population: Adolescents and youth aged 11 to 22 years (adaptable for early adolescence, middle adolescence, and emerging adulthood/college populations).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, digital survey platform, or computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI).
• Total Item Count: 36 items in the full exploratory inventory; 27 items in the core validated subscales (13 Short-Term items; 14 Long-Term items; 9 items assessing general monitoring, physical awareness, or peripheral traits).
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
  • 1 = Not at all true for me
  • 2 = Not very true for me
  • 3 = Neither true nor untrue for me
  • 4 = Somewhat true for me
  • 5 = Really true for me
• Estimated Completion Time: 8 to 12 minutes.
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Step 1: Reverse Coding: A significant portion of the inventory is framed in a dysregulatory direction to mitigate acquiescence bias. Exactly 16 items must be reverse-coded prior to subscale computation (i.e., new score = 6 − original score):
    
    Items to Reverse Code: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 34, and 35. (Note: In specific item listings, certain positively phrased items such as Item 2 and 8 are listed in some source documents for reverse scoring depending on whether higher raw values reflect emotional avoidance or regulatory success; researchers should verify the specific keying direction of their targeted protocol).
  • Step 2: Short-Term Self-Regulation Score: Compute the mean (or sum) across the 13 validated short-term items (Items 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22), with appropriate reverse codes applied. Higher scores reflect superior real-time attentional control, impulse containment, and acute emotional management.
  • Step 3: Long-Term Self-Regulation Score: Compute the mean (or sum) across the 14 validated long-term items (Items 3, 4, 12, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 36), with appropriate reverse codes applied. Higher scores denote superior strategic persistence, delayed gratification, and goal-directed consistency.
  • Step 4: Total Self-Regulation Composite Score (Optional): Compute the grand mean across all 27 core items (or across the full 36 items) to establish an omnibus index of general self-regulatory competence.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory was first detailed in Dr. Kristin L. Moilanen’s doctoral dissertation in 2005 at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, followed by its formal peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence in 2007.

• Commercial Status and Usage Fee: The ASRI is an open-access, non-commercial psychological assessment tool. It is made freely available for academic, clinical, and non-profit educational evaluation without payment of licensing or royalty fees.
• Permissions and Copyright: The copyright for the original publication rests with the author and the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC). Researchers, evaluators, and educational practitioners are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale for non-commercial scientific research, master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, and institutional program evaluations, provided that formal academic attribution and citation are accorded to Moilanen (2007). Commercial repackaging, incorporation into fee-for-service digital assessment batteries, or proprietary software redistribution requires prior written authorization from the primary copyright holder.

References

• Bandy, T., & Moore, K. A. (2010). Assessing self-regulation: A guide for out-of-school time program practitioners (Results-to-Research Brief #2010-23). Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174794
• Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Somerville, L. H. (2011). Braking and accelerating of the adolescent brain. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00712.x
• Moilanen, K. L. (2005). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI): A new way to measure self-regulation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
• Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9107-9
• Moilanen, K. L., Shaw, D. S., & Fitzpatrick, A. (2010). Self-regulation in early adolescence: Relations with mother–son relationship quality and maternal regulatory support and antagonism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(11), 1357–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9486-1
• Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (Eds.). (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. Springer Publishing Company.
• Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002

Items of the Scale