Self-Control Rating Scale (SCRS)

Abstract

The Self-Control Rating Scale (SCRS) is a 33-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate cognitive and behavioral self-control versus impulsivity in children aged 5 through 12 years. Developed by clinical psychologists Philip C. Kendall and Lauren E. Wilcox in 1979, the instrument relies on adult informants—primarily classroom teachers and parents—who observe the child across educational and social environments. Informants rate each item along a 7-point Likert response scale anchored from 1 ("never") to 7 ("always"). The SCRS was constructed within a cognitive-behavioral framework to address the lack of standardized, ecologically valid assessment tools sensitive to treatment changes in clinical child psychology, particularly regarding cognitive-behavioral interventions, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and disruptive classroom conduct. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate exceptional internal consistency, with initial validation studies reporting a Cronbach’s alpha of .98, and robust test-retest reliability across a 3- to 4-week interval (r = .84). Factor analytic studies have historically supported a strong unidimensional factor capturing general self-control versus impulsivity, alongside minor subordinate dimensions reflecting cognitive deliberate planning, interpersonal cooperation, task persistence, and motoric restlessness. The SCRS exhibits solid convergent validity with laboratory paradigms of impulsivity, including Kagan’s Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT) and the Porteus Maze Test, as well as high discriminative validity in differentiating non-referred youth from clinic-referred populations characterized by impulse-control deficits. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the instrument’s theoretical roots, psychometric architecture, diagnostic utility, cross-cultural applications, and operational scoring procedures.

Keywords

Self-Control Rating Scale, SCRS, Philip C. Kendall, child impulsivity, cognitive-behavioral assessment, self-regulation, executive function, behavioral inhibition, teacher rating scale, ADHD assessment

Authors

The Self-Control Rating Scale was authored by Philip C. Kendall, Ph.D., ABPP, and Lauren E. Wilcox, Ph.D.

• Philip C. Kendall, Ph.D., ABPP: Distinguished University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Kendall is an internationally recognized authority in child and adolescent clinical psychology, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), childhood anxiety disorders, and developmental psychopathology. He has served as editor of leading scientific journals, including the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and is the director of the Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders Clinic (CAADC) at Temple University.
• Lauren E. Wilcox, Ph.D.: Clinical child psychologist who collaborated with Dr. Kendall during the late 1970s at the University of Minnesota, contributing foundational empirical work on childhood self-regulation, behavioral ratings, and cognitive intervention strategies.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Control Rating Scale is to provide an objective, reliable, and ecologically valid metric of a child’s capacity to exercise cognitive and behavioral self-control across daily academic, interpersonal, and familial situations. In the late 1970s, psychological research into childhood self-regulation relied heavily on experimental laboratory measures such as the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT) or delay-of-gratification paradigms. While valuable for isolating discrete cognitive processes, these laboratory tasks frequently suffered from limited ecological validity, weak cross-setting generalization, and modest correlations with actual behavioral challenges observed by educators and parents.

Kendall and Wilcox designed the SCRS to bridge this methodological divide by operationalizing self-control as a continuous behavioral construct. The scale captures the degree to which a child’s behavior can be described as reflective, planful, and regulated by internalized rules, as opposed to impulsive, haphazard, stimulus-driven, and noncompliant. Specifically, the scale was intended to fulfill three distinct diagnostic and research objectives:

• Treatment Outcome Evaluation: Serving as a treatment-sensitive metric to measure the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions, such as self-instructional training, problem-solving skills therapy, and contingency management protocols in reducing classroom disruption and impulsivity.
• Screening and Differential Diagnosis: Assisting clinicians, school psychologists, and pediatric specialists in screening for clinically significant impulse-control deficits commonly associated with externalizing disorders, including ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and childhood conduct problems.
• Ecological Behavioral Assessment: Quantifying behavioral patterns in naturalistic classroom settings where self-regulation demands—such as waiting in line, following multistep instructions, sustaining attention on academic tasks, and cooperating with peers—are most pronounced.

By relying on observers who have prolonged exposure to the child over weeks or months, the SCRS synthesizes hundreds of daily behavioral events into a standardized score. Consequently, it minimizes the transient situational variance inherent in one-time psychoeducational testing sessions.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the SCRS is self-control in children, defined conceptually as the deliberate capacity to inhibit immediate behavioral impulses, maintain goal-directed focus in the face of competing distractions, evaluate behavioral consequences prior to acting, and employ internal verbal or cognitive mediators to regulate overt motor output. Within the SCRS framework, self-control and impulsivity are viewed along a continuous bipolar spectrum: self-controlled children deliberate, plan, delay gratification, and adapt their behaviors to situational rules, whereas impulsive children act without forethought, seek immediate reinforcement, struggle with behavioral inhibition, and exhibit frequent motoric and verbal interruptions.

