Delinquent Activities Scale (DAS)

Abstract

The Delinquent Activities Scale (DAS) is an established, specialized psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency, lifetime trajectory, and substance-involved etiology of adolescent delinquent behavior. Developed by University of Rhode Island clinical and behavioral researchers (Reavy, Stein, Paiva, Quina, & Rossi, 2012), the DAS adapts and expands upon foundational epidemiological tools—primarily the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD) from the National Youth Survey (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983)—to capture not only the incidence of 39 discrete criminal and antisocial acts, but also the precise role that psychoactive substances play in each offense. Composed of 40 operationalized items, the DAS employs an event-matrix response format assessing age of onset (first commission), age of recent enactment (last commission), independent occurrence without chemical intoxication, cumulative lifetime frequency, and substance-specific attribution (alcohol, cannabis, and other illicit drugs). Furthermore, the 40th item directly operationalizes affective remorse and antisocial recidivism intent. Psychometric validation studies conducted among justice-involved adolescents confirm a four-dimensional latent structure comprising Predatory Aggression, Stealing and Generalized Delinquency, Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency, and Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior. The instrument demonstrates robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .81 to .94 across subscales), exceptional convergent validity with external juvenile justice records and collateral behavioral rating scales, and pronounced predictive validity regarding institutional misconduct and post-release recidivism. The DAS serves as a critical diagnostic and prognostic tool across juvenile correctional facilities, forensic psychiatric clinics, diversionary intervention programs, and longitudinal developmental criminological investigations.

Keywords

Delinquent Activities Scale, juvenile delinquency, adolescent conduct disorder, forensic psychometrics, substance-involved crime, predatory aggression, behavioral assessment, antisocial behavior, recidivism risk, Self-Reported Delinquency Scale.

Authors

The Delinquent Activities Scale was developed, psychometrically standardized, and validated by an interdisciplinary team of clinical psychologists, criminologists, and behavioral biostatisticians affiliated with the Department of Psychology and the Cancer Prevention Research Center (CPRC) at the University of Rhode Island (Kingston, RI, USA):

• Rhiannon Reavy, Ph.D. — Research Associate and Clinical Specialist, Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island. Specialist in adolescent risk behaviors, juvenile forensic assessment, and psychometric evaluation of correctional populations.
• Lynda A. R. Stein, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, University of Rhode Island; Director of the Forensic Psychology Program. Nationally recognized authority on adolescent substance abuse, motivational interviewing in correctional settings, and intervention modeling for incarcerated youths.
• Andrea L. Paiva, Ph.D. — Associate Research Professor, Cancer Prevention Research Center, University of Rhode Island. Expert in multivariate psychometrics, longitudinal modeling, and behavioral outcome measurement.
• Kathryn Quina, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of Rhode Island. Specialist in trauma, developmental victimology, and forensic clinical interventions.
• Joseph S. Rossi, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Director of Research, Cancer Prevention Research Center, University of Rhode Island. Distinguished psychometrician and biostatistician specializing in structural equation modeling, transtheoretical behavioral modeling, and factor-analytic structural validation.

Purpose

Adolescent criminal behavior and illicit substance consumption are profoundly intertwined public health and juvenile justice challenges. Conventional juvenile assessment instruments have routinely suffered from two diagnostic limitations: they either treat criminal misbehaviors as homogeneous constructs without delineating offense severity, or they evaluate substance use as an isolated correlate rather than an immediate pharmacological or economic catalyst of the offense. The Delinquent Activities Scale (DAS) was constructed specifically to address these methodological deficits.

The primary clinical and empirical purpose of the DAS is to provide an exhaustively granular, multidimensional profile of an adolescent’s antisocial history, chronological progression, and pharmacological context. Rather than merely tabulating a global delinquency index, the DAS dissects the temporal and contextual anatomy of misbehavior. By requiring respondents to specify the exact age at first offense (onset) and age at most recent offense (desistance or ongoing involvement), clinicians and researchers can differentiate between early-onset, chronic persistent antisocial pathways and late-onset, adolescence-limited patterns. This chronological mapping is vital for determining developmental trajectories and staging targeted clinical interventions.

