Adolescent PsychologyCriminologyPsychometricsPublic Health

Student Survey of Risk Factors

A comprehensive academic and psychometric review of the Student Survey of Risk Factors (Communities That Care Youth Survey / CTC-YS), assessing adolescent risk and protective factors across community, family, school, and peer-individual domains.

memjavad
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 16, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 16, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

Abstract

The Student Survey of Risk Factors, commonly administered and recognized internationally as the Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTC-YS), is an epidemiological, self-report assessment instrument designed to measure the comprehensive matrix of adolescent risk and protective factors across multiple social-ecological domains. Developed by Michael W. Arthur, J. David Hawkins, and Richard F. Catalano at the Social Development Research Group (University of Washington), the instrument translates decades of longitudinal developmental psychopathology and prevention science research into an operational public health diagnostic tool. The survey systematically captures factors predicting youth problem behaviors, specifically substance abuse, delinquency, school dropout, violent conduct, and teen pregnancy. Structured across four primary ecological domains—community, family, school, and peer-individual—the CTC-YS evaluates specific risk factors (e.g., perceived availability of drugs, community disorganization, poor family management, academic failure, interaction with antisocial peers) and protective factors (e.g., opportunities and rewards for prosocial involvement, healthy beliefs, and clear standards for behavior).

Psychometrically validated across statewide and national normative cohorts comprising hundreds of thousands of students across grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate the multidimensional, domain-specific latent structure. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the core risk and protective scales predominantly range from .70 to .88, displaying robust temporal stability and structural invariance across diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender subpopulations. Longitudinal epidemiological trials have demonstrated the high predictive validity of the scale scores in forecasting subsequent substance initiation and violent delinquency. Furthermore, the CTC-YS features unique validity verification mechanisms, including embedded fictive drug items (e.g., derbisol) and social-desirability cross-checks to screen invalid respondent protocols, ensuring high epidemiological integrity for community prevention planning and program evaluation.

Keywords

Communities That Care Youth Survey, CTC-YS, Student Survey of Risk Factors, Risk and Protective Factor Framework, Social Development Model, adolescent substance use, youth delinquency, prevention science, psychometrics, epidemiological assessment, school health psychology.

Authors

The survey instrument was developed by leading scholars in prevention science, developmental criminology, and social welfare at the Social Development Research Group (SDRG), School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States:

  • Michael W. Arthur, Ph.D. — Developmental psychologist and research professor specializing in community-based prevention systems, psychometric measurement of adolescent risk and resilience, and longitudinal child development. Former key investigator at the Social Development Research Group, University of Washington, and Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami.
  • J. David Hawkins, Ph.D. — Endowed Professor of Prevention, Founding Director of the Social Development Research Group, and developer of the Social Development Model. Renowned for pioneering longitudinal research into the developmental origins of health-risk behaviors and founding the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention operating system.
  • Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Social Work and Co-Founder of the Social Development Research Group. Widely recognized for co-developing the Social Development Model and translating positive youth development theory into evidence-based preventative interventions recognized globally by public health entities.

The developmental and longitudinal validation work was funded and supported through sustained collaborative grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) within SAMHSA, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Student Survey of Risk Factors is to provide an empirical, epidemiological assessment of the prevalence of adolescent problem behaviors alongside the precise causal antecedents that elevate the probability of those behaviors (risk factors) or buffer against them (protective factors). Rather than treating adolescent antisocial actions or substance use disorders as isolated phenotypic outcomes, the instrument operationalizes the public health paradigm: effective prevention necessitates diagnosing the localized, underlying etiology within a population before prescribing targeted, evidence-based interventions.

From a clinical and public health perspective, the scale functions within the Communities That Care (CTC) operating system. This structured system empowers community prevention coalitions, school boards, and public health departments to identify specific, elevated risk profiles and depressed protective profiles within specific jurisdictions (e.g., school districts, municipalities, or regional counties). By profiling local youth at key developmental inflection points (typically grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, corresponding to chronological ages 11–18), stakeholders can deploy targeted, evidence-based programs cataloged in repositories such as Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. This eliminates arbitrary, non-evidence-based intervention funding.

