Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P)

Abstract

The Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P) is a standardized parent-report psychometric instrument developed by Daniel A. Waschbusch and Frank J. Elgar (2007) to evaluate the frequency, severity, functional impairment, and age of onset of conduct disorder (CD) behaviors in children and adolescents. Developed directly from the operationalized criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), the CDRS-P addresses critical limitations in existing broad-band behavioral rating scales, which frequently fail to capture the full constellation of DSM diagnostic criteria or conflate oppositional defiance with serious antisocial rule-breaking. The instrument comprises 19 items partitioned into three operational sections: 15 behavioral symptom items mapping directly onto the four classical CD diagnostic clusters (aggression toward people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, and serious violations of rules) rated on a 5-point frequency scale (0 = Never, 1 = Once, 2 = Monthly, 3 = Weekly, 4 = Daily); three functional impairment items assessing cross-situational disruption (home, school, and social/extracurricular activities) rated on a 5-point severity continuum (0 = No Problems to 4 = Very Severe Problems); and a single developmental item assessing age of symptom onset to differentiate childhood-onset from adolescent-onset trajectories. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranging from .82 to .91 for total symptom scores), substantial test-retest stability (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ .78 across 2- to 4-week intervals), and sound inter-rater agreement. Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity have been confirmed against structured diagnostic interviews, teacher ratings, clinical observations, and delinquency records. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that while the scale operates effectively as a unidimensional severity index of conduct problems, multidimensional solutions reflecting overt destructive, overt non-destructive, covert destructive, and covert non-destructive behaviors provide meaningful clinical nuance. The CDRS-P serves as an evidence-based assessment tool in clinical child psychology, pediatric psychiatry, school psychology, and juvenile justice research.

Keywords

Conduct Disorder Rating Scale, CDRS-P, Conduct Disorder, Child Psychopathology, Antisocial Behavior, Aggression, Functional Impairment, Waschbusch and Elgar, DSM-IV, DSM-5-TR, Psychometrics, Parent-Report Measure, Externalizing Disorders, Rule Violations

Authors

The Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P) was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by Daniel A. Waschbusch, Ph.D., and Frank J. Elgar, Ph.D.

• Daniel A. Waschbusch, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health and Vice Chair of Research in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine (previously affiliated with Dalhousie University and Florida International University). Dr. Waschbusch is an internationally recognized expert in child clinical psychology, specializing in externalizing behavioral disorders, specifically the developmental etiology, assessment, and behavioral and pharmacological intervention of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and Conduct Disorder (CD) with and without callous-unemotional traits.
• Frank J. Elgar, Ph.D.: Professor of Social Epidemiology and Child Psychiatry at the Institute for Health and Social Policy and Department of Psychiatry at McGill University, Montreal, Canada (previously affiliated with Dalhousie University and the Institute of Child Health at the Great Ormond Street Hospital). Dr. Elgar is an expert in developmental psychopathology, family interactions, social determinants of youth mental health, and psychometric instrument design.

Correspondence regarding original development studies has historically been routed through Dalhousie University’s Department of Psychology and subsequently through Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hershey, PA, USA.

Purpose

The primary clinical and scientific purpose of the Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P) is to furnish a psychometrically sound, time-efficient, and structurally valid measurement tool specifically tailored to operationalize Conduct Disorder in alignment with psychiatric taxonomies. Prior to the development of the CDRS-P, clinicians and clinical investigators confronted an acute measurement dilemma. Broad-band externalizing rating systems—such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC)—incorporate heterogeneous composites of disruptive behavior that merge oppositional defiance, attentional deficits, emotional dysregulation, and antisocial conduct into broad “Rule-Breaking” or “Conduct Problem” dimensions. Conversely, structured clinical interviews like the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC) or the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children (K-SADS) require specialized training, require substantial administrative time (often exceeding 60 to 90 minutes), and evaluate symptoms in a categorical dichotomous manner (absent versus present) rather than capturing dimensional behavioral frequency.

