Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement

1. Abstract

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale is an empirically validated psychometric subscale designed to measure an adolescent’s perception of available pathways, invitations, and structural openings for meaningful engagement within their primary social systems, specifically the family environment. Originally developed by the Social Development Research Group (SDRG) at the University of Washington as an integral component of the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) and the Student Survey of Risk and Protective Factors, this brief three-item instrument operationalizes a foundational protective factor within Hawkins and Catalano’s Social Development Model (SDM). Administered widely across general populations of youth in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 (approximate ages 11 to 18), the measure employs an asymmetrical four-point categorical response format ranging from “NO!” (definite negative) through “no” (mild negative) and “yes” (mild positive) to “YES!” (definite positive). Psychometric investigations across multi-state epidemiologic samples and international cross-cultural adaptations have demonstrated robust internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically spanning .70 to .82), solid test-retest stability, unidimensional structural validity verified through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and strong concurrent and predictive validity against targeted outcomes including substance abuse, delinquency, academic disengagement, and psychological distress. By evaluating youth opportunities to participate in enjoyable shared family activities, contribute substantively to collective decision-making, and solicit instrumental and emotional support when experiencing personal difficulties, the scale provides prevention scientists, developmental psychologists, and public health practitioners with a streamlined, cost-effective, and theoretically sophisticated tool for epidemiological surveillance, prevention needs assessment, and intervention evaluation.

2. Keywords

Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement, Social Development Model, protective factors, adolescent development, family functioning, Communities That Care, risk and protective factors, developmental psychometrics, prosocial bonding, youth prevention science

3. Authors

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement subscale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by leading prevention scientists affiliated with the Social Development Research Group (SDRG) within the School of Social Work at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States:

• J. David Hawkins, Ph.D. — Endowed Professor Emeritus of Prevention, School of Social Work, University of Washington; Co-developer of the Social Development Model and Founding Director of SDRG.
• Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Social Work, University of Washington; Co-developer of the Social Development Model and former Director of SDRG.
• Michael W. Arthur, Ph.D. — Research Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychology and School of Social Work, University of Washington; Primary lead on the design, statewide standardization, and psychometric validation of the Communities That Care Youth Survey.
• Sabina B. Pollard, Ph.D., and Kevin P. Haggerty, Ph.D. — Longtime investigators at the Social Development Research Group contributing to the ongoing empirical validation of risk and protective factor assessment tools across longitudinal cohorts.

Institutional Contact Information:
Social Development Research Group (SDRG)
University of Washington, School of Social Work
9725 3rd Ave. NE, Suite 401, Seattle, WA 98115-2024, USA
Website: https://www.sdrg.org/

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale is to assess the degree to which adolescents perceive genuine, actionable, and developmentally enriching invitations from their environment—specifically their immediate parental and familial system—to participate constructively in shared social life. In prevention science and developmental psychopathology, understanding why certain adolescents thrive or maintain psychological resilience despite living in environments saturated with environmental hazards requires rigorous measurement of protective factors. This instrument was engineered to translate the theoretical construct of developmental opportunity into a brief, low-burden assessment that can be implemented at scale without compromising psychometric integrity.

In research contexts, the scale functions as an indispensable predictor and mediating variable within longitudinal structural equation models examining developmental trajectories. Under the architecture of the Social Development Model, opportunities for involvement serve as the mandatory initial catalyst in a prosocial developmental pathway: when youth are granted opportunities to participate, they invest effort and develop behavioral competence; when their involvement is met with positive reinforcement and recognition, they cultivate strong emotional attachments and social bonds to the socializing unit; and once bonded, they internalize the prosocial norms, values, and behavioral prohibitions of that unit. Consequently, researchers employ this scale to quantify the precise degree to which family-based protective mechanisms buffer against the neurodevelopmental and behavioral vulnerabilities associated with early substance initiation, antisocial peer affiliations, and school failure.