In research contexts, the scale functions as an essential, high-resolution instrument for developmental psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists conducting longitudinal panel studies, structural equation modeling (SEM), and randomized controlled prevention trials. Its theoretical rationale rests upon the empirically proven observation that common adverse adolescent outcomes—substance abuse, violent behavior, juvenile crime, academic attrition, and precocious sexual activity—share common developmental risk and protective precursors across the ecological landscape. By concurrently measuring these multi-systemic constructs alongside 30-day and lifetime prevalence rates of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, stimulants, inhalants, and weapons offenses, the survey establishes an integrated platform for structural, predictive, and causal analysis.

Psychological Construct

The Student Survey of Risk Factors is built upon a multidimensional, social-ecological taxonomy of human development. It conceptualizes adolescent outcomes as the dynamic intersection of risk factors and protective factors embedded across four distinct developmental spheres: Community, Family, School, and Peer-Individual domains.

1. Community Domain

  • Availability of Drugs and Handguns: Assesses the youth’s perceived access to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, illicit narcotics, and firearms within their immediate physical and social geography (e.g., “If you wanted to get some beer, wine or hard liquor… how easy would it be for you to get some?”).
  • Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use and Crime: Evaluates adult societal expectations, community legal enforcement, and informal social controls regarding youth deviance (e.g., likelihood of police intervention if a youth is smoking marijuana or carrying a weapon).
  • Community Disorganization and Deterioration: Captures physical and social disorder within the neighborhood, including observable crime, active drug trafficking, graffiti, abandoned buildings, and interpersonal violence.
  • Transitions and Mobility: Quantifies geographic instability, including residential relocation frequency and school turnover, which attenuate neighborhood attachment and social cohesion.
  • Community Opportunities and Rewards for Prosocial Involvement: Measures protective neighborhood affordances, capturing whether adults outside the immediate family notice, praise, and provide constructive activities (sports, clubs) for adolescents.

2. Family Domain

  • Poor Family Management: Evaluates deficits in parental monitoring, inconsistent discipline, failure to establish unambiguous expectations, and lack of accountability regarding peer associations and physical whereabouts.
  • Family Conflict: Gauges chronic interpersonal hostility, yelling, serious recurrent arguments, and emotional volatility within the domestic household.
  • Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior: Assesses the perceived parental tolerance or permissive moral standards regarding adolescent drug consumption, school truancy, physical violence, and property theft.
  • Family History of Antisocial Behavior: Identifies transgenerational modeling through parental or sibling engagement in illicit drug abuse, criminal acts, arrests, or severe alcohol dependency.
  • Family Attachment, Opportunities, and Rewards: Reflects protective relational capital, measuring emotional closeness to maternal and paternal figures, open communication of affect, shared recreational time, and parental praise for adolescent achievements.

3. School Domain

  • Academic Failure: Evaluates self-reported academic underperformance and subjective feelings of inadequacy regarding academic competency.
  • Low Commitment to School: Measures school disengagement, chronic truancy, perceived irrelevance of the curriculum for future life outcomes, and pervasive boredom or hostility toward the educational institution.
  • School Opportunities and Rewards for Prosocial Involvement: Captures the protective scaffolding provided by teachers and institutional culture, including student participation in classroom governance, individualized teacher attention, praise for diligent work, and safety within the school perimeter.

4. Peer-Individual Domain

  • Early Initiation of Problem Behavior: Establishes the exact age of initial engagement in substance experimentation, formal school suspensions, physical fighting, and law enforcement encounters.
  • Peer Delinquency and Drug Use: Assesses the proportion of an adolescent’s closest peer network (specifically the four best friends) actively using substances, carrying weapons, dropping out of school, or committing property and violent crimes.
  • Rebelliousness, Sensation Seeking, and Antisocial Attitudes: Evaluates latent personality traits associated with externalizing behavior, such as thrill-seeking propensity, intentional rule transgression, and the belief that laws and parental directives are made to be violated.
  • Perceived Risk of Harm and Favorable Attitudes Toward Substance Use: Evaluates cognitive appraisals regarding the somatic and legal hazards of chemical dependence versus the perceived status benefits (“coolness”) within peer groups.
  • Depressive Symptoms and Internalizing Tendencies: Screens for severe negative affect, existential futility, self-deprecating cognitive evaluations, and prolonged periods of dysthymia.

Theoretical Framework

The foundational architecture of the CTC-YS is rooted in the Social Development Model (SDM), formulated by J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano (1996). The SDM is a developmental, social-ecological theory that synthesizes three central perspectives within criminology and sociology: Social Control Theory (Hirschi, 1969), Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), and Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1947).