Although Kendall and Wilcox developed the SCRS as a globally coherent, unifactorial instrument, item content systematically samples several interconnected facets of cognitive-behavioral self-regulation:

1. Behavioral Inhibition and Motoric Regulation

This facet assesses the child’s ability to suppress inappropriate motor impulses, remain seated when expected, refrain from grabbing items, and modulate physical arousal. Items tapping this domain evaluate whether the child sits still (Item 12), refrains from grabbing others’ belongings (Item 20), watches where they are going (Item 23), and demonstrates the capacity to calm down deliberately when overexcited (Item 3).

2. Cognitive Reflection versus Impulsive Decision-Making

Reflective processing involves considering alternative choices, thinking before speaking or acting, and resisting rapid, inaccurate responding. The SCRS assesses this through questions regarding whether the child thinks before acting (Item 31), delivers one thoughtful answer rather than blurting out several simultaneously (Item 24), and avoids carelessness in academic work (Item 26).

3. Delay of Gratification and Future-Oriented Goal Pursuit

A core element of executive self-control is the willingness to forgo an immediate, smaller reward to obtain a more substantial or meaningful outcome later. This is operationalized directly in Item 19 (choosing a smaller toy immediately versus waiting for a larger toy tomorrow) and Item 5 (working toward long-range goals).

4. Sustained Attention and Task Persistence

Children with self-regulatory deficits struggle to maintain cognitive engagement when tasks require prolonged effort or present initial obstacles. The scale measures whether a child sticks with an activity until finished (Item 8), remains focused rather than switching activities (Item 28), maintains concentration instead of doing too many things simultaneously (Item 33), and perseveres through difficult tasks rather than quitting out of frustration (Item 29).

5. Rule Adherence and Social Cooperation

Self-control manifests within interpersonal systems where individuals must coordinate their goals with the needs of others. The SCRS examines social self-regulation, such as waiting patiently in line (Item 11), waiting one’s turn in peer conversations without interrupting (Item 7), following the directives of responsible adults (Item 9), cooperating in group projects without imposing personal agendas (Item 13), and refraining from intruding into games uninvited (Item 2).

Theoretical Framework

The development of the SCRS is rooted in cognitive-behavioral theory, developmental psycholinguistics, and self-regulation models popularized in the late 20th century. Kendall and Wilcox constructed the instrument to align with several foundational conceptual traditions:

1. Luria and Vygotsky’s Interiorization of Speech

The conceptual bedrock of cognitive self-control traces to Alexander Luria and Lev Vygotsky, who posited that voluntary motor control develops through the gradual internalization of language. In early development, a child’s actions are regulated by adult verbal commands (interpsychological stage). Gradually, the child adopts overt self-talk, which progressively becomes covert, internalized self-speech that directs, inhibits, and guides complex problem-solving (intrapsychological stage). Impulsive children are hypothesized to experience a developmental lag in this interiorization process; their behavioral execution bypasses verbal self-mediation, resulting in direct, uninhibited responses to environmental stimuli.

2. Meichenbaum’s Self-Instructional Training

Directly operationalizing Luria’s framework, Donald Meichenbaum pioneered Self-Instructional Training (SIT) to treat impulsivity and hyperactive behavior in children. Meichenbaum demonstrated that teaching impulsive children to employ explicit verbal strategies—such as stating the problem, generating alternative solutions, focusing attention, and evaluating results—significantly improved their task accuracy and self-control. Kendall expanded this model, framing self-control not merely as the absence of disruptive behavior, but as the active deployment of cognitive mediators, planning strategies, and adaptive coping mechanisms.

3. Kagan’s Conceptual Tempo (Reflection-Impulsivity)

Jerome Kagan’s cognitive tempo theory posited that individuals differ systematically in the speed and accuracy with which they make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. While Kagan operationalized this through response latencies on visual discrimination tasks, Kendall recognized that conceptual tempo had broad ecological manifestations in the classroom: impulsive children answer prematurely, interrupt conversations, overlook critical instructional details, and demonstrate high performance variability.

4. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Under Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, self-regulation encompasses three cyclical sub-processes: self-monitoring (observing one’s own behavior), judgmental processes (comparing actions to internal standards), and self-reaction (administering self-reinforcement or corrective action). The SCRS items reflect how successfully a child executes these self-referential monitoring processes within demanding everyday settings.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and treatment validity of the SCRS have been established across clinical, educational, and developmental investigations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In their initial validation study, Kendall and Wilcox (1979) administered the SCRS to elementary school teachers evaluating 110 children (grades 3 through 6). To examine convergent validity, the authors correlated teacher SCRS scores with established laboratory measures of impulsivity and cognitive reflection:

• Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT): The SCRS demonstrated significant correlations with both MFFT error rates (r = .38, p < .001) and MFFT response latencies (r = -.28, p < .01). Children rated as displaying lower self-control on the SCRS responded faster and committed substantially more errors on the MFFT, aligning with Kagan’s model of impulsive conceptual tempo.
• Porteus Maze Test: SCRS scores correlated significantly with Porteus Maze Qualitative (Q) error scores (r = .43, p < .001), indicating that children rated as having poor self-control made more rule violations, line crossings, and impulsive errors when navigating physical mazes.
• Direct Behavioral Observation: Kendall and Wilcox conducted naturalistic classroom observations using time-sampling techniques to quantify off-task, out-of-seat, and disruptive behaviors. Teacher-rated SCRS scores demonstrated strong correlations with observed off-task behavior (r = .58, p < .001), corroborating the ecological validity of informant ratings against objective behavioral markers.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

The SCRS effectively discriminates between children exhibiting normative developmental self-regulation and those presenting with clinical externalizing pathologies. Kendall, Zupan, and Braswell (1981) administered the scale across regular education students and clinical cohorts diagnosed with hyperactivity and conduct difficulties. Children identified by independent clinical evaluations as hyperactive or behaviorally disordered obtained significantly higher SCRS scores (reflecting elevated impulsivity) than their typical peers, with effect sizes exceeding Cohen’s d = 1.20.

Moreover, the SCRS correlates selectively with informant-rated hyperactivity and conduct problems (e.g., on the Conners Teacher Rating Scale and the Child Behavior Checklist), while showing non-significant or weak correlations with measures of non-cognitive motor coordination, expressive language vocabulary, or general sensory thresholds, confirming robust divergent validity.

Treatment Sensitivity and Predictive Validity

A defining asset of the SCRS is its sensitivity to behavioral change following therapeutic intervention. Multiple clinical trials examining cognitive-behavioral self-instructional training, executive function coaching, and pharmacological treatments (e.g., methylphenidate) have utilized the SCRS as a primary or secondary outcome measure (Kendall & Braswell, 1982). Pre- to post-treatment assessments reveal significant reductions in SCRS impulsivity scores in active treatment conditions compared to attention-placebo or waitlist control groups. Furthermore, baseline SCRS scores reliably predict future academic performance, peer acceptance metrics, and risk for disciplinary referrals over multi-year developmental follow-up periods.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the SCRS has been documented across internal consistency, temporal stability, and inter-rater agreement analyses.

Internal Consistency

In the original normative sample of 110 third- through sixth-grade students, Kendall and Wilcox (1979) reported a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .98. Subsequent investigations across diverse pediatric samples have consistently demonstrated internal consistency values ranging between .96 and .98. For example, Kendall, Zupan, and Braswell (1981) replicated this high internal reliability across an independent sample of 185 children, obtaining an alpha of .97 for teacher ratings and .96 for parent ratings. These elevated values confirm that the 33 items function with exceptional homogeneity in assessing the overarching dimension of child self-regulatory capacity.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was initially established by re-administering the SCRS to classroom teachers after a 3- to 4-week interval for a randomly selected sub-sample (n = 24). The resulting test-retest correlation coefficient was r = .84 (p < .001). Subsequent long-term stability studies over 8- to 12-week intervals yielded test-retest coefficients between .75 and .82 in the absence of targeted cognitive-behavioral intervention, demonstrating that while the SCRS is sensitive to structured therapeutic change, it measures a stable behavioral trait over time under steady-state conditions.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Inter-rater concordance between primary classroom teachers and classroom teacher aides or co-teachers typically ranges from r = .68 to .79, indicating substantial agreement across professional educators observing the child within the same physical environment. Cross-setting concordance between teachers and parents is somewhat lower (typically r = .40 to .55), which aligns with standard developmental psychometrics: children frequently exhibit varying levels of impulse control across the highly structured demands of a classroom compared to the less structured domestic setting.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural architecture of the SCRS has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse cultural and clinical populations.

Exploratory Factor Analyses

In their initial 1979 investigation, Kendall and Wilcox submitted the 33 items to a principal components analysis (PCA). The analysis yielded a dominant primary factor that accounted for 59.7% of the total variance, with an eigenvalue of 19.7. All 33 items demonstrated substantial factor loadings on this single general factor, ranging from .54 to .87. Given that the second and third components accounted for negligible increments in explained variance (4.2% and 3.1%, respectively) and displayed an indistinct scree elbow, Kendall and Wilcox concluded that the SCRS is best conceptualized and scored as a unidimensional instrument reflecting a singular continuum of self-control versus impulsivity.