In clinical, community, and public health settings, the scale is routinely deployed as an essential module of epidemiological surveillance programs, such as statewide prevention needs assessments and community-level monitoring initiatives guided by the Communities That Care operating system. By administering the scale across entire school districts or regional youth cohorts in grades 6 through 12, public health authorities and social service agencies can construct granular, community-specific risk and protective factor profiles. These community profiles identify whether low prosocial involvement opportunities represent an elevated area of community vulnerability. When aggregate scores indicate deficits in family involvement opportunities, intervention planners can deploy targeted, evidence-based parenting training programs (such as Guiding Good Practice, Strengthening Families Program, or Parents Who Care) designed specifically to increase reciprocal parent-child interactions, scaffold shared recreation, and institutionalize democratic family problem-solving structures.

Furthermore, in family therapy, outpatient adolescent mental health clinics, and child welfare diversion programs, the three items serve as a rapid clinical screening device. Clinicians utilize youth responses to assess systemic family climate, perceived parental accessibility, and adolescent agency within the home. A low score on item 2 (“My parents ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made”), for example, immediately alerts the clinician to an authoritarian or disengaged parenting dynamic wherein the youth experiences systemic disenfranchisement, signaling the therapeutic need for collaborative family communication protocols and parent guidance interventions.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the scale is Perceived Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement in the Family. Within the broader taxonomy of developmental assets and ecological systems frameworks, this construct does not measure parental personality traits or objective hours of contact; rather, it taps the adolescent’s subjective, phenomenological appraisal of whether their familial ecosystem affords accessible, welcoming, and developmentally responsive avenues for prosocial interaction, collaborative agency, and emotional communion.

Prosocial involvement encompasses behaviors that are socially constructive, cooperative, mutually beneficial, and congruent with non-deviant societal values. However, before an individual can engage prosocially, the ecological niche must provide accessible structures or “affordances” for such behavior. In the context of parent-adolescent dynamics, this psychological construct is differentiated into three critical experiential facets, directly captured by the three scale indicators:

1. Shared Experiential and Recreational Opportunities

Operationalized by the item “My parents give me lots of chances to do fun things with them,” this facet captures the structural presence of shared, non-conflictual, positive-valence activities between youth and their parental figures. Leisure and recreational engagement represent the foundational bedrock of positive family affect. During early and middle adolescence, peer orientation intensifies, and parent-child interactions often shift toward instrumental maintenance, academic monitoring, or behavioral discipline. When parents actively preserve spaces for enjoyable, mutual activities, they establish an affective reserve that neutralizes everyday familial friction. This facet reflects the availability of playful, engaging, and companionable interactions that render the family context an attractive domain for social investment.

2. Autonomy-Supportive Democratic Agency in Family Governance

Operationalized by the item “My parents ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made,” this dimension measures the adolescent’s perceived voice and communicative power within family decision-making structures. This facet directly aligns with self-determination theory’s construct of autonomy support. Rather than experiencing the family as a purely autocratic or hierarchical system wherein rules and decisions are unilaterally imposed, the adolescent perceives that their opinions, cognitive perspectives, and preferences are sought, listened to, and integrated. This shared decision-making bridges the developmental transition between childhood obedience and emerging adult autonomy, promoting psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, and a genuine personal stake in family outcomes.

3. Emotional Accessibility and Instrumental Help-Seeking Safety

Operationalized by the item “If I had a personal problem, I could ask my mom or dad for help,” this facet assesses the adolescent’s perception of their parents as secure attachment bases and reliable sources of instrumental and emotional assistance. As adolescents confront complex social, academic, and affective dilemmas, the willingness to seek parental assistance requires an underlying perception of safety—confidence that disclosure will be met with empathy, practical guidance, and developmental scaffolding rather than punitive judgment, dismissal, or hyper-reactive anger. This facet bridges perceived opportunity with felt security, establishing the parent as an available, responsive, and trustworthy resource during moments of subjective vulnerability.

Collectively, these three facets do not function as isolated behaviors; they represent an integrated psychological climate of familial receptivity. When an adolescent perceives that their home offers fun shared experiences, respects their developing cognitive agency, and provides safe, unconditional help-seeking mechanisms, their psychological representation of the family is characterized by high protective salience, directly discouraging disengagement, rebellion, and externalized problem behaviors.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale is explicitly anchored in the Social Development Model (SDM), a comprehensive developmental theory formulated by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano. The SDM synthesizes the core principles of three major traditions in sociological and psychological criminology: Social Control Theory (Hirschi, 1969), Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1947), and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977; Akers, 1977).