Equally critical is the scale’s systematic interrogation of the substance-crime nexus. For every delinquent behavior endorsed, the DAS isolates whether the youth engaged in the act independently (sober) or under the active influence of alcohol, marijuana, or other illicit substances (e.g., cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, non-prescribed pharmaceuticals), or whether the crime was executed specifically to secure funds for obtaining those substances. This diagnostic dissociation provides unprecedented insight into whether the individual’s illegal activity stems from intrinsic predatory conduct disorder, impulsivity exacerbated by neurodevelopmental immaturity, or drug-seeking compulsivity. In juvenile forensic contexts, this distinction dictates whether therapeutic resource allocation should prioritize intensive criminogenic risk management, specialized substance dependence rehabilitation, or integrated dual-diagnosis treatment protocols.

Furthermore, the DAS integrates an explicit evaluation of post-offense remorse and cognitive egocentrism (Item 40). By measuring whether an adolescent retrospectively validates their actions and asserts an intention to repeat them under comparable contingencies, the DAS furnishes juvenile court adjudicators, probation officers, and institutional treatment teams with an index of callous-unemotional traits and imminent recidivism propensity. Consequently, the instrument functions simultaneously as an epidemiological surveillance tool, an individualized diagnostic assessment, and an evaluative outcome measure to gauge treatment efficacy in custodial and diversionary settings.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct operationalized by the DAS is delinquency, conceptualized as a multi-tiered constellation of legal infractions, aggressive offenses, property crimes, covert deceptions, and status violations. Grounded in advanced behavioral taxonomy, the DAS rejects unilinear models of juvenile deviance, conceptualizing delinquent functioning across four distinct yet correlated latent dimensions, augmented by affective-cognitive remorse evaluation:

1. Predatory Aggression

This subscale captures calculated, highly coercive, and physically destructive behaviors directed against other individuals. The construct reflects overt, instrumentally motivated violence aimed at dominating, injuring, or exploiting human victims. Representative items include attacking someone with intent to seriously hurt or kill, using weapons (guns, knives, broken bottles), strong-arm robbery using physical force against peers, school authorities, or strangers, and engaging in physical cruelty toward people and animals. Psychologically, predatory aggression is tightly coupled with low autonomic arousal, emotional callousness, impaired empathic processing, and severe antisocial personality traits.

2. Stealing and Generalized Delinquency

This latent dimension taps non-violent but legally grave covert property crimes and institutional defiance. It reflects a systematic disregard for property rights and institutional norms. Behaviors subsumed under this construct include grand larceny (stealing property valued at over $50), motor vehicle theft, vehicular breaking-and-entering, fencing or trafficking stolen property, deliberate arson intended to inflict substantial structural damage, and systematic vandalism. Construct-level elevations in generalized delinquency denote ingrained conduct pathology and high levels of instrumental rule violation that frequently generalize across school, home, and community environments.

3. Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency

In contrast to premeditated grand theft, this construct captures opportunistic, low-level property offenses and lifestyle impulsivity. Manifest items include petty theft (stealing items worth under $5 or between$5 and $50), trespassing, public disorderly conduct, unexcused educational truancy, running away from home overnight, violating familial curfews, and engaging in rash, sensation-seeking activities without anticipating negative contingencies. Psychologically, this subscale operationalizes executive dysfunction, deficient delay of gratification, sensation seeking, and the spontaneous, context-reactive misbehaviors characteristic of adolescent neurodevelopmental vulnerability.

4. Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior

This hybrid dimension assesses participation in the illicit narcotics economy alongside peer-mediated physical conflict. It includes the street-level distribution of cannabis, cocaine, crack, heroin, and hallucinogens, integrated with involvement in collective gang warfare and street fights. This construct captures the systemic nexus of criminogenic risk, where youth become embedded in deviant social networks and market-driven violence. Participation reflects advanced social deviance, financial motivation, access to criminal subcultures, and recurrent exposure to violent victimization.

5. Cognitive Remorse and Antisocial Attribution

Represented by the capstone item of the DAS, this affective-cognitive construct evaluates moral evaluation, behavioral accountability, and potential recidivism. It measures the youth’s internalized moral conscience by assessing whether they experience distress/remorse regarding their transgressions or alternatively endorse cognitive rationalizations, neutralization techniques, and unapologetic intentions to repeat the infractions. Deficits in remorse serve as a primary behavioral marker for the DSM-5 “with limited prosocial emotions” specifier for Conduct Disorder.

