Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument

Abstract

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Dr. Roberto H. Parada (2000) at the Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, University of Western Sydney. Designed to assess the complex dynamics of peer aggression within secondary school settings, the APRI operationalizes bullying not as a unitary, unidimensional behavioral problem, but as a dual-component, multidimensional construct consisting of Bullying Perpetration (Section A) and Bullying Victimization (Section B). Each component comprises 18 items categorized into three structurally distinct forms of peer aggression: Physical, Verbal, and Social/Relational. Administered via a 6-point behavioral frequency rating scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Everyday), the APRI captures behavioral occurrences over the preceding school year. Extensive psychometric evaluations utilizing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), and item response theory (IRT) demonstrate that the instrument exhibits exceptional factorial validity, robust measurement invariance across biological sex and grade levels, and strong internal consistency reliability, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients consistently exceeding .80 to .92 across international adolescent cohorts. The APRI serves as an empirical gold standard in developmental psychology, educational research, school-based threat assessment, and intervention evaluation, providing granular diagnostic discrimination between bully-perpetrators, pure victims, bully-victims, and uninvolved peers.

Keywords

Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument, APRI, bullying perpetration, peer victimization, relational aggression, physical bullying, verbal bullying, adolescent psychometrics, school violence, behavioral assessment

Authors

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument was conceptualized, designed, and psychometrically standardized by:

• Roberto H. Parada, Ph.D. — Senior Lecturer in Adolescent Development, Educational Psychology, and School Mental Health; Centre for Educational Research, School of Education, Western Sydney University (formerly University of Western Sydney), Bankstown Campus, Penrith NSW, Australia. Email: [email protected].
• Collaborative Contributions: Development was conducted in close association with the Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre under the theoretical and psychometric lineage of Professor Herbert W. Marsh, renowned for advancing multidimensional construct validation and structural equation modeling paradigms in educational psychology.

Purpose

Peer aggression and victimization represent critical public health, psychiatric, and educational concerns internationally. Prior to the development of the APRI, existing measures of bullying often suffered from significant psychometric and conceptual limitations. Many legacy assessments relied on single-item global indicators, forced-choice categories, or unidimensional indices that collapsed disparate behavioral typologies (e.g., physical battery vs. covert social exclusion) into omnibus composite scores. Furthermore, early assessment tools frequently introduced biased or stigmatizing definitions of “bullying” in respondent prompts, which unintentionally evoked social desirability biases, underreporting, or differing cognitive interpretations among youth.

The primary purpose of the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument is to provide an objective, multidimensional, behavioral-frequency inventory that disentangles the perpetration of aggression from the experience of victimization across distinct behavioral modalities. Specifically, the APRI fulfills several essential research, diagnostic, and clinical objectives:

• Behaviorally Specific Measurement: The instrument eschews subjective labels such as “bully” or “victim” in its instructions, instead presenting neutral, concrete behavioral referents (e.g., “pushed or shoved,” “got other students to start a rumor”). This minimizes defensive responding and isolates measurable actions over subjective sentiment.
• Structural Differentiation Across Modes of Aggression: By independently measuring physical, verbal, and social/relational subtypes, the APRI enables clinicians and researchers to identify unique behavioral profiles. For example, it allows the differentiation of overt physical violence—more commonly observed among younger adolescent males—from covert, indirect relational manipulation, which is prevalent across gender spectra and developmental cohorts.
• Subtyping of Participant Roles: Grounded in developmental psychopathology, the APRI facilitates the empirical classification of students into four clinically meaningful quadrants: Pure Victims (high victimization, low perpetration), Pure Bullies (high perpetration, low victimization), Bully-Victims / Aggressive Victims (high perpetration, high victimization), and Uninvolved / Prosocial Adolescents (low scores across both axes). Bully-victims are recognized as the highest-risk psychiatric subgroup, displaying extreme levels of emotional dysregulation, depressive symptomology, and academic impairment.
• Evaluation of School Interventions: The APRI provides sensitive, continuous-scale outcome data capable of tracking subtle changes following multi-tiered anti-bullying initiatives, positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), and socio-emotional learning (SEL) curricula within secondary schools.