The SDM hypothesizes that human behavior is organized through social development pathways established early in childhood and reinforced through adolescence. According to the model, an individual develops bonds to social units—such as family, school, peers, and neighborhood communities—through four primary conditions: (1) Opportunities for constructive involvement within the unit, (2) the adolescent’s actual developmental and social Skills to participate effectively, (3) consistent, predictable Rewards and Recognition for prosocial participation, and (4) the reciprocal emergence of a strong Social Bond, comprised of emotional attachment, commitment, and belief in the moral order of the unit.

When the socialization unit adheres to prosocial behavioral standards, strong social bonds insulate the youth against deviant impulses and antisocial peer pressures. Conversely, if an adolescent is socialized into units dominated by antisocial norms—such as drug-using peers or delinquent family networks—the same bonding mechanism increases deviance via observational modeling, differential reinforcement, and shared moral rationalizations. Furthermore, when social control structures fail (e.g., poor parental monitoring, school disorganization, absence of neighborhood reinforcement), social bonds fracture, leaving the adolescent vulnerable to impulsive, sensation-seeking, and externalizing behavioral trajectories.

The CTC-YS operationalizes the SDM by providing simultaneous measurement of the social learning conditions, bonding variables, and structural ecological contexts that balance the trajectory between prosocial thriving and destructive behavioral outcomes.

Validity

The construct, convergent, criterion, and predictive validity of the Student Survey of Risk Factors has been rigorously documented across diverse developmental cohorts and community-randomized epidemiological trials (Arthur et al., 2002; Glaser et al., 2005; Hawkins et al., 2008).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through initial and iterative validation samples aggregating more than 150,000 public school students across multiple U.S. states (Arthur et al., 2002). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the observed survey indicators accurately conform to the multidimensional latent factor constructs hypothesized by the risk and protective framework. Goodness-of-fit indices supported the empirical distinctiveness of scales across all four ecological domains (RMSEA ≤ .05, CFI ≥ .92, TLI ≥ .90). Measurement invariance testing across gender, grade levels (6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th), and racial/ethnic groups confirmed structural stability, demonstrating that the underlying psychometric properties are preserved across diverse demographic groups (Glaser et al., 2005).

Criterion, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly substantiated through high, statistically significant correlations between the CTC-YS substance use prevalence scales and comparable epidemiological surveillance systems, including the national Monitoring the Future (MTF) study and the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). CTC-YS domain risk scores consistently demonstrate strong positive correlations with actual past-30-day and lifetime consumption of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and illicit substances, alongside self-reported violent crime and weapons possession. Discriminant validity is evidenced by the negative correlations between prosocial protective factor scales (e.g., school opportunities, family bonding) and antisocial outcomes, as well as the low empirical overlap between externalizing peer delinquency scales and internalizing depressive symptom subscales.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

Longitudinal predictive validity has been demonstrated in multi-year community intervention trials. In a 24-community randomized controlled trial of the Communities That Care system, elevated community and school risk scores assessed in Grade 6 demonstrated statistically significant prospective odds ratios for predicting violent behavior, binge drinking, cigarette initiation, and marijuana use by Grade 10 and Grade 12 (Hawkins et al., 2008, 2012). The instrument’s ability to prospectively predict clinical and behavioral divergence across developmental trajectories establishes its ecological validity as a community diagnostic instrument.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal reliability of the Student Survey of Risk Factors have been established through extensive psychometric analyses across large-scale epidemiological deployments.

Internal Consistency

Across the standard battery of risk and protective subscales, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrate strong internal consistency across developmental cohorts:

  • Peer-Individual Scales: Reliabilities generally range between α = .75 and α = .88. Scales measuring interaction with antisocial peers, favorable attitudes toward drug use, and perceived peer rewards consistently maintain coefficients exceeding .82.
  • School Domain Scales: Academic failure (α ≈ .74–.78), low school commitment (α ≈ .78–.82), and school rewards for prosocial involvement (α ≈ .70–.76) show stable reliability across grades.
  • Family Domain Scales: Family conflict (α ≈ .80–.85) and poor family management (α ≈ .81–.86) demonstrate high internal consistency, whereas maternal and paternal bonding items show strong latent cohesion (α > .83).
  • Community Domain Scales: Community disorganization (α ≈ .78–.84), perceived drug availability (α ≈ .76–.81), and laws and norms favorable to drug use (α ≈ .74–.79) consistently show strong reliability across diverse geographic settings.