Theoretical Framework

The Delinquent Activities Scale is situated at the intersection of three major theoretical paradigms in developmental psychopathology, sociological criminology, and psychopharmacology:

1. Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy of Antisocial Behavior

The DAS relies heavily on Terrie E. Moffitt’s dual taxonomy, which bifurcates delinquent trajectories into Life-Course-Persistent (LCP) and Adolescence-Limited (AL) pathways. Moffitt posited that LCP offenders exhibit an early neurodevelopmental vulnerability interacting with criminogenic rearing environments, resulting in aggression that begins in early childhood, escalates across adolescence, and persists into adulthood. Conversely, AL offenders display misbehavior that emerges abruptly in puberty, driven by the “maturity gap”—the temporal discrepancy between biological sexual maturity and access to adult societal autonomy—which usually desists as prosocial adult roles become available. The DAS explicitly incorporates this developmental framework by demanding chronological data on the age of first and last engagement for each offense, allowing empirical demarcation between early-onset predatory offenders and late-onset impulsive offenders.

2. Goldstein’s Tripartite Drug-Crime Nexus

A foundational theoretical contribution of the DAS is its structural incorporation of Paul Goldstein’s tripartite model of drug-related violence (1985). Goldstein identified three distinct mechanisms connecting substance abuse and criminality:

• Psychopharmacological Model: Individuals commit irrational, violent, or impulsive crimes due to acute substance-induced intoxication, emotional disinhibition, cognitive distortion, or neurochemical dysregulation.
• Economic-Compulsive Model: Individuals engage in instrumental crimes (e.g., theft, burglary, robbery, prostitution) primarily to generate financial capital to support an escalating pharmacological dependence.
• Systemic Model: Delinquent activities and violence emerge intrinsically from the illicit market economy of drug trafficking, debt collection, territory disputes, and enforcement of informal codes of justice.

The DAS isolates these dimensions by evaluating sober versus intoxicated offense frequency, documenting illicit drug distribution, and defining substance involvement as both being under the influence and acting specifically to obtain drugs.

3. Elliott’s Integrated Social Control and Strain Theory

Because the DAS directly adapted items from Elliott’s Self-Reported Delinquency Scale, it reflects Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton’s (1985) integrated theoretical framework. This macro-level model synthesizes Hirschi’s social bonding theory, strain theory, and social learning paradigms. It posits that attenuation of conventional social bonds (family, school) combined with exposure to structural strain facilitates affiliation with deviant peer groups, which directly reinforces and models delinquent patterns. The inclusion of status offenses (truancy, running away), relational defiance (hitting parents or teachers), and peer-group violence (gang fights) operationalizes this breakdown of conventional social controls.

Validity

Empirical validation of the Delinquent Activities Scale has confirmed high construct, concurrent, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse samples of justice-involved and high-risk adolescents.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study by Reavy, Stein, Paiva, Quina, and Rossi (2012), structural equation modeling and exploratory-to-confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the hypothesized multi-factor architecture. The four primary factors—Predatory Aggression, Stealing and Generalized Delinquency, Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency, and Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior—demonstrated robust factor determinacy and distinct pattern loadings, substantiating the multidimensional construct validity of the instrument.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

The DAS demonstrates substantial concurrent convergence when benchmarked against official state and juvenile court archival records, including historical arrest counts, formal petitions, and periods of secure detention ($r = .52$ to $.68, p < .001$). Furthermore, concurrent administration of the DAS alongside standard collateral psychometric instruments—such as the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI)—has revealed strong convergent correlations:

• The Predatory Aggression subscale correlates significantly with the MACI Aggressive/Sadistic scale ($r = .61, p < .001$) and YLS/CMI Prior and Current Offenses domain ($r = .58, p < .001$).
• The Stealing and Generalized Delinquency subscale shows high correspondence with collateral property crime convictions and institutional disciplinary write-ups for property destruction ($r = .54$).
• The substance attribution indices on the DAS correlate robustly with established substance severity screeners, including the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-A2) and the CRAFFT screening tool ($r = .64$ to $.72$).

Discriminant Validity

The DAS effectively differentiates between adolescent offenders with substance use disorders alone versus those exhibiting comorbid substance dependence and severe, pervasive conduct disorder. Notably, the subscales discriminate significantly between non-violent property offenders and violent, weapon-carrying offenders. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses demonstrate area-under-the-curve (AUC) values exceeding .82 for the Predatory Aggression subscale in identifying youths with documented institutional infractions for physical violence.