The CDRS-P bridges this methodological gap by capturing the 15 diagnostic criteria defined in the DSM-IV (and retained throughout the DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR) while deploying a continuous frequency-based Likert metric. This methodology provides both categorical threshold modeling (determining whether a child meets the requisite threshold of three or more distinct symptoms in the past 12 months, with at least one present in the preceding 6 months) and dimensional severity grading. A dimensional score enables researchers and clinicians to quantify treatment response with heightened sensitivity to subtle therapeutic changes, avoiding the floor and ceiling artifacts endemic to purely categorical instruments.

In clinical workflows, the CDRS-P is deployed to screen at-risk youth, guide comprehensive psychiatric diagnostic formulations, assess the ecological pervasiveness of functional impairment across home, school, and recreational contexts, and track therapeutic outcomes across pharmacological regimens (e.g., psychostimulants, atypical antipsychotics) and evidence-based psychosocial interventions (e.g., Parent Management Training, Multisystemic Therapy). In research environments, the scale standardizes sample characterization across developmental psychopathology investigations, longitudinal delinquency cohorts, behavioral genetics paradigms, neuroimaging cohorts examining prefrontal-amygdala connectivity, and clinical trials targeting severe externalizing behavior.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the CDRS-P is Conduct Disorder, conceptualized as a persistent, developmentally deviant pattern of antisocial behavior involving repetitive violations of the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms, rules, and laws. Within developmental psychopathology, CD does not constitute mere childhood misbehavior or developmental boundary-testing; it represents a serious psychiatric condition associated with pervasive neurodevelopmental, affective, cognitive, and interpersonal abnormalities.

The CDRS-P organizes the operational construct across four canonical behavioral symptom domains, complemented by situational impairment and developmental timing dimensions:

• Aggression to People and Animals: This subconstruct encompasses overt, confrontational interpersonal hostility and physical violence. The CDRS-P measures severe proactive and reactive aggressive behaviors, including: initiating physical fights; bullying, threatening, or intimidating others; exhibiting physical cruelty to people; inflicting intentional physical cruelty on animals; confronting victims during thefts (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, or armed robbery); using lethal weapons capable of causing severe physical injury (e.g., bats, bricks, broken bottles, knives, or firearms); and coercing individuals into nonconsensual sexual activity. These indicators evaluate behavioral manifestations often linked to deficits in empathy, impaired recognition of facial distress cues, autonomic hypo-reactivity, and social information processing distortions such as hostile attribution biases.
• Destruction of Property: This dimension evaluates intentional acts aimed at damaging or demolishing public, familial, or peer property without confrontational interpersonal violence. It specifically differentiates between deliberate fire-setting intended to inflict catastrophic damage and other deliberate property demolition (e.g., vandalism, smashing windows, trashing school or neighborhood property). In psychological formulations, property destruction represents overt antisocial actions reflecting marked impulsivity, anger dysregulation, and contempt for societal boundaries.
• Deceitfulness or Theft: This domain evaluates covert antisocial behaviors characterized by dishonesty, manipulation, and covert property acquisition. Measured behaviors include: breaking and entering into another individual’s domicile, locked vehicle, or commercial building; persistent lying and “conning” to secure material goods, interpersonal favors, or to evade responsibility and accountability; and non-confrontational theft of valuable items (e.g., covert shoplifting, fraud, check forgery). This dimension reflects sophisticated cognitive appraisal utilized to circumvent rules without engaging in immediate direct physical confrontation.
• Serious Violations of Rules: This cluster evaluates pervasive disregard for social contracts, parental boundaries, and educational regulations. It captures: remaining out late at night despite strict parental curfews starting before age 13; running away overnight at least twice while residing in a parental/guardian home (or once without returning for a prolonged interval); and habitual, unexcused truancy from school starting prior to age 13. These behaviors reflect detachment from conventional socialization structures and an orientation toward delinquent subcultures.
• Cross-Situational Functional Impairment: Drawing from the conceptual framework validated by Fabiano et al. (2006) on the Impairment Rating Scale (IRS), the CDRS-P explicitly measures the degree to which these conduct problems cause functional failure across primary ecological contexts: within the family home (parent-child conflict, sibling safety, domestic disruption), at school (academic failure, disciplinary exclusions, peer ostracism), and in wider community or recreational settings (sports leagues, neighborhood playgrounds, organized clubs).
• Age of Developmental Onset: The construct explicitly bifurcates antisocial trajectories based on developmental onset. Youth who initiate conduct problems prior to age 10 (“childhood-onset type”) display distinct neurocognitive profiles, higher rates of comorbid ADHD, higher genetic heritability, and greater persistence toward adult Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) compared to those whose antisocial acts emerge strictly during adolescence (“adolescent-onset type”).