The foundational premise of the SDM is that human behavior is guided by social bonding to primary socializing institutions (the family, the school, peer groups, and community organizations). Strong prosocial bonds act as an internal social control mechanism that inhibits delinquent, substance-using, and antisocial impulses because an individual who values their relationships and status within a prosocial group will avoid behaviors that jeopardize those critical bonds. The model hypothesizes a sequential, transactional developmental cascade through which these protective social bonds are forged:

1. Opportunities: The socializing unit must present the youth with clear, frequent, and accessible opportunities to participate actively in meaningful, developmentally appropriate activities. Without structural opportunities, no interaction can occur.
2. Skills: In order to utilize these opportunities successfully, the young person must possess or be guided to develop interpersonal, cognitive, and behavioral skills.
3. Recognition and Reinforcement: When the young person engages in available opportunities using their skills, the socializing unit must respond with positive reinforcement, validation, affection, and tangible rewards.
4. Attachment and Commitment (Social Bond): The predictable receipt of positive reinforcement following skilled involvement leads to reciprocal emotional attachment to the individuals involved and psychological commitment to the socializing institution.
5. Belief in the Shared Moral Order: Securely bonded individuals internalize the prosocial values, moral codes, and behavioral standards of that institution, which actively deters engagement in health-compromising or delinquent behaviors.

Within this precise theoretical sequence, Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement constitutes the indispensable catalyst. If a familial system fails to offer opportunities for meaningful participation, the downstream developmental cascade cannot initiate: skills cannot be practiced, recognition cannot be elicited, attachment cannot coalesce, and the adolescent remains unbonded and psychologically detached from the family. Such an unbonded adolescent is profoundly vulnerable to deviant peer selection, as alternative social systems (such as antisocial peer cliques or street gangs) readily provide alternative, deviant avenues for involvement, competence, and recognition.

Beyond the SDM, the scale heavily resonates with Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory. Within Bronfenbrenner’s framework, the parent-child dyad represents the core microsystem wherein “proximal processes”—enduring forms of reciprocal interaction over extended periods—drive developmental outcomes. The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale directly taps the qualitative vitality and accessibility of these proximal processes. Similarly, from the vantage point of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the three scale items reflect the psychological satisfaction of the core needs for relatedness (fun shared activities, help with problems) and autonomy (being consulted before decisions are made), fostering intrinsic motivation for prosocial compliance and emotional well-being.

7. Validity

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale has undergone rigorous empirical validation across multiple large-scale, population-based epidemiologic cohorts, longitudinal prevention trials, and diverse socio-demographic strata within the United States, Australia, and numerous international jurisdictions.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity has been repeatedly established through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies conducted on large, diverse youth cohorts. In foundational validation work by Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, and Baglioni (2002) utilizing a sample of over 72,000 students across six U.S. states, the three items demonstrated strong, unequivocal convergent loading on their designated latent protective factor. Factor loadings consistently exceed .65 to .80, indicating that the indicators share extensive variance and cleanly define the target construct without significant cross-loadings onto neighboring family-domain scales (such as Family Conflict, Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Drug Use, or Family History of Antisocial Behavior).

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by significant, theoretically coherent correlations with parallel measures of family functioning, authoritative parenting styles, and positive youth development indicators:

• Positive, robust correlations ($r = .55$ to $.68, p < .001$) are observed with the Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (Family) subscale, confirming that opportunities and reinforcements function as tightly coupled developmental components within the Social Development Model.
• Substantial positive correlations ($r = .48$ to $.62$) emerge between this scale and standardized instruments measuring parental warmth, maternal/paternal attachment (e.g., the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), and family cohesion (e.g., FACES-III).
• Conversely, significant inverse correlations ($r = -.35$ to $-.52, p < .001$) are consistently found between Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement and scales measuring Family Conflict, perceived parental neglect, and authoritarian/punitive discipline practices.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Extensive longitudinal data from the Seattle Social Development Project and the multi-state Community Youth Development Study (CYDS) demonstrate that higher scores on the Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement subscale significantly predict long-term protective outcomes. Specifically, hierarchical logistic regression analyses reveal that after controlling for baseline socio-demographic variables and prior problem behaviors:

• Elevated family involvement opportunities in 6th and 8th grade predict significantly reduced odds of past-month alcohol, cigarette, and illicit drug use in 10th and 12th grade (odds ratios typically ranging between $0.70$ and $0.82$).
• High baseline scores significantly attenuate the probability of adolescent violent criminal offending, property delinquency, school truancy, and gang membership.
• Moderation analyses confirm a significant buffering effect: among youth exposed to high community-level crime or peer drug use, those reporting high family opportunities for prosocial involvement exhibit substantially lower rates of problem behavior escalation than peers lacking such family opportunities.

