Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey

Abstract

The Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey is a multidimensional psychometric battery engineered to evaluate the interplay among overt and relational aggressive behaviors, foundational temperament traits, and emotional reactivity during late childhood and adolescence. Synthesized systematically in empirical investigations of youth behavior—most notably by Kenna M. Reynolds (2014) in developmental psychopathology research—this composite assessment combines validated dimensions from the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS; Dahlberg et al., 2005), the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS; Guilford, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1976), and the child-adapted Neuroticism/Emotional Instability subscale of the Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C; Barbaranelli et al., 2003). The overall instrument comprises multiple modular sections: an 18-item behavioral aggression inventory measuring physical, verbal, and relational aggression across a 6-point behavioral frequency metric (from 0 to 20 or more instances over the preceding month); a 30-item temperament inventory assessing impulse control, emotional restraint, seriousness, and sensation seeking using a trichotomous forced-choice format (“Yes”, “No”, “?”); and a 13-item emotional reactivity inventory scaled on a 5-point Likert format (from 1 = “Almost Never” to 5 = “Almost Always”). Across clinical, educational, and developmental samples, the subscales demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between α = .78 and .91 for behavioral aggression dimensions, α = .72 and .84 for temperament restraint traits, and α = .81 to .88 for emotional instability). Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses corroborate a multidimensional architecture wherein temperamental disinhibition and heightened emotional reactivity serve as significant exogenous predictors of both direct physical peer victimization and indirect relational aggression. This comprehensive survey serves as an invaluable diagnostic and research tool for developmental psychologists, school mental health specialists, and criminologists investigating the etiology and intervention trajectories of adolescent conduct problems.

Keywords

Aggression, Temperament, Personality Assessment, Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, Big Five Questionnaire for Children, Emotional Reactivity, Relational Aggression, Adolescent Psychopathology, Psychometrics

Authors

The Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey represents an integrated psychometric battery synthesized by Kenna M. Reynolds (Ohio Dominican University, Department of Psychology) as part of empirical research exploring emotional restraint, reactivity, and youth conduct patterns. The constituent instruments and subscales incorporated into this synthesis were authored by seminal figures in psychometrics and developmental epidemiology:

• Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS): Developed by Linda L. Dahlberg, Susan B. Toal, Monica Swahn, and Christopher B. Behrens at the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA; alongside contributions from Albert D. Farrell and colleagues at Virginia Commonwealth University.
• Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS): Authored by Joy Paul Guilford, Wayne S. Zimmerman, and Joan S. Guilford at the University of Southern California and Sheridan Psychological Services, Beverly Hills, California, USA.
• Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C): Developed by Claudio Barbaranelli, Gian Vittorio Caprara, Roberta Rabasca, and Concetta Pastorelli at the Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey is to provide a unified, empirical measurement framework capable of untangling the complex bio-psycho-social mechanisms driving externalizing psychopathology, peer conflict, and interpersonal harm among youth. While traditional behavioral checklists frequently capture the descriptive frequency of disruptive conduct without evaluating underlying trait vulnerabilities, and personality inventories often assess broad constructs divorced from contextual delinquent acts, this battery bridges the gap between latent dispositional characteristics and observable aggressive manifestations.

In clinical and educational settings, the instrument fulfills several critical operational roles:

• Differential Typology Screening: It allows school psychologists, clinical social workers, and juvenile justice evaluators to differentiate between overt physical aggression (e.g., hitting, pushing, weapon threats) and indirect relational aggression (e.g., social exclusion, malicious rumor spreading, coercive alliance formation). Differentiating these modalities is crucial because relational aggression often evades conventional school disciplinary tracking despite inflicting profound psychological damage on victims.
• Assessment of Self-Regulatory Restraint: By utilizing items adapted from the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the battery quantifies trait-level cognitive impulsivity, deliberation, playfulness versus seriousness, and sensation seeking. This allows clinicians to determine whether a youth’s aggressive outbursts stem from an instrumental, calculating disposition or an inability to inhibit motor and verbal responses under high arousal.
• Quantification of Emotional Reactivity: Grounded in the Neuroticism/Emotional Instability framework of the BFQ-C, the survey measures affective lability, frustration intolerance, and vulnerability to dysphoric and anxious moods. This enables clinicians to delineate between proactive (cold-blooded, goal-directed) and reactive (hot-tempered, threat-sensitive) aggressive trajectories.
• Intervention Design and Program Evaluation: By mapping baseline behavioral baselines and underlying temperamental deficits, the survey aids in tailoring interventions. For example, individuals scoring high on emotional instability and reactive aggression benefit from cognitive-behavioral affect regulation therapy, whereas those exhibiting low restraint and high sensation-seeking require behavioral monitoring, contingency management, and prosocial risk-taking outlets.

