Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale

1. Abstract

The Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (VPBFS) is an empirically validated self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency with which children and early adolescents experience peer victimization within school and community contexts. Developed as part of the extensive violence prevention initiatives evaluated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP), the instrument adapts foundational conceptualizations of peer abuse to measure both manifest physical encounters and covert social manipulations. Specifically, the VPBFS is structured into two core dimensions comprising a total of 12 items: Relational Victimization (6 items) and Overt Victimization (6 items). Respondents evaluate the frequency of specific victimizing events occurring within a distinct recall window of the past 30 days, employing a fully anchored 6-point behavioral frequency scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (20 or more times).

Extensive psychometric investigations across socioeconomically and ethnically diverse cohorts of young adolescents demonstrate that the VPBFS possesses robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely falling between .78 and .88 across both subscales. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently confirm a correlated two-factor structural model, distinguishing between interpersonal social sabotage and direct physical or verbal aggression, while supporting strong measurement invariance across biological sex and grade levels. Furthermore, the scale demonstrates rigorous construct, convergent, and predictive validity, exhibiting anticipated positive correlations with depressive symptomatology, school-related anxiety, and reactive delinquency, alongside inverse associations with academic engagement and perceived school safety. By providing a granular, behavior-specific metric devoid of subjective stigmatizing labels such as “bullying,” the VPBFS represents a premier measurement tool for developmental psychopathology researchers, school psychologists, and intervention scientists seeking to quantify adolescent peer adversity and evaluate systemic behavioral interventions.

2. Keywords

Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale, peer victimization, relational victimization, overt victimization, school violence, adolescent aggression, psychometrics, Multisite Violence Prevention Project, bullying assessment, behavioral frequency scale

3. Authors

The Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale was developed and refined through collaborative efforts associated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and university researchers participating in the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP). Key behavioral scientists and psychometricians central to the instrument’s conceptualization, validation, and dissemination include:

• Terri N. Sullivan, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, Virginia, United States. Dr. Sullivan has conducted extensive research on youth violence prevention, peer relational dynamics, and adolescent mental health outcomes.
• Albert D. Farrell, Ph.D. — Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States. A leading expert in adolescent developmental psychopathology, violence measurement, and preventive intervention design.
• Pamela Orpinas, Ph.D., M.P.H. — Professor of Health Promotion and Behavior, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States. Renowned developer of adolescent aggression and behavioral screening batteries.
• The Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP) Research Consortium — A cooperative research network funded by the CDC comprising researchers across Duke University, the University of Georgia, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Virginia Commonwealth University.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (VPBFS) is to provide an objective, reliable, and standardized metric for quantifying the incidence and intensity of peer victimization among youth, specifically during late childhood and early adolescence (grades 6 through 9). Historically, investigations into youth violence were hampered by broad, subjective definitions of peer harassment and bullying, which often required respondents to make personal value judgments regarding whether an event constituted systemic abuse, teasing, or normative conflict. The VPBFS bypasses the cognitive and affective biases inherent in self-labeling by operationalizing victimization strictly in terms of observable, behaviorally descriptive occurrences framed within an explicit temporal interval: the preceding 30 days.

In clinical, educational, and developmental research contexts, the VPBFS serves several paramount functions:

• Epidemiological Surveillance and Needs Assessment: The scale enables public health officials, educational administrators, and researchers to assess baseline rates of peer victimization across diverse demographic groups, identifying high-risk school environments and disproportionalities in vulnerability.
• Programmatic Evaluation: Designed natively as an evaluation metric for large-scale preventive interventions (such as universal socio-emotional learning curriculums and targeted violence interventions), the scale’s discrete behavioral response categories demonstrate heightened sensitivity to intervention-induced reductions in victimization over time.
• Differential Typological Profiling: By simultaneously capturing both overt physical/verbal attacks and covert relational machinations, the tool allows clinicians and school counselors to distinguish between youth subjected to visible, externalized intimidation versus insidious social ostracization. This differential diagnosis is critical, as relational victimization is uniquely linked to internalizing disorders (e.g., major depression, social phobia, somatic complaints), whereas overt victimization is more robustly associated with externalizing patterns, retaliatory carrying of weapons, and physical conduct disturbances.
• Mitigation of Shared Method Variance: When deployed alongside companion instruments within the Problem Behavior Frequency Scale suite (such as aggression and delinquency batteries), the VPBFS facilitates the rigorous examination of the victim-perpetrator overlap—a phenomenon wherein many victimized youth simultaneously engage in aggressive behaviors—while keeping measurement constructs psychometrically distinct.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct captured by the VPBFS is peer victimization, defined within developmental psychopathology as an individual’s direct or indirect exposure to physical, verbal, or socio-relational abuse perpetrated by peers who hold real or perceived social power. The VPBFS posits that peer victimization is not a unidimensional construct, but rather manifests across two distinct, albeit correlated, behavioral modalities: Relational Victimization and Overt Victimization.

Relational Victimization

Relational victimization involves the intentional manipulation, damage, or sabotage of an individual’s peer relationships, social status, friendships, or feelings of group belonging. Drawing substantially from the seminal social development paradigms introduced by Nicki R. Crick and colleagues, this subscale captures behaviors where social connections serve as the vehicle of harm. Rather than utilizing brute force, perpetrators leverage exclusion, conditional friendship, systemic defamation, and relational isolation to exert control or inflict distress.