Test-Retest Stability

Short-term test-retest reliability across 2-to-4-week administration intervals has yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .72 to .89 across behavioral prevalence indices and latent risk constructs. Furthermore, stability coefficients observed in multi-wave longitudinal panel assessments show substantial rank-order stability across adjacent developmental years (e.g., Grade 6 to Grade 8 stability coefficients ranging from .55 to .71), demonstrating consistent individual differences amidst expected developmental maturation.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the CTC-YS was validated through rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) protocols during its primary standardization (Arthur et al., 2002; Glaser et al., 2005).

EFA and CFA Procedures

Initial exploratory factor extraction utilized principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation to account for the expected, theoretically grounded intercorrelations among ecological risk conditions. Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses, conducted using robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation to accommodate ordered categorical and polytomous indicator distributions, confirmed the existence of multi-factor hierarchical models nested within each overarching domain:

  • Community Factor Structure: Confirmed a 5-factor structure distinguishing laws/norms, physical availability, structural disorganization, mobility, and prosocial opportunities (χ²/df < 3.0, CFI = .941, RMSEA = .042).
  • Family Factor Structure: Confirmed distinct, interdependent latent factors for management practices, conflict dynamics, parental moral approval, and prosocial bonding/rewards (CFI = .936, TLI = .928, RMSEA = .045).
  • School Factor Structure: Validated a 3-factor latent architecture distinguishing academic achievement/failure, institutional engagement/commitment, and classroom-level opportunities/rewards (CFI = .952, RMSEA = .038).
  • Peer-Individual Factor Structure: Demonstrated an 8-factor construct isolating peer deviance, self-reported delinquency, sensation-seeking, perceived peer status/approval, moral tolerance, internalizing affect, and early initiation (CFI = .929, RMSEA = .048).

Standardized item factor loadings across the vast majority of items fall reliably between .52 and .88, confirming high construct indicator specificity. Cross-group CFA models demonstrated full metric and partial scalar invariance across gender and grade cohorts, supporting valid developmental tracking and demographic comparisons.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The instrument is an epidemiological, omnibus, pencil-and-paper or web-administered youth self-report survey. Its operational characteristics are structured as follows:

  • Test Type: Comprehensive self-report epidemiological diagnostic survey battery.
  • Target Population: Adolescents typically enrolled in Grades 6 through 12 (approximate ages 11 to 19 years old).
  • Item Count: 126 parent item stems, encompassing more than 160 individualized discrete query variables when accounting for multi-part behavioral matrices (e.g., substance grids, peer behaviors).
  • Administration Format: Group administration in academic classroom settings or computer laboratories; administered either via scannable optical-mark bubble forms or secure web-based assessment portals. Average completion time is approximately 45 to 50 minutes.
  • Authentic Response Scales:
    • 4-point Capitalized Likert Agreement: NO! (definitely not true / strongly disagree), no (mostly not true / disagree), yes (mostly true / agree), YES! (definitely true / strongly agree). The differential capitalization provides clear cognitive differentiation for younger respondents.
    • Moral/Normative Disapproval: Very Wrong, Wrong, A Little Bit Wrong, Not Wrong at All.
    • Perceived Availability/Difficulty: Very Hard, Sort of Hard, Sort of Easy, Very Easy.
    • Peer Quantity: None of my friends, 1 of my friends, 2 of my friends, 3 of my friends, 4 of my friends.
    • Chronological Age of Initiation: Never Have, 10 or Younger, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or Older.
    • Behavioral Frequency Quantifiers: Multi-tiered scales ranging from Never to 40+ Times, and specific 30-day quantitative counts (e.g., 0 Occasions, 1-2 Occasions, … 40 or More Occasions).
  • Scoring and Community Cut-Point Methodology:
    • Items within specific subscales are averaged or summed according to documented psychometric algorithms, with negatively valenced items reverse-coded.
    • Scale scores are typically evaluated against normative statewide or national profiles using standardized z-scores or empirically derived epidemiological cut-points (e.g., the Communities That Care Cut-Point Method). This classifies students as exhibiting “elevated risk” or “high protection” across each distinct domain.
    • Data Integrity Protocols: Questionnaires are flagged and purged using automated data-cleaning logic: (1) Self-reported usage of the fictitious drug “derbisol”; (2) Reporting unrealistically high frequencies across all substances; (3) Inconsistent responding across cross-check items; or (4) Self-declared dishonesty on Question 126 (“I was not honest at all”).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Student Survey of Risk Factors / Communities That Care Youth Survey was originally developed and standardized between 1995 and 2002 by the Social Development Research Group (SDRG) at the University of Washington. Because its development was financed through federal public research awards granted by the National Institutes of Health (NIDA), the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the primary survey instruments reside in the public domain.