Psychological Construct

The battery operationalizes three interrelated, hierarchical psychological domains: behavioral aggression frequency, temperamental restraint versus disinhibition, and emotional reactivity/neuroticism.

1. Behavioral Aggression (Problem Behavior Frequency Scale Framework)

Behavioral aggression is conceptualized not as a monolithic construct, but as a spectrum of intentional behaviors executed to inflict physical discomfort, emotional injury, or social status decrement upon peers. The PBFS framework subdivides this spectrum into three major behavioral dimensions:

• Physical Aggression: Manifest behaviors intended to cause somatic injury or intimidation through bodily force or dangerous objects (e.g., hitting, slapping, pushing, weapon use, and physically assaultive fights).
• Verbal Aggression: Direct oral or expressive hostility aimed at diminishing the target’s dignity, eliciting distress, or expressing malicious contempt (e.g., direct insults, threatening statements, mocking, and facial gestures intended to intimidate).
• Relational / Indirect Aggression: Covert manipulation of social networks and peer alliances designed to damage the victim’s social standing, reputation, or sense of belonging (e.g., deliberate ostracism, slanderous rumor dissemination, and conditional friendship manipulation).

2. Temperament: Restraint, Deliberation, and Impulsivity (Guilford-Zimmerman Framework)

Temperament represents biologically rooted individual differences in behavioral reactivity and self-regulation. Drawn from Guilford’s trait taxonomy, this section measures the continuum spanning Restraint (thoughtfulness, self-control, persistence, serious-mindedness) versus Rhathymia/Impulsivity (carefree carelessness, live-for-the-moment hedonism, craving excitement, unreflective spur-of-the-moment action):

• Reflective Deliberation vs. Motor Impulsivity: The tendency to pause and analyze thoughts, weigh consequences, and plan versus acting precipitously upon initial impulses without anticipating secondary outcomes.
• Hedonistic Present-Orientation vs. Future Conscientiousness: Endorsement of immediate gratification (the “eat, drink, and be merry” ethos) versus persistent, rule-governed task completion and goal adherence.
• Excitement Seeking and Risk Proneness: An active appetite for sensory thrills, rowdyism, dares, and physical sensation, often operating as a catalyst for dangerous peer misadventures.

3. Emotional Reactivity (BFQ-C Neuroticism Framework)

Emotional reactivity represents the threshold and intensity of emotional arousal when confronted with environmental stressors, perceived slights, or obstacles. In accordance with the Big Five child personality architecture, this subscale captures:

• Affective Volatility and Irritability: Tendency to lose composure rapidly, experience intense anger, and display low tolerance for frustration when encountering cognitive or academic difficulties.
• Internalizing Distress Vulnerability: Proneness to dysphoria, frequent crying, pervasive anxiety, and rumination over trivial occurrences (“worrying about silly things”).
• Interpersonal Sensitivity: Heightened perceptual vigilance toward rejection, feelings of vulnerability, and an overreactive defensive stance in peer negotiations.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey is anchored primarily in the General Aggression Model (GAM) formulated by Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman (2002), integrated with Rothbart’s psychobiological model of temperament and Eysenck’s biologically based personality paradigms.

The GAM posits that aggressive encounters are dynamic episodes resulting from the interaction between situational factors (e.g., provocation, peer contagion) and personological input variables (e.g., trait aggressiveness, impulsivity, emotional reactivity). Within this matrix, personal traits exert a profound influence on an individual’s internal state, modifying three distinct yet interconnected pathways: cognition (accessible hostile knowledge structures, hostile attribution biases), affect (state hostility, autonomic arousal, emotional pain), and arousal (physiological excitation or energy levels). The survey directly measures the foundational personological inputs identified by the GAM:

First, an individual characterized by high emotional reactivity (as operationalized by the BFQ-C items) possesses hyper-sensitized affective networks. When confronted with ambiguous peer behavior, such individuals experience instantaneous spikes in internalizing distress and hostile affect, predisposing them toward reactive aggression as an emotional discharge mechanism.