Multidimensional Structural Models

Despite the functional utility of a single composite score, subsequent investigations employing oblique and orthogonal rotations (e.g., Kendall, Zupan, & Braswell, 1981; Lennings, 1991) identified clinically informative subordinate sub-factors within the larger construct:

• Factor 1: Cognitive Reflective Planning and Persistence: Items capturing task completion, forethought, sustained concentration, and delay of gratification (e.g., Items 5, 8, 19, 28, 31, 33).
• Factor 2: Motoric and Verbal Impulsivity: Items measuring physical restlessness, line-waiting difficulties, blurting out answers, and fidgeting (e.g., Items 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 24).
• Factor 3: Interpersonal Disruption and Rule Noncompliance: Items reflecting peer interference, rule violations, arguing with adults, and social intrusion (e.g., Items 2, 7, 13, 15, 20, 21, 22, 30).

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

Modern CFA investigations evaluating alternative structural representations have consistently found that a hierarchical (bifactor) model—comprising a strong overarching general factor of behavioral self-regulation alongside distinct group factors for cognitive tempo, motor inhibition, and social compliance—demonstrates superior fit to the data. Typical fit indices across cross-cultural CFA studies include Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values between .91 and .95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values between .045 and .062, and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values exceeding .90. These structural findings justify the common clinical practice of reporting the global total score while referencing individual sub-domains for targeted intervention planning.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Adult-informant behavioral rating scale (teacher or parent rating).
• Target Population: Children aged 5 to 12 years (kindergarten through 6th grade). Adaptations have also been validated for adolescent populations and delinquent youth cohorts.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Number of Items: 33 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type rating format anchored from 1 to 7:
• 1 = Never
• 2 = Almost Never
• 3 = Rarely / Seldom
• 4 = Sometimes / Half the Time
• 5 = Often / Frequently
• 6 = Almost Always
• 7 = Always
• Scoring Mechanics and Directionality:
• In the original scoring paradigm established by Kendall and Wilcox (1979), the instrument is scored in the direction of impulsivity / lack of self-control. Thus, a higher total score reflects greater behavioral impulsivity and more severe self-regulatory deficits, whereas a lower score denotes superior self-control.
• Items worded positively (reflecting optimal self-control; e.g., Item 1 "count on him or her to do it", Item 3 "deliberately calm down", Item 5 "work for long-range goals", Item 8 "stick to what he or she is doing", Item 9 "follow instructions", Item 11 "wait in line patiently", Item 12 "sit still", Item 23 "watch where going", Item 27 "play well with peers", Item 31 "think before acts") are reverse-scored (i.e., 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, 7 becomes 1) prior to summing.
• Items worded negatively (reflecting impulsive, disruptive, or careless behaviors; e.g., Item 2 "butt into games", Item 10 "have everything right away", Item 22 "break basic rules") are scored directly as marked (1 = 1 to 7 = 7).
• Score Range: Total raw scores range from 33 to 231. Higher scores denote severe self-regulatory problems and heightened impulsivity; lower scores indicate mature, reflective self-regulation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Control Rating Scale was formally published in 1979 by Philip C. Kendall and Lauren E. Wilcox in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, an official publication of the American Psychological Association (APA).

• Copyright and Access: The scale items, scoring rubrics, and initial psychometric validation data were placed directly in the public scientific literature via the 1979 publication. For individual clinical use, educational screening, and non-commercial scientific research, the scale has traditionally been reproduced freely by researchers and clinicians in accordance with academic fair-use guidelines, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is maintained.
• Commercial and Proprietary Licensing: Republication of the scale within commercial diagnostic testing batteries, software applications, or published books requires formal copyright permission from the American Psychological Association and the primary scale authors.
• Associated Fees: There is no standard per-use royalty fee required for educational and academic research administrations when the scale is prepared directly from the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

References

• Kendall, P. C., & Braswell, L. (1982). Cognitive-behavioral self-control therapy for children: A components analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 672–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.5.672
• Kendall, P. C., & Hays, R. C. (1988). Self-Control Rating Scale. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (pp. 395–396). Pergamon Press.
• Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(6), 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.6.1020
• Kendall, P. C., Zupan, B. A., & Braswell, L. (1981). Self-control in children: Further analyses of the Self-Control Rating Scale. Behavior Therapy, 12(5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(81)80138-0
• Lennings, C. J. (1991). A modification of the Kendall-Wilcox Self-Control Scale for delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9103500110
• Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030773

Items of the Scale