Psychological Construct

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument operationalizes bullying through a differentiated, hierarchically organized construct model. Across both the Perpetration (Section A) and Victimization (Section B) scales, the instrument isolates three primary structural dimensions:

1. Physical Bullying and Physical Victimization

Physical bullying involves overt, unprovoked acts of bodily aggression, intentional invasion of personal physical space, the instrumental use of bodily force to intimidate or dominate another peer, and purposeful destruction of property. In Section A, items evaluate actions such as pushing, shoving, hitting, slapping, tripping, crashing into someone on purpose, and throwing objects. In Section B, the physical victimization dimension tracks the receipt of these abusive acts alongside property damage and overt threats of physical harm. Psychometrically, physical aggression demonstrates high observable salience, low ambiguity, and strong factor loadings; however, it tends to show a declining developmental frequency across mid-to-late adolescence as cognitive self-regulation develops and social sanctions against physical violence strengthen.

2. Verbal Bullying and Verbal Victimization

Verbal peer aggression encompasses direct, vocalized attacks targeted at diminishing the dignity, self-concept, physical appearance, or emotional well-being of the peer. Manifest behaviors include name-calling, teasing, making rude or insulting remarks, swearing at peers, ridiculing, and making jokes at the peer’s expense. Verbal victimization is widely recognized as the most pervasive and frequently reported form of school-based harassment. Due to its subjective permeability, verbal aggression can range from playful banter (jocular teasing) to hostile, systematic degradation designed to establish interpersonal dominance and assert social hierarchy.

3. Social / Relational Bullying and Social / Relational Victimization

Social or relational bullying involves the calculated manipulation of social networks, peer dynamics, and interpersonal affiliations to inflict psychological distress or social isolation upon a target. Rooted in the theoretical work of Nicki R. Crick and colleagues, relational aggression relies on non-physical mechanisms: spreading malicious rumors, inciting peer exclusion, purposefully ignoring peers, giving mean looks to enforce ostracism, and compelling mutual friends to turn against an individual. Relational victimization captures the painful psychological experience of intentional social disenfranchisement, including being ostracized from activities, excluded from gatherings, and systematically marginalized from the peer collective. This dimension exhibits profound longitudinal associations with adolescent internalizing disorders, including major depressive disorder, generalized social anxiety, and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the APRI draws upon several major theoretical paradigms in developmental psychology, clinical psychopathology, and social ecological systems:

The Social-Ecological Model of Aggression

Pioneered by Urie Bronfenbrenner and adapted for school bullying by researchers such as Dorothy Espelage and Susan Swearer, the social-ecological perspective views peer aggression not simply as an individual psychiatric deficit, but as a systemic transactional phenomenon emerging from reciprocal interactions between individual ontogenetic characteristics, microsystemic peer networks, school climate, mesosystemic home-school dynamics, and macrosystemic cultural norms. The APRI operationalizes this framework by anchoring behaviors strictly to the ecological context of the school (“THIS YEAR at this school”), isolating how peer contexts shape behavioral frequency.

Participant Role Theory

Formulated by Christina Salmivalli, Participant Role Theory posits that bullying is fundamentally a group process sustained by structural roles: bullies (ringleaders and assistants), targets (victims), reinforcers, defenders, and outsiders. The APRI explicitly recognizes the fluidity and overlap of these roles by administering complementary perpetration and victimization dimensions simultaneously. This architecture allows the empirical separation of reactive aggression (frequently demonstrated by bully-victims with high emotional reactivity and executive dysfunction) from proactive, instrumental aggression (frequently displayed by pure bullies possessing high social cognition and low affective empathy).

Multidimensional Self-Concept and Social Information Processing Theories

The APRI’s methodological construction reflects Herbert W. Marsh’s multidimensional construct validation model, which argues that human psychological functioning cannot be adequately represented by global indicators without losing critical discriminant validity. Concurrently, the instrument integrates Kenneth Dodge and Nicki Crick’s Social Information Processing (SIP) model, which conceptualizes peer interactions through recursive cognitive steps: cue encoding, cue interpretation, goal clarification, response access, response decision, and behavioral enactment. Aggressive adolescents systematically exhibit hostile attribution biases and positive outcome expectancies for aggression across physical, verbal, and relational domains, all of which are reflected in the behavioral markers measured by the APRI.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the APRI has been extensively confirmed in large-scale psychometric investigations across diverse international populations, including cohorts in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and various European and East Asian contexts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Parada (2000) using rigorous exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on a normative sample of Australian secondary students (N > 1,200). Testing competing models demonstrated that a multidimensional, six-factor model (three correlated perpetration factors: Physical, Verbal, Social; and three correlated victimization factors: Physical, Verbal, Social) exhibited vastly superior fit compared to single-factor or two-factor (omnibus perpetration vs. omnibus victimization) solutions.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is empirically evidenced by substantial correlations with established behavioral and psychological indices:

• Externalizing Psychopathology: Section A (Bullying Perpetration) correlates strongly and positively with the Conduct Problems (r = .52 to .68) and Hyperactivity/Inattention (r = .34 to .46) subscales of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), as well as with reactive/proactive aggression inventories.
• Internalizing Distress: Section B (Victimization) displays robust positive associations with standardized measures of depressive symptomatology (e.g., Children’s Depression Inventory, r = .48 to .62), generalized anxiety, somatic complaints, and social phobia inventories.
• Multidimensional Self-Concept: In studies utilizing the Self-Description Questionnaire II (SDQ-II), peer victimization scores on the APRI correlate negatively with Peer Relations Self-Concept (r = -.45 to -.58), Physical Appearance Self-Concept, and Emotional Stability Self-Concept.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the factor correlation matrices. Although the physical, verbal, and social subscales within each section share common variance, inter-factor correlations between the latent dimensions typically range between .45 and .70, demonstrating that they are distinct constructs rather than interchangeable manifestations of a single global trait. Furthermore, confirmatory factor models confirm that the correlation between corresponding perpetration and victimization dimensions (e.g., Physical Perpetration with Physical Victimization) remains modest to moderate (r ≈ .20 to .38), precluding common-method variance artifacts and supporting the distinction between perpetrators and targets.

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have supported full configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) measurement invariance across gender (boys vs. girls) and grade levels (junior secondary vs. senior secondary). Demonstrating scalar invariance is crucial, as it confirms that observed mean differences in physical, verbal, or social scores across groups reflect genuine latent construct differences rather than differential item functioning (DIF) or measurement bias.

Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of the APRI reveals excellent internal consistency reliability, composite reliability, and temporal stability across repeated administrations.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Published validation studies across multiple demographic samples consistently report high Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients across all six core subscales:

• Section A: Bullying Perpetration Subscales
  • Physical Bullying: α = .84 – .91
  • Verbal Bullying: α = .86 – .92
  • Social/Relational Bullying: α = .82 – .89
  • Total Perpetration Composite (18 items): α = .92 – .96
• Section B: Bullying Victimization Subscales
  • Physical Victimization: α = .81 – .88
  • Verbal Victimization: α = .85 – .92
  • Social/Relational Victimization: α = .83 – .90
  • Total Victimization Composite (18 items): α = .93 – .95

Item-total correlations across all 36 items typically exceed .50, with minimal improvement in reliability if any single item is deleted, underscoring high internal structural cohesion.

Test-Retest Stability

Studies evaluating temporal stability over short-to-medium intervals (ranging from 4 to 8 weeks) demonstrate test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from r = .71 to r = .84. These findings demonstrate that while the APRI is sensitive to behavioral shifts resulting from targeted interventions or changes in school climate, it captures stable, trait-like individual behavioral patterns across the academic year.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the APRI has been investigated through rigorous structural equation modeling, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Multiple peer-reviewed psychometric evaluations support the theoretical multidimensional taxonomy:

Model Comparisons and Goodness-of-Fit

During initial validation and subsequent independent replications (e.g., Marsh et al., 2004; Parada et al., 2005), several competing structural models were tested against empirical covariance matrices:

• Model 1 (Single Global Factor): Collapsed all 36 items into a general aggression/victimization construct. Fit was exceptionally poor (χ²/df > 12.0, CFI < .70, RMSEA > .11).
• Model 2 (Two-Factor Orthogonal/Oblique Model): Perpetration (18 items) and Victimization (18 items) as broad unidimensional constructs. Fit indices remained inadequate (χ²/df > 7.5, CFI < .82, RMSEA > .085).
• Model 3 (Six-Factor Correlated First-Order Model): Three perpetration factors (Physical, Verbal, Social) and three victimization factors (Physical, Verbal, Social). This model demonstrated superior fit across standard benchmarks:
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .94 – .97
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .93 – .96
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .038 – .049 (90% CI [.034, .045])
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .042
• Model 4 (Higher-Order Hierarchical and Bifactor Formulations): A second-order model specifying two overarching higher-order latent factors (Global Perpetration and Global Victimization) driving the six first-order dimensions also achieves acceptable fit, confirming both the utility of individual subscale profiling and the calculation of overall domain summary scores.