Second, Rothbart’s temperament model posits that human self-regulation is governed by two broad opposing forces: Reactive Approach/Sensation Seeking and Effortful Control. The GZTS items in this survey measure the structural adequacy of effortful control. An adolescent possessing adequate cognitive restraint possesses the executive capacity to interrupt automatic behavioral loops, reappraise provocations, and resist delinquent impulses. Conversely, a youth with low restraint, marked present-moment hedonism, and pronounced impulsivity fails to deploy executive reappraisal, allowing hostile cognitions to translate directly into motor aggression or tactical relational exclusion.

Validity

The structural, convergent, and criterion validity of the components constituting the Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey have been extensively validated across clinical and developmental literature.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In standard psychometric validations of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Farrell et al., 2000; Dahlberg et al., 2005), physical and relational aggression subscales demonstrated robust convergent correlations with independent teacher nominations of externalizing behavior (r values ranging from .45 to .62, p < .001) and peer sociometric assessments of bullying (r = .52 to .68). Concurrently, scores on the PBFS physical aggression subscale demonstrate strong convergent validity with institutional disciplinary infractions, school suspensions, and police contact indices.

The GZTS Restraint/Thoughtfulness subscales exhibit established convergent validity with related self-regulation batteries, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), showing inverse correlations with motor and non-planning impulsiveness (r = -.58 and -.64, respectively). In adolescent empirical research by Reynolds (2014), the synthesized temperament items correlated in anticipated directions with validated measures of adolescent risk behavior and executive functioning.

The BFQ-C Neuroticism/Emotional Instability subscale exhibits robust convergent validity when compared against the Youth Self-Report (YSR) anxious/depressed and aggressive behavior syndromal scales (Barbaranelli et al., 2003; Muris et al., 2005), displaying convergent correlations between r = .54 and .71.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the distinct factor separation between physical violence, covert relational aggression, and pure internalizing distress. Exploratory and confirmatory models indicate that items measuring relational sabotage (such as spreading rumors or excluding peers) load distinctly from those capturing direct physical altercations, proving that these reflect discrete tactical manifestations of hostility. Furthermore, hierarchical linear regression models have demonstrated that adding GZTS temperamental restraint significantly enhances the prediction of physical aggression variance over and above demographic variables (ΔR² = .14 to .22, p < .001), underscoring the independent predictive utility of the temperament dimension.

Reliability

The constituent subscales comprising this survey demonstrate excellent psychometric reliability across internal consistency and temporal stability metrics:

• Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha):
  • PBFS Aggression Subscales: In baseline adolescent validation cohorts (Dahlberg et al., 2005; Farrell et al., 2000), internal consistency coefficients for the Physical Aggression domain systematically average α = .83 to .89. The Relational Aggression domain demonstrates coefficients between α = .78 and .85. Combined composite aggression scores routinely exceed α = .90.
  • GZTS Temperament Items: The adapted items tapping restraint, cognitive deliberation, and serious-mindedness yield internal consistency estimates spanning α = .74 to .84 across high school and middle school samples. Sensation-seeking and excitement sub-dimensions typically range from α = .70 to .79.
  • BFQ-C Emotional Reactivity / Neuroticism: In original psychometric studies by Barbaranelli et al. (2003) and subsequent cross-cultural replications, the 13-item Emotional Instability scale exhibits high reliability, with alpha coefficients consistently established between α = .82 and .88.
• Test-Retest Reliability: Temporal stability evaluations conducted over 3-month and 6-month testing intervals confirm strong stability for both the GZTS temperament traits (test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from r = .76 to .83) and the BFQ-C Neuroticism scale (r = .72 to .79). The PBFS behavioral frequency scale, tracking episodic events over a rolling 30-day window, demonstrates moderate-to-high stability across 1-month re-administration periods (r = .65 to .74), reflecting expected situational variability alongside stable trait aggressiveness.

Factor Analysis

Extensive psychometric investigations employing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) substantiate the theoretical structure of the scale’s constituents.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (PBFS Behavioral Dimensions)

Structural evaluations of the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) confirm a clear multidimensional model. The primary factors include Overt Physical Aggression, Direct Verbal Hostility, and Relational Manipulation. In adolescent samples, CFA fit indices consistently satisfy standard psychometric benchmarks:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .945 – .962
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .938 – .955
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .041 – .052 (90% CI [.034, .058])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .039 – .047

Factor loadings for standardized physical aggression items (e.g., getting into physical fights, shoving/pushing, hitting/slapping) uniformly exceed λ = .65, with several severe items (e.g., weapon threats) loading up to λ = .82.