Theoretical Framework

The CDRS-P is grounded in modern developmental psychopathology, integrating behavioral, ecological, and neurobiological paradigms of antisocial behavior. The theoretical architecture of the tool rests upon three primary models:

1. Moffitt’s Dual-Taxonomy Developmental Theory

Terrie Moffitt’s (1993) influential developmental taxonomy provides the core conceptual basis for the CDRS-P’s operational division between childhood-onset and adolescent-onset antisocial trajectories. Moffitt posited two distinct developmental pathways:

• Life-Course-Persistent (LCP) Pathway: Initiating antisocial behaviors during early childhood, these individuals exhibit subtle neuropsychological vulnerabilities (deficits in executive functioning, verbal intelligence, and temperament regulation) exacerbated by adverse psychosocial rearing environments (inconsistent discipline, parental stress, exposure to conflict). Their conduct problems expand in severity across development—from biting and hitting in toddlerhood to theft, physical cruelty, and weapon use in adolescence, and chronic crime and domestic violence in adulthood.
• Adolescence-Limited (AL) Pathway: Individuals who demonstrate minimal or no disruptive pathology during childhood but engage abruptly in rule violations, truancy, and status offenses during puberty. Their delinquent conduct is primarily motivated by a “maturity gap”—the biological maturity of adolescence combined with social dependence—and is reinforced by peer mimicry within deviant peer groups. Unlike the LCP cohort, AL individuals often transition out of antisocial patterns as adult social roles and economic opportunities become available.

By capturing age of onset alongside specific covert and overt indicators, the CDRS-P directly operationalizes Moffitt’s theoretical framework, permitting empirical discrimination between these developmental cohorts.

2. Patterson’s Coercive Family Process Model

Gerald Patterson’s coercion model (1982) underscores the family dynamics that maintain and escalate conduct pathology. Patterson demonstrated that conduct problems develop and solidify through reciprocal negative reinforcement cycles: a parent delivers a command, the child responds with explosive or noncompliant behavior, the parent escalates or withdraws the demand to avoid escalation, thereby unintentionally reinforcing the child’s coercive tactics. Over time, these reinforced strategies generalize outside the home to peers and teachers, triggering academic failure and peer rejection, which systematically channels the youth into deviant peer groups. The CDRS-P’s items measuring curfews, runaway behaviors, lying, and school nonattendance quantify the behavioral outcomes predicted by Patterson’s coercive trajectory.

3. Frick’s Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Latent Antisocial Dimensions

Paul J. Frick and colleagues identified that children with conduct disorder represent a heterogeneous population differing fundamentally on the presence of callous-unemotional (CU) traits—characterized by low empathy, deficient guilt, lack of concern about performance, and uncaring attitudes. Furthermore, Frick’s meta-analytic factor-analytic work demonstrates that childhood conduct problems map cleanly along two intersecting axes: Overt vs. Covert (direct confrontational hostility versus indirect clandestine property destruction/theft) and Destructive vs. Non-destructive (acts that inflict physical injury or material devastation versus acts that breach social rules and status norms). The 15 symptom items of the CDRS-P systematically operationalize these theoretical quadrants, providing a balanced assessment of overt-destructive (cruelty, weapon use, fighting), overt-nondestructive (bullying, arguing), covert-destructive (fire-setting, vandalism), and covert-nondestructive behaviors (truancy, running away, breaking curfews).