The survey is freely accessible for non-commercial educational, governmental, community prevention, and academic research purposes. School districts and public health coalitions may reproduce and administer the scale without licensing fees. However, formal commercial platforms, electronic survey hosting providers, and specialized data-processing analytics vendors (such as Channing Bete Company, the historical commercial distributor of CTC materials, or specialized university evaluation centers) may charge service fees for automated machine-scannable booklets, web hosting, data aggregation, and localized epidemiological reporting. Researchers using the instrument are expected to maintain the structural integrity of the subscales and provide full author attribution to Arthur, Hawkins, Catalano, and the University of Washington Social Development Research Group.

References

  • Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
  • Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Pollard, J. A. (2002). Evaluation of a measure of risk and protective factors for adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00078-4
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Beyers, J. M., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., & 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.2003.08.012
  • 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
  • Glaser, R. R., Van Horn, M. L., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2005). Measurement properties of the Communities That Care Youth Survey across demographic groups. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-004-1788-1
  • 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
  • Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Egan, E., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., & Murray, D. M. (2008). Testing Communities That Care: The youth development survey. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1475–1482. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126482
  • Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Sustained decreases in risk exposure and youth problem behaviors after installation of the Communities That Care prevention system in a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166(9), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.183
  • 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)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
1

This is not a test‚ so there are no right or wrong answers; we would like you to work quickly‚ so that you can finish.
2

All of the questions should be answered by marking one of the answer spaces. If you do not find an answer that fits exactly‚ use the one that comes closest. If any question does not apply to you‚ or you are not sure what it means‚ just leave it blank.
3

Your answers will be read automatically by a computer. Please follow these instructions carefully:
4

Some of the questions have the following format:
5

What is the zip code where you live? __________
6

Where are you living now?
7

Which one of the following schools is closest to where you live?
8

Putting them all together‚ what were your grades like last year?
9

During the LAST FOUR WEEKS how many whole days of school have you missed because you skipped or "cut"? 
10

In my school‚ students have lots of chances to help decide things like class activities and rules.
11

Teachers ask me to work on special classroom projects.
12

My teacher(s) notices when I am doing a good job and lets me know about it.
13

There are lots of chances for students in my school to get involved in sports‚ clubs‚ and other school activities outside of class.
14

There are lots of chances for students in my school to talk with a teacher one-on-one.
15

I feel safe at my school.
16

The school lets my parents know when I have done something well.
17

My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.
18

Are your school grades better than the grades of most students in your class?
19

There are lots of chances to be part of class discussions or activities.
20

How often do you feel that the school work you are assigned is meaningful and important?
21

How interesting are most of your courses to you?
22

How important do you think the things you are learning in school are going to be for your later life?
23

Now thinking back over the past year in school‚ how often did you…
24

Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year (12 months)‚ how many of your best friends have…
25

How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to:
26

I ignore rules that get in my way. Very False‚ Somewhat False‚  Somewhat True‚  Very True
27

It is all right to beat up people if they start the fight. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
28

It is important to be honest with your parents‚ even if they become upset or you get punished. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
29

I do the opposite of what people tell me‚ just to get them mad. Very False‚  Somewhat False‚ Somewhat True‚ Very True
30

I think it is okay to take something without asking if you can get away with it. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
31

How many times have you done the following things?
32

Have you ever belonged to a gang? Yes‚ No
33

If you have ever belonged to a gang‚ did the gang have a name? Yes‚ No‚ I have never belonged to a gang
34

How many times in the past year (12 months) have you:
35

What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you:
36

You're looking at CD's in a music store with a friend. You look up and see her slip a CD under her coat. She smiles and says "Which one do you want? Go ahead; take it while nobody's around." There is nobody in sight‚ no employees and no other customers. What would you do now?
37