8. Reliability

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement subscale exhibits robust and consistent reliability metrics across diverse demographic populations, age groups, and survey administrations, particularly noteworthy given its concise three-item structure.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In standard psychometric evaluations of short scales, internal consistency coefficients above .70 are considered strong indicators of reliability, especially for instruments containing fewer than five items where Cronbach’s alpha is mathematically constrained by scale length. Across foundational and contemporary psychometric studies:

• Arthur et al. (2002): In the initial normative standardization across multiple statewide administrations ($N > 72,000$), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) for the Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (Family) subscale was calculated at .76 in 6th grade, .78 in 8th grade, .80 in 10th grade, and .81 in 12th grade, illustrating a slight developmental increase in internal consistency as adolescents’ cognitive appraisal of family dynamics becomes more differentiated.
• Glaser, Van Horn, Arthur, & Hawkins (2005): Multi-sample measurement invariance investigations reported alpha coefficients consistently between .75 and .82 across diverse racial and ethnic youth cohorts (including Caucasian, African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American adolescents).
• International Adaptations: In Australian cross-national validation trials (Beyers et al., 2004), the subscale achieved an internal consistency of $lpha = .77$, confirming cross-national stability.
• Composite Reliability: In structural equation modeling applications using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Raykov’s composite reliability ($
  ho$) and McDonald’s \omega ($omega$) consistently range from .78 to .83, providing evidence that the items tap a single underlying true-score variance without substantial measurement error artifacts.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Short-term test-retest reliability was evaluated during survey development phases over intervals spanning two to four weeks, yielding intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging between .72 and .79, demonstrating that youth perceptions of family opportunities remain stable in the absence of acute systemic family crises. Longitudinal stability coefficients across a one-year lag typically hover between .45 and .55, reflecting both meaningful rank-order stability and sensitive developmental responsiveness to normative shifts in adolescent individuation and evolving family relationship dynamics.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale has been subjected to rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across multiple large-scale developmental datasets.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial instrument development by the Social Development Research Group, full battery items spanning the family domain were subjected to principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblique (Promax) rotation to accommodate expected theoretical correlations between protective factors. The three items designated for Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement loaded unambiguously on a distinct, single latent factor. Eigenvalues for this factor substantially exceeded unity (typically $1.85$ to $2.15$), explaining greater than 62% to 71% of the total item variance. The empirical factor pattern matrix revealed high primary loadings for all three indicators:

• “My parents give me lots of chances to do fun things with them” — Standardized loading: .76 to .84
• “My parents ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made” — Standardized loading: .68 to .77
• “If I had a personal problem, I could ask my mom or dad for help” — Standardized loading: .73 to .81

Cross-loadings onto other family constructs (such as Parental Rewards for Prosocial Involvement, Family Supervision, or Family Conflict) consistently remained below .18, demonstrating exceptional structural clarity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

In subsequent CFA validations using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) and weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation for categorical data, the hypothesized unidimensional model has consistently demonstrated exemplary fit to the empirical data. In a baseline single-factor CFA model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically $ge .990$ (often saturated at $1.000$ in just-identified three-indicator models, or $ge .985$ when modeled as a subfactor within higher-order family protective factor CFA models).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically $ge .985$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $le .038$ (90% CI: $.022 – .051$), meeting the strictest criteria for close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $le .021$.