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings (λ) across all items are uniformly high and statistically significant (p < .001). For Section A (Bullying), standardized factor loadings range from .62 to .88 for Physical items, .68 to .85 for Verbal items, and .58 to .81 for Social items. For Section B (Victimization), standardized loadings range from .60 to .86 for Physical, .65 to .87 for Verbal, and .63 to .83 for Social items. Cross-loadings across alternative factors are negligible, demonstrating clean structural differentiation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The APRI is formatted as a standardized, self-report behavioral questionnaire tailored for adolescents aged 11 to 19 years (grades 6 through 12). It can be administered individually, in clinical assessment batteries, or via group administration within classroom settings using paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based survey platforms.

Structural Specifications

• Total Item Count: 36 items (divided into two distinct 18-item sections).
• Section A: Bullying Perpetration (18 items)
  • Verbal Bullying Subscale: Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 (6 items)
  • Social Bullying Subscale: Items 4, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18 (6 items)
  • Physical Bullying Subscale: Items 2, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16 (6 items)
• Section B: Bullying Victimization (18 items)
  • Verbal Victimization Subscale: Items 1, 4, 7, 11, 13, 18 (6 items)
  • Social Victimization Subscale: Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17 (6 items)
  • Physical Victimization Subscale: Items 2, 5, 8, 10, 15, 16 (6 items)
• Response Scale: 6-point behavioral frequency scale:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Sometimes
  • 3 = Once or twice a month
  • 4 = Once a week
  • 5 = Several times a week
  • 6 = Everyday
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale scores are derived by summing the numeric responses of the corresponding 6 items (raw score range per subscale: 6 to 36) or by calculating the mean response (range: 1.0 to 6.0).
  • Composite Perpetration Score = Sum of all 18 items in Section A (range: 18 to 108).
  • Composite Victimization Score = Sum of all 18 items in Section B (range: 18 to 108).
  • Higher scores indicate greater frequency of aggressive perpetration or victimization experiences.
  • In research and epidemiological categorizations (such as the CDC compendium criteria), an operational threshold of “Once or twice a month” (rating ≥ 3) or “Once a week or more” (rating ≥ 4) is frequently applied to classify chronic involvement versus normative, transient conflict.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument was formally introduced in 2000 through an interim test manual and research monograph published by the Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre at the University of Western Sydney, authored by Dr. Roberto H. Parada.

Licensing and Availability: The APRI is an open-access, non-commercial psychological assessment tool available free of charge for academic, empirical, and educational research purposes. It is published in public health resources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compendium: Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011, pp. 44–45). Commercial exploitation, re-packaging within fee-for-service software platforms, or unauthorized modification of items without explicit written consent from the author is strictly prohibited. Researchers wishing to use the scale, adapt it for linguistic translations, or obtain official scoring matrices may contact the author directly:

Roberto Parada, Ph.D.
Centre for Educational Research, School of Education
Western Sydney University, Bankstown Campus, Building 19
Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia
Telephone: +61 2 9772 6747
Email: [email protected]

References

• Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131945
• Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullycompendiumbk-a.pdf
• Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A reciprocal effects model elucidating the complex interplay between bullying, victimization, and self-concept. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the Classroom (pp. 63–109). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012617955-2/50006-2
• Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing.
• Parada, R. H. (2000). Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of participant roles in bullying and victimization of adolescence: An interim test manual and a research monograph: A test manual. Penrith South, DC, Australia: Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, University of Western Sydney.
• Parada, R. H., Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2005). Addressing the challenge of bully/victim measurement: Validation of the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) 2005 International Education Research Conference. Parramatta, Australia: AARE.
• Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)