Factor Architecture of Temperament and Neuroticism

CFA models applied to the adapted Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament items identify two robust latent dimensions: Deliberate Restraint / Effortful Regulation (characterized by substantial positive loadings for items assessing stopping to think before acting, serious-mindedness, and task persistence) and Rhathymic Impulsivity / Thrill Seeking (marked by strong positive loadings for spur-of-the-moment decision making, rowdy enthusiasm, and seeking dares). Factor analysis of the BFQ-C Emotional Instability component confirms a unified unidimensional construct capturing affective vulnerability and irritable reactivity, with standardized item loadings ranging from λ = .48 to λ = .74.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Aggression, Temperament, and Personality Survey is administered as a structured, paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted self-report survey. It is designed for youth and adolescents aged 10 to 18 years, though adult adaptations exist for research contexts.

• Total Administration Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
• Target Demographics: Children, early adolescents, high school students, and juvenile clinical populations.
• Structural Sections & Response Formats:
  • Section I: Aggressive Behaviors (Problem Behavior Frequency Scale)
    • Item Count: 18 items.
    • Constructs Evaluated: Physical aggression, verbal abuse, peer harassment, and relational exclusion.
    • Time Frame: Preceding 30 days (the last month).
    • Response Scale: 6-point behavioral frequency scale: 0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-19, 20 or more times.
    • Scoring Metric: Coded numerically from 0 (0 times) to 5 (20 or more times). Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum across corresponding subscale items. Higher scores reflect elevated behavioral violence and relational bullying.
  • Section II: Temperamental Restraint & Impulsivity (Guilford-Zimmerman Adaptation)
    • Item Count: 30 items.
    • Constructs Evaluated: Thoughtful restraint, seriousness, planning, impulse control, hedonistic disinhibition, sensation seeking.
    • Response Scale: Trichotomous forced-choice format: Yes (Agree), No (Disagree), and ? (Unsure / Undecided). Instructions explicitly urge respondents to minimize the use of “?”.
    • Scoring Metric: Scored dichotomously (Yes = 1, No = 0; or reversed depending on keying), with “?” coded as 0.5 or treated as missing data if excessive. Subscale indices represent either high cognitive restraint or elevated impulsive sensation-seeking.
  • Section III: Emotional Reactivity (BFQ-C Neuroticism Subscale)
    • Item Count: 13 items.
    • Constructs Evaluated: Anger irritability, impatience, negative affect, emotional vulnerability, sadness.
    • Response Scale: 5-point Likert frequency scale:
      • 1 = Almost Never
      • 2 = Rarely
      • 3 = Every Once in a While
      • 4 = Sometimes
      • 5 = Almost Always
    • Scoring Metric: Summed or averaged continuously (range 13 to 65). Higher composite scores denote heightened emotional instability and reactive dysregulation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The synthesized battery was compiled and reported in 2014 by Kenna M. Reynolds in academic research conducted at Ohio Dominican University. The constituent instruments have distinct publication chronologies and intellectual property arrangements:

• Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (PBFS): Published in 2000/2005 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As a public health instrument developed by US federal government researchers (Dahlberg et al., 2005), the PBFS is in the public domain and is freely accessible for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research without licensing fees.
• Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS): Originally developed by J. P. Guilford and W. S. Zimmerman in 1949 and revised in 1976. The commercial rights to the official GZTS battery are maintained by Sheridan Psychological Services / Mind Garden, Inc. Academic research utilizing adapted or selected items requires appropriate institutional permission or adherence to fair-use academic research exemptions.
• Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C): Developed by Barbaranelli et al. in 2003. Academic use for non-commercial research is generally permitted through academic citation, though clinical or commercial distribution may be subject to publisher copyright (Giunti Psychometrics).

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Rabasca, A., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). A questionnaire for measuring the Big Five in late childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 645-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00051-X

Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv_measuringtool-a.pdf

Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., White, K. S., & Valois, R. F. (2000). The structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(2), 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP2902_13

Guilford, J. S., Zimmerman, W. S., & Guilford, J. P. (1976). The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey handbook: Twenty-five years of research and application. EDITS Publishers.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Diederen, R. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Big Five Questionnaire for Children (BFQ-C) in a Dutch sample of young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1757-1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.018

Reynolds, K. M. (2014). Emotional reactivity, emotional restraint, and aggression style patterns in a rural adolescent sample (Honors thesis, Ohio Dominican University). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Items of the Scale