Measurement Invariance Across Subgroups

To verify that the scale measures the exact same psychological construct with identical measurement properties across diverse demographic segments, researchers have conducted multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). Full configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) invariance have been empirically established across:

• Gender Groups: Factor loadings and item intercepts do not differ significantly between adolescent males and females ($Delta ext{CFI} < .010, Delta ext{RMSEA} < .015$), confirming that scale scores can be directly compared without gender bias.
• Grade / Age Cohorts: Longitudinal and cross-sectional invariance across 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grades supports the valid assessment of developmental trajectories across early to late adolescence.
• Racial and Ethnic Subgroups: Multi-group testing across White, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander cohorts supports metric and scalar equivalence, ensuring unbiased cross-cultural epidemiological comparison.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale is structured as a streamlined, self-administered questionnaire subscale optimized for school-based surveys, epidemiological studies, and clinical intakes.

• Instrument Name: Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Scale (Family Domain)
• Parent Instrument: Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS) / Student Survey of Risk and Protective Factors; published within the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Core Measures (pp. 165–167)
• Target Population: Adolescents and youth in the general population, specifically standardized for students in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 (ages 11 to 18)
• Administration Format: Pencil-and-paper self-report questionnaire or secure online/computerized survey administration
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes when administered as an isolated subscale; 35 to 50 minutes when completed as part of the full omnibus survey battery
• Number of Items: 3 items
• Response Format: A four-point categorical rating scale featuring explicit capitalization and punctuation designed to anchor valence and cognitive conviction:
  • NO! — Completely untrue / strongly negative conviction
  • no — Mostly untrue / mild negative conviction
  • yes — Mostly true / mild positive conviction
  • YES! — Completely true / strongly positive conviction
• Scoring Protocol and Guidelines:
  • Numerical Item Recoding: Items are coded on a standard 1 to 4 integer scale:
    • NO! = 1
    • no = 2
    • yes = 3
    • YES! = 4
  • Reverse Scoring: None. All three items are keyed in the positive direction; higher raw ratings reflect greater perceived opportunities for prosocial involvement.
  • Scale Score Calculation: The overall subscale score is computed as the arithmetic mean of the three valid items (Mean Score = Sum of Item Scores / 3), yielding an individual score range from 1.00 to 4.00. Alternatively, a summed composite score ranging from 3 to 12 may be utilized.
  • Missing Data Handling: According to SDRG survey scoring standards, if an adolescent omits or invalidates more than one item on this three-item scale, the subscale score is treated as missing. If exactly one item is missing, the mean of the remaining two items may be imputed.
  • Cut-off and Normative Interpretation: In public health needs assessments, SDRG utilizes national or state reference normative cut-points (frequently dichotomizing youth into “Protected” vs. “Not Protected” based on whether their score exceeds the 50th or 55th percentile of the baseline normative comparison sample). Higher continuous scores indicate higher protective buffering against adolescent delinquency, externalizing disorders, and substance initiation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale was developed in the late 1990s through federally funded research grants awarded to the Social Development Research Group (SDRG) at the University of Washington, led by J. David Hawkins, Ph.D., and Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D. The primary validation and nationwide normative standards were formally published in 2002 (Arthur et al., 2002) and integrated into federal measurement toolkits, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Core Measures.

Licensing and Fee Structure: The instrument resides in the public domain. As a federally supported public health assessment tool, there are no licensing fees, royalties, or commercial purchase requirements associated with administering the scale. Researchers, school districts, clinicians, and community coalitions are legally permitted to reproduce, administer, score, and evaluate the instrument free of charge in scholarly research, educational assessments, and clinical practice.

Conditions of Use: Although freely accessible, standard scientific attribution conventions require that users properly cite the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington and the foundational publication (Arthur et al., 2002) in all published reports, monographs, and academic papers resulting from its deployment. Alteration of the original question stems or response anchors is strongly discouraged to maintain compatibility with established statewide and national normative datasets.

12. References

The following peer-reviewed articles, federal documentation, and foundational theoretical texts support the development, psychometric validation, and operational deployment of the Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale:

• Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.
• Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0202600601
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Beyers, J. M., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: The United States and Australia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.08.015
• Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527623.007
• Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (CSAP). (2001). Core measures for evaluating prevention programs. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Glaser, R. R., Van Horn, M. L., Arthur, M. W., & Hawkins, J. D. (2005). Measurement properties of the Communities That Care Youth Survey across demographic groups. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-004-0990-4
• Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
• Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). J. B. Lippincott.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)