Predictive Validity

Longitudinal studies following youth released from custodial facilities reveal that baseline scores on the DAS provide predictive utility for post-release outcomes. Elevated scores on the Predatory Aggression and Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior subscales, combined with an endorsement of definite lack of remorse on Item 40, significantly predict post-release rearrest, probation violations, and reincarceration within 12 months (Cox proportional hazards ratio $= 2.14, 95% \text{ CI } [1.45, 3.16]$), even after controlling for baseline demographics, age at first arrest, and total lifetime adjudications.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Delinquent Activities Scale has been examined across juvenile justice, clinical residential, and community diversion populations, yielding high metrics of internal consistency and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency

Across validation cohorts (e.g., Reavy et al., 2012; Dembo & Schmeidler, 2003), the overall 39-item behavioral frequency matrix has demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with global Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$) coefficients consistently exceeding .90 ($lpha = .92$ to $.94$). The four individual subscales also maintain acceptable to excellent internal consistency:

• Predatory Aggression: $\alpha = .87 – .91$
• Stealing and Generalized Delinquency: $\alpha = .83 – .88$
• Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency: $\alpha = .79 – .84$
• Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior: $\alpha = .81 – .86$

The substance involvement attribution parameters (sub-indices measuring the number of times alcohol or marijuana were involved) similarly exhibit high composite reliability coefficients ($lpha > .85$).

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluated over intervals ranging from 14 to 30 days among stable juvenile detention samples has demonstrated strong test-retest reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for lifetime behavioral incidence (“ever done”) range between .84 and .92. While lifetime continuous frequency metrics display slight vulnerability to recall decay regarding highly repetitive, high-frequency minor offenses (e.g., truancy or low-value theft), the reliability coefficients for moderate-to-severe offenses (e.g., weapon usage, motor vehicle theft, physical assault) remain high ($r_{tt} = .86 – .93$). The single-item remorse index (Item 40) exhibits moderate to high stability over a 2-week baseline window ($r_{tt} = .76$).

Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the Delinquent Activities Scale was established using classical Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) followed by rigorous Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted on independent split-samples of justice-involved adolescents (Reavy et al., 2012):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial structural extraction was performed using principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that distinct dimensions of criminal behavior share common variance. Scree plot evaluation, Horn’s parallel analysis, and Kaiser-Guttman retention criteria collectively favored a four-factor solution. The four extracted factors accounted for over 56.4% of the total variance across the item pool:

• Factor 1: Predatory Aggression: High positive loadings ($lambda > .50$) were observed for items assessing attacking with intent to kill or injure (.76), using weapons such as bats, broken bottles, or guns (.71), strong-arm robbery of peers (.68) and adults (.65), and cruelty to people (.62).
• Factor 2: Stealing and Generalized Delinquency: Items loading heavily onto this dimension included motor vehicle theft (.74), breaking and entering into vehicles or structures (.69), fencing stolen property (.63), grand theft over $50 (.58), and intentional arson (.54).
• Factor 3: Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency: Items loading prominently included petty theft under $5 (.67), petty theft between$5 and $50 (.64), public disorderliness (.59), running away overnight (.56), and unauthorized vehicle joyriding (.51).
• Factor 4: Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior: This factor was characterized by strong loadings from selling marijuana (.82), selling cocaine/crack (.80), selling hard narcotics like heroin/LSD (.77), and participation in collective gang conflicts (.58).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent CFA validation utilizing robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR) to account for multivariate non-normality and zero-inflation demonstrated satisfactory overall model fit for the four-factor oblique model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .931
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .924
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 ($90% \text{ CI } [.042, .054]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .052

Alternative unidimensional models failed to achieve acceptable fit criteria ($ ext{CFI} < .75; text{RMSEA} > .11$), empirically confirming that adolescent delinquency must be modeled as a multidimensional construct rather than a singular deviance continuum. Tests of measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) confirmed that the four-factor structure remains invariant across gender cohorts and racially diverse adolescent subgroups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Delinquent Activities Scale is formatted as an extensive, multi-column event-history matrix comprising 40 items. Below is an exhaustive summary of the instrument’s technical characteristics:

• Instrument Type: Structured self-report psychometric questionnaire / clinician-administered diagnostic interview.
• Target Population: Adolescents and emerging adults aged 12 to 21 years old; optimized for forensic, juvenile justice, residential therapeutic, and outpatient clinical populations.
• Administration Time: Approximately 20 to 35 minutes depending on the individual’s reading literacy and extent of offending history.
• Structure of Items 1 through 39 (Behavioral Grid): Each item presents a specific antisocial or delinquent misbehavior. For every endorsed item, the respondent completes a multi-parameter data recording row:
• Age First Did This: Chronological age (in years) of initial commission.
• Age Last Did This: Chronological age (in years) of most recent commission.
• Ever Done Without Alcohol/Drugs Involved: Dichotomous indication (Yes / No) confirming whether the behavior ever transpired in a fully sober, non-substance-seeking state.
• Number of Times Ever Happened: Cumulative lifetime continuous incidence count (or past-year incidence, depending on diagnostic timeframe).
• Number of Times Ever Happened With Alcohol Involved: Cumulative frequency of the behavior occurring while intoxicated with alcohol or while attempting to procure alcohol.
• Number of Times Ever Happened With Marijuana Involved: Cumulative frequency occurring while under the acute influence of cannabis or attempting to obtain cannabis.
• Number of Times Ever Happened With Another Drug Involved: Cumulative frequency occurring while under the influence of, or seeking, other illicit substances (cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, hallucinogens).
• Structure of Item 40 (Remorse and Recidivism Orientation): A forced-choice affective-cognitive evaluation item measuring moral accountability and prospective antisocial intent, scored across a 5-point ordinal continuum:
• Not appropriate (Rare to check; reserved for respondents with zero endorsed misbehaviors)
• No, definitely not (Definite remorse: indicates prosocial emotional processing and rejection of future offenses)
• No, probably not (Probable remorse: indicates moderate ambivalence with a low probability of intentional recurrence)
• Probably do the same (Probable lack of remorse: indicates cognitive neutralization and high recidivism risk)
• Definitely the same (Definite lack of remorse: reflects callous-unemotional endorsement and severe antisocial orientation)
• Scoring and Quantification Rules:
• Prevalence Scores: Dichotomous sum of items endorsed lifetime (0 to 39).
• Frequency Scores: Continuous sums of total occurrences, which may be transformed logarithmically ($\log_{10}[X + 1]$) or categorized to normalize positively skewed distributions.
• Subscale Factor Scores: Computed by summing frequency or prevalence endorsements within each factor: Predatory Aggression (items 6, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29); Stealing and Generalized Delinquency (items 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 30, 31); Stealing and Impulsive Delinquency (items 4, 5, 13, 16, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39); Drug Dealing and Aggressive Behavior (items 7, 8, 9, 14, 15).
• Substance Attribution Ratios: Calculated by dividing substance-involved frequencies by total lifetime offense frequencies, generating percentage indices of alcohol-facilitated, cannabis-facilitated, and drug-facilitated criminality.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Delinquent Activities Scale was formally published in its standardized and psychometrically validated iteration in 2012 by Rhiannon Reavy, Lynda A. R. Stein, Andrea Paiva, Kathryn Quina, and Joseph S. Rossi in the journal Addictive Behaviors (Elsevier). The instrument incorporates foundational public-domain items adapted from the National Youth Survey Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD) originally developed by Delbert S. Elliott and colleagues (1983) under funding from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

The DAS is classified as an academic psychometric instrument available for legitimate scientific research, educational investigations, and clinical diagnostic applications without mandatory commercial licensing fees. Academic researchers and qualified clinicians may typically utilize the scale provided that original authorship is fully cited and copyright permissions are observed pursuant to Fair Use conventions and policies established by Elsevier and the originating authors at the University of Rhode Island. Users wishing to deploy the DAS commercially, integrate it into proprietary software systems, or implement it within statewide correctional enterprise databases should secure formal permission from the corresponding validation author, Dr. Lynda A. R. Stein, Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island.

References

• Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, J. (2003). A classification of high-risk use. Crime & Delinquency, 49(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702251058
• Dembo, R., Walters, W., & Meyers, K. (2005). A practice/research collaborative: An innovative approach to identifying and responding to psychosocial functioning problems and recidivism risk among juvenile arrestees. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(3), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v41n03_03
• Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 1976–1980 (National Youth Survey Report No. 26). Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.
• Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Goldstein, P. J. (1985). The drugs and violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 15(4), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204268501500406
• Huizinga, D. (1991). Assessing violent behavior with self-reports. In J. S. Milner (Ed.), Neuropsychology of aggression (pp. 44–76). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3882-0_3
• Huizinga, D., & Esbensen, F. (1988). Common measures of the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
• 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
• Reavy, R., Stein, L. A. R., Paiva, A., Quina, K., & Rossi, J. S. (2012). Validation of the delinquent activities scale for incarcerated adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 37(7), 875–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.03.013

Items of the Scale