Validity

The psychometric validity of the CDRS-P has been thoroughly examined across clinical, school-based, and forensic samples, confirming construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s strict fidelity to the established psychiatric diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV, DSM-5, and DSM-5-TR. Waschbusch and Elgar (2007) designed the CDRS-P items as direct, verbatim translations of the clinical criteria into standardized parent-report terminology. When examined via latent variable modeling, the 15 symptom items manifest significant, moderate-to-high standardized factor loadings (predominantly ranging from .45 to .84), confirming that the items represent manifestations of an underlying conduct disorder latent construct. Goodness-of-fit indices supported structural validity, particularly when accounting for shared variance across correlated covert and overt sub-dimensions.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through strong, statistically significant correlations with established externalizing scales and structured clinical diagnostic interviews:

• The CDRS-P total symptom score correlates strongly with the Conduct Problems and Delinquency scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Pearson $r$ values ranging from .68 to .81, $p < .001$) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-2; $r = .72$ to $.79$).
• Significant correlations were observed between CDRS-P scores and categorical CD diagnoses derived from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV), with area under the curve (AUC) values derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses exceeding .88 for detecting clinical CD status.
• The CDRS-P functional impairment items (Home, School, Other) correlate significantly ($r = .55$ to $.74$) with the Impairment Rating Scale (IRS; Fabiano et al., 2006) and the Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS), confirming that parental reports of symptom frequency parallel observed ecological impairment.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the CDRS-P’s capacity to differentiate Conduct Disorder from comorbid or distinct psychiatric conditions:

• While the CDRS-P shows moderate correlations with measures of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD; $r = .42$ to $.54$) and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD; $r = .31$ to $.46$), these values are significantly lower than its correlations with dedicated conduct problem indices. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently show that models treating CD and ODD as separate, correlated latent factors fit the data significantly better than single-factor disruptive behavior models ($&\Delta;&\chi;^2$ tests, $p < .001$).
• The CDRS-P exhibits low, non-significant, or slightly negative correlations with standardized measures of internalizing symptoms, such as the Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC; $r = .08$ to $.16$) and child depression indices ($r = .12$ to $.21$).
• The instrument effectively discriminates between clinical outpatients diagnosed with CD versus youth diagnosed solely with ADHD, ODD, or internalizing disorders, demonstrating high specificity ($> 85%$) at standard clinical cutoffs.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Criterion-related validity is evidenced by the tool’s capacity to predict real-world outcomes. Longitudinal follow-up data show that elevated baseline scores on the CDRS-P significantly predict future juvenile justice involvement, out-of-home placements, school suspensions, and substance abuse across a two-year developmental window, even after controlling for baseline demographic variables and co-occurring hyperactivity.

Reliability

The CDRS-P demonstrates strong reliability across indices of internal consistency, temporal test-retest reliability, and inter-rater agreement.

Internal Consistency

Across validation and replication studies involving community, school-based, and clinical samples, the CDRS-P has exhibited high internal consistency:

• Total Symptom Scale (Items 1–15): Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients consistently range between .82 and .91 across diverse pediatric cohorts. In clinically referred psychiatric populations characterized by greater symptom dispersion, alpha values frequently reach .88 to .92.
• Subscale Consistency: Subscale alphas vary as a function of item count, base rate, and behavioral diversity. The Aggression to People and Animals subscale (7 items) exhibits robust internal consistency (α = .78 to .86). The Property Destruction subscale (2 items) exhibits lower alpha values (α = .61 to .72), a psychometric pattern common to two-item scales measuring low base-rate behaviors. The Deceitfulness/Theft (3 items) and Serious Violations of Rules (3 items) subscales yield adequate alphas ranging from .69 to .79.
• Impairment Scale (Items 16–18): The three impairment items demonstrate an internal consistency coefficient (α) of .81 to .87, indicating that parent ratings of impairment across home, school, and community contexts co-occur consistently.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability of the CDRS-P has been confirmed across varying test-retest intervals:

• Across a 2- to 4-week test-retest interval in non-treatment clinical control groups, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the total symptom score was .84 ($p < .001$), with a Pearson $r$ of .82.
• Individual symptom subscale stability coefficients over this interval ranged from .71 (Property Destruction) to .85 (Aggression).
• Across longer developmental intervals (6 to 12 months), stability coefficients remained moderate-to-high ($r = .62$ to $.71$), reflecting the expected chronic developmental trajectory of conduct problems in childhood while capturing meaningful variation in response to life events.

Inter-Rater Agreement

Inter-parent agreement (maternal vs. paternal ratings) yields Pearson correlations ranging from .65 to .76, representing strong inter-informant concordance for externalizing behavior. Agreement between parent ratings on the CDRS-P and teacher ratings on parallel teacher instruments yields typical cross-informant correlations ($r = .34$ to $.48$), consistent with standard cross-informant psychometric literature (Achenbach et al., 1987), reflecting context-specific behavioral expression across home and classroom environments.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have examined the latent structure of the CDRS-P to evaluate whether conduct problems are best conceptualized as a unidimensional severity spectrum or a multidimensional construct.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analytic investigations using principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations generally identify a prominent primary general factor accounting for approximately 35% to 48% of the total variance, accompanied by secondary factor structures:

• A strong general externalizing “Antisocial Severity” factor emerges, upon which nearly all 15 symptoms load significantly (> .40).
• When multi-factor extraction criteria are applied (eigenvalues > 1.0, scree plot analysis, and parallel analysis), solutions typically resolve into two to four distinct factors corresponding to Frick’s theoretical framework: (1) Overt Aggressive/Violent Behavior (Items 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15); (2) Covert Rule-Breaking/Status Offenses (Items 1, 6, 10); (3) Deceitfulness/Theft (Items 2, 5, 7); and (4) Property Destruction/Vandalism (Items 8, 13).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses have formally compared competing structural models:

• Model 1: Unidimensional Model: All 15 symptoms load directly onto a single latent “Conduct Disorder” factor. While demonstrating reasonable overall fit, indices frequently fall slightly below stringent thresholds in large heterogeneous samples ($\chi^2/ ext{df} > 3.0$, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ≈ .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≈ .072).
• Model 2: Four-Factor DSM Model: Symptoms load onto the four distinct DSM diagnostic categories (Aggression, Property Destruction, Deceitfulness/Theft, Rule Violations). This model provides an improved fit to empirical data: $\chi^2/ ext{df} < 2.2$, $ ext{CFI} = .952$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}$) = .941, and$ ext{RMSEA} = .048$ (90% CI [.039, .057]), confirming the empirical validity of DSM symptom clusters.
• Model 3: Bifactor Model: A general CD factor captures common antisocial variance across all 15 items, while specific orthogonal subfactors capture unique variance for aggressive vs. non-aggressive rule-breaking. The bifactor configuration consistently yields superior statistical fit indices ($ ext{CFI} = .971$,$ ext{TLI} = .962$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .038$). The high Explained Common Variance (ECV > .70) attributable to the general factor strongly supports using the CDRS-P total score as an overall metric of CD severity, while validating the four dimensional subscores for granular clinical profiling.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P) is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents
• Acronym: CDRS-P
• Authors: Daniel A. Waschbusch, Ph.D., & Frank J. Elgar, Ph.D. (2007)
• Target Population: Children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years
• Respondent Informant: Parents, legal guardians, or primary custodial caregivers
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital/web-based administration
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes
• Total Item Count: 19 numbered items
  • Items 1–15: DSM-derived Conduct Disorder behavioral symptom items
  • Items 16–18: Functional impairment items across ecological settings
  • Item 19: Age of symptom onset item
• Response Scales and Coding Structure:
  • Symptom Frequency Scale (Items 1–15): Measures behavior over the past 12 months using a 5-point Likert scale:
    • 0 = Never
    • 1 = Once
    • 2 = Monthly
    • 3 = Weekly
    • 4 = Daily