It's 8:00 on a weeknight and you are about to go over to a friend's home when your mother asks you where you are going. You say "Oh‚ just going to go hang out with some friends." She says‚ "No‚ you'll just get into trouble if you go out. Stay home tonight." What would you do now?
38

You are visiting another part of town‚ and you don't know any of the people your age there. You are walking down the street‚ and some teenager you don't know is walking toward you. He is about your size‚ and as he is about to pass you‚ he deliberately bumps into you and you almost lose your balance. What would you say or do?
39

You are at a party at someone's house‚ and one of your friends offers you a drink containing alcohol. What would you say or do?
40

I think sometimes it's okay to cheat at school. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
41

How often do you attend religious services or activities? Never‚ Rarely‚ 1-2 Times a Month‚ About Once a Week or More
42

I like to see how much I can get away with. Very False‚ Somewhat False‚ Somewhat True‚ Very True
43

Sometimes I think that life is not worth it. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
44

At times I think I am no good at all. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
45

All in all‚ I am inclined to think that I am a failure. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
46

In the past year‚ have you felt depressed or sad MOST days‚ even if you felt OK sometimes? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
47

How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they:
48

Have you ever used smokeless tobacco (chew‚ snuff‚ plug‚ dipping tobacco‚ chewing tobacco)?
49

How frequently have you used smokeless tobacco during the past 30 days? Never‚ Once or twice‚ Once or twice per week‚ About once a day‚ More than once a day
50

Have you ever smoked cigarettes? Never‚ Once or twice‚ Once in a while but not regularly‚ Regularly in the past‚ Regularly now
51

How frequently have you smoked cigarettes during the past 30 days? Not at all‚ Less than one cigarette per day‚ One to five cigarettes per day‚ About one-half pack per day‚ About one pack per day‚ About one and one-half packs per day‚ Two packs or more per day
52

On how many occasions (if any) have you had alcoholic beverages (beer‚ wine or hard liquor) to drink in your lifetime –- more than just a few sips? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚ 10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
53

On how many occasions (if any) have you had beer‚ wine or hard liquor during the past 30 days? 0Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
54

Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks in a row? None‚ Once‚ Twice‚ 3-5 times‚ 6-9 times‚ 10 or more times
55

On how many occasions (if any) have you used marijuana in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions ‚20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
56

On how many occasions (if any) have you used marijuana during the past 30 days? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
57

On how many occasions (if any) have you used LSD or other psychedelics in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
58

On how many occasions (if any) have you used LSD or other psychedelics during the past 30 days? 0Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚ 10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
59

On how many occasions (if any) have you used cocaine or crack in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
60

On how many occasions (if any) have you used cocaine or crack during the past 30 days? 0Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
61

On how many occasions (if any) have you sniffed glue‚ breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can‚ or inhaled other gases or sprays‚ in order to get high in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
62

On how many occasions (if any) have you sniffed glue‚ breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can‚ or inhaled other gases or sprays‚ in order to get high during the past 30 days? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
63

On how many occasions (if any) have you used stimulants (“amphetamines”‚ “meth”‚ “crystal”‚ “crank”) in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
64

On how many occasions (if any) have you used stimulants (“amphetamines”‚ “meth”‚ “crystal”‚ “crank”) during the past 30 days? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
65

On how many occasions (if any) have you used derbisol in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
66

On how many occasions (if any) have you used derbisol in the past 30 days? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
67

On how many occasions (if any) have you used other illegal drugs in your lifetime? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
68

On how many occasions (if any) have you used other illegal drugs in the past 30 days? 0 Occasions‚ 1-2 Occasions‚ 3-5 Occasions‚ 6-9 Occasions‚10-19 Occasions‚ 20-39 Occasions‚ 40 or More Occasions
69

If you wanted to get some beer‚ wine or hard liquor (for example‚ vodka‚ whiskey‚ or gin)‚ how easy would it be for you to get some? Very Hard‚ Sort of Hard‚ Sort of Easy‚ Very Easy
70

If you wanted to get some cigarettes‚ how easy would it be for you to get some? Very Hard‚ Sort of Hard‚ Sort of Easy‚ Very Easy
71

If a kid smoked marijuana in your neighborhood would he or she be caught by the police? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
72

If you wanted to get a drug like cocaine‚ LSD‚ or amphetamines‚ how easy would it be for you to get some? Very Hard‚ Sort of Hard‚ Sort of Easy‚ Very Easy
73

If a kid drank some beer‚ wine or hard liquor (for example‚ vodka‚ whiskey‚ or gin) in your neighborhood would he or she be caught by the police? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
74

If a kid carried a handgun in your neighborhood would he or she be caught by the police? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
75

If you wanted to get some marijuana‚ how easy would it be for you to get some? Very Hard‚ Sort of Hard‚ Sort of Easy‚ Very Easy
76

How wrong would most adults (over 21) in your neighborhood think it is for kids your age:
77

About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past year have:
78

Sometimes we don’t know what we will do as adults‚ but we may have an idea. Please answer how true these statements may be for you:
79

If I had to move‚ I would miss the neighborhood I now live in. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
80

My neighbors notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
81

I like my neighborhood. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
82

There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I could talk to about something important. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
83

How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood?
84

How many times have you changed homes since kindergarten? Never‚ 1 or 2 times‚ 3 or 4 times‚ 5 or 6 times 7 or more times
85

There are people in my neighborhood who are proud of me when I do something well. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
86

Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your community?
87

Have you changed schools (including changing from elementary to middle and middle to high school) in the past year? No Yes
88

I feel safe in my neighborhood. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
89

How many times have you changed schools (including changing from elementary to middle and middle to high school) since kindergarten? Never‚ 1 or 2 times‚ 3 or 4 times‚ 5 or 6 times‚ 7 or more times
90

I'd like to get out of my neighborhood. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
91

Have you changed homes in the past year? No Yes
92

There are people in my neighborhood who encourage me to do my best. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
93

How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to:
94

Have any of your brothers or sisters ever:
95

The rules in my family are clear. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
96

Has anyone in your family ever had a severe alcohol or drug problem? No Yes
97

People in my family often insult or yell at each other. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
98

When I am not at home‚ one of my parents knows where I am and who I am with. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
99

We argue about the same things in my family over and over. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
100

If you drank some beer or wine or liquor (for example‚ vodka‚ whiskey‚ or gin) without your parents' permission‚ would you be caught by your parents? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
101

My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
102

If you carried a handgun without your parents' permission‚ would you be caught by your parents? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
103

If you skipped school would you be caught by your parents? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
104

My parents notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it. Never or Almost Never‚ Sometimes‚ Often All the Time
105

Do you feel very close to your mother? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
106

Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your mother? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
107

My parents ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
108

How often do your parents tell you they're proud of you for something you've done? Never or Almost Never‚ Sometimes‚ Often All the Time
109

Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your father? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
110

Do you enjoy spending time with your mother? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
111

Do you enjoy spending time with your father? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
112

If I had a personal problem‚ I could ask my mom or dad for help. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
113

Do you feel very close to your father? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
114

My parents give me lots of chances to do fun things with them. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
115

My parents ask if I've gotten my homework done. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
116

People in my family have serious arguments. NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
117

Would your parents know if you did not come home on time? NO! no‚ yes‚ YES!
118

Think of where you live most of the time. Which of the following people live there with you? (Choose all that apply.)
119

How many brothers and sisters‚ including stepbrothers and stepsisters‚ do you have that are older than you? 0‚ 1‚ 2‚ 3‚ 4‚ 5‚ 6 or more
120

How many brothers or sisters‚ including stepbrothers and stepsisters‚ do you have that are younger than you? 0‚ 1‚ 2‚ 3‚ 4‚ 5‚ 6 or more
121

What is the language you use most often at home? English‚ Spanish‚ Another Language
122

What is the highest level of schooling your father completed?
123

What is the highest level of schooling your mother completed?
124

How important were these questions? Not too important‚ Fairly important‚ Important‚ Very Important
125

How honest were you in filling out this survey? I was very honest‚ I was honest pretty much of the time‚ I was honest some of the time‚ I was honest once in a while‚ I was not honest at all
★

Rate This Scale

5.0 / 5 • 1 vote

Cite This Article

memjavad (2026, September 16). Student Survey of Risk Factors. PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/student-survey-of-risk-factors/
memjavad. “Student Survey of Risk Factors.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 16 September 2026, https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/student-survey-of-risk-factors/.
memjavad. “Student Survey of Risk Factors.” PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 16, 2026. https://en.arabpsychology.com/scales/student-survey-of-risk-factors/.