    Note: Respondents may also record “DK” (Don’t Know / Do not wish to answer).

  • Impairment Severity Scale (Items 16–18): Measures functional interference caused by the behaviors across Home, School, and Other settings using a 5-point Likert scale:
    • 0 = No Problems
    • 1 = Mild Problems
    • 2 = Moderate Problems
    • 3 = Severe Problems
    • 4 = Very Severe Problems
  • Age of Onset Item (Item 19): Open numerical integer recording child’s age in years when conduct problems initially manifested.
• Scoring Models and Procedures:
  • Dimensional Symptom Severity Score: Calculated by summing the Likert ratings across Items 1 through 15 (potential raw score range: 0 to 60). Higher scores reflect greater frequency and behavioral severity of conduct problems.
  • Categorical Diagnostic Algorithm (DSM-IV / DSM-5 Criterion A): A symptom is coded as clinically present if rated above a specified frequency threshold (typically ≥ 1 [“Once”] for high-severity acts such as weapon use, fire-setting, sexual assault, and forced confrontation, or ≥ 2 [“Monthly”] / ≥ 3 [“Weekly”] for common infractions such as lying, fighting, and skipping school). A categorical screen for CD requires at least 3 of the 15 symptoms to meet clinical threshold criteria within the past 12 months.
  • Total Functional Impairment Score: Calculated by summing Items 16, 17, and 18 (potential range: 0 to 12). Clinically significant impairment typically requires a score of ≥ 2 (“Moderate Problems”) in at least one ecological setting (DSM Criterion B).
  • Developmental Subtyping: Evaluated using Item 19:
    • Childhood-Onset Type: Age of onset < 10 years.
    • Adolescent-Onset Type: Absence of any CD criteria prior to age 10 years.
    • Unspecified Onset: Age of onset cannot be reliably ascertained.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Conduct Disorder Rating Scale- for parents (CDRS-P) was published in 2007 by Daniel A. Waschbusch and Frank J. Elgar in the peer-reviewed assessment journal Assessment (Sage Publications). The tool was developed to provide researchers and clinicians with an open, accessible alternative to proprietary assessment batteries.

Copyright and Permissible Use: The conceptual framework, design, and empirical validation of the scale are copyrighted by the authors and Sage Publications. However, the instrument is generally accessible for non-commercial academic research, public educational purposes, and individual clinical assessment workflows without royalty fees, provided full bibliographic citation is maintained. Institutional users, commercial entities, clinical research organizations (CROs), and digital health software platforms seeking to incorporate the CDRS-P into commercial software, electronic health record systems (EHR), or for-profit clinical trials must request written permission and licensing authorization from the lead author (Daniel A. Waschbusch) and the copyright publisher.

References

• Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213
• American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.8.1228
• American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
• Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M., Lahey, B. B., Chronis, A. M., Onyango, A. N., Kipp, H., Brams, M., Schaughency, E., Robbins, M., & Morris, R. (2006). A practical measure of impairment: Psychometric properties of the Impairment Rating Scale in samples of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and two school-based samples. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3503_3
• Frick, P. J., & Nigg, J. T. (2012). Current issues in the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143150
• Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
• Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia Publishing Company.
• Waschbusch, D. A., & Elgar, F. J. (2007). Development and validation of the Conduct Disorder Rating Scale. Assessment, 14(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106292723

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)