Within the VPBFS, relational victimization is measured through six explicit operational items assessing occurrences such as:

• Conditional Association / Friendship Manipulation: Being subjected to emotional extortion wherein peer affiliation is made contingent upon behavioral compliance (e.g., “Had a kid say they won’t like you unless you do what he/she wanted you to do?”).
• Reputational Sabotage: The propagation of deliberate falsehoods and rumors designed to erode peer esteem and provoke social alienation (e.g., “Had someone spread a false rumor about you?” and “Had a kid tell lies about you to make other kids not like you anymore?”).
• Purposive Social Exclusion: Systematic isolation from collective social activities and peer circles (e.g., “Been left out on purpose by other kids when it was time to do an activity?”).
• Malicious Group Expulsion: Coordinated retaliatory ostracism wherein a peer manipulates broader network boundaries to eject the victim from social cliques (e.g., “Had a kid who is mad at you try to get back at you by not letting you be in their group anymore?”).

Overt Victimization

Overt victimization (frequently conceptualized as physical and direct verbal victimization) encompasses interpersonal encounters involving direct, face-to-face confrontations, physical aggression, intimidation, and explicit threats of bodily harm. Rooted in traditional social learning theories of aggression, these acts represent unmediated externalizing behaviors aimed at asserting physical dominance, inflicting pain, or forcing submission through immediate coercion.

The six items comprising the overt victimization subscale capture a spectrum of severity, spanning normative adolescent physical confrontations to high-lethality threats:

• Direct Physical Assault: Experiencing bodily strikes, pushing, or shoving without relational mediation (e.g., “Been hit by another kid?” and “Been pushed or shoved by another kid?”).
• Direct Verbal Harassment: Being subjected to hostile vocal aggression, screaming, or derogatory labeling (e.g., “Been yelled at or called mean names by another kid?”).
• Imminent Threats and Coercive Challenges: Exposure to verbalized intentions of bodily violence or formal provocations to fight (e.g., “Another student threatened to hit or physically harm you?” and “Had a student asked you to fight?”).
• Severe Weapon-Related Intimidation: Direct exposure to life-threatening physical hazards involving lethal instruments (e.g., “Been threatened or injured by someone with a weapon [gun, knife, club, etc.]?”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the VPBFS is situated at the intersection of Social Information Processing Theory, Developmental Systems Theory, and Social-Ecological Systems Theory. Rather than viewing adolescent peer abuse as an isolated, random occurrence, these frameworks collectively conceptualize victimization as an emergent property of dynamic interactions between individual cognitive schemas, immediate peer-group dynamics, and macro-level educational environments.

Crick and Dodge’s Social Information Processing Model

A foundational theoretical pillar of the VPBFS is the Social Information Processing (SIP) model formulated by Nicki R. Crick and Kenneth A. Dodge (1994). The SIP model postulates that children navigate social interactions through a sequence of cognitive steps: encoding social cues, interpreting cues, clarifying goals, accessing behavioral responses, selecting responses, and enacting behavior. In the context of peer aggression, Crick and colleagues expanded this framework to explain why distinct forms of victimization manifest. Children who encounter relational victimization frequently develop hyper-vigilance toward subtle relational cues, misinterpreting ambiguous social gestures (such as a peer whispering or glancing away) as malicious rejection or intentional exclusion. Conversely, youth exposed to chronic overt victimization demonstrate hostile attributional biases regarding direct interactions, interpreting accidental physical contact as deliberate provocation, which often initiates a cyclical victim-perpetrator feedback loop.

Gender-Linked Salience and Relational Theory

The VPBFS explicitly incorporates theoretical advances regarding gender socialization and interpersonal intimacy during early adolescence. Historically, developmental psychology overemphasized overt physical violence, which led to the erroneous conclusion that young males experienced significantly more victimization than females. However, Relational Theory posits that girls and boys are socialized to value different social goals; females often emphasize relational closeness, dyadic intimacy, and communal bonding, whereas males are frequently encouraged toward dominance, instrumentality, and overt competition. Consequently, aggression and victimization in female peer networks are disproportionately enacted by damaging relational ties—the domain where social currency is highest. By balancing overt and relational items equally, the VPBFS provides a theoretically equitable framework capable of assessing victimization across biological sexes without structural bias.

Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological Paradigm

Finally, the scale is anchored in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Within this model, the school classroom and peer networks represent proximate microsystems wherein victimization behaviors are negotiated. By measuring the precise 30-day frequency of discrete occurrences rather than broad perceptions, the VPBFS captures the proximate environmental conditions shaping an adolescent’s psychological reality, reflecting the immediate degree of safety, stability, or threat present within their developmental ecology.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the VPBFS has been thoroughly examined through large-scale structural, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validation studies conducted primarily within the Multisite Violence Prevention Project cohorts, comprising thousands of urban and semi-rural middle school students across multiple US geographic regions.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s stable factor architecture. Multiple independent validation studies comparing unidimensional models of peer abuse against multidimensional frameworks have demonstrated that a single-factor “general victimization” model displays poor empirical fit. In contrast, a two-factor correlated model (Relational Victimization and Overt Victimization) demonstrates superior fit to empirical data. Measurement invariance testing has established metric and scalar invariance across biological sex and racial/ethnic groups, confirming that the VPBFS constructs are conceptualized and measured identically across demographic subsets.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established through substantial, statistically significant correlations between the VPBFS subscales and established external criteria of adolescent maladjustment:

• Internalizing Symptoms: Relational victimization correlates moderately to strongly with measures of depression (e.g., the Children’s Depression Inventory, with correlations typically ranging from $r = .35$ to $.48, p < .001$) and generalized social anxiety. While overt victimization also correlates with internalizing problems, its association is systematically weaker ($r = .20$ to $.32$), demonstrating expected discriminant differentiation between victimization subtypes.
• Aggressive Behavior and Delinquency: Both overt and relational victimization exhibit convergent associations with corresponding self-reported aggression scales (e.g., the Aggression Scale by Orpinas & Frankowski). Overt victimization correlates robustly with overt aggression ($r = .40$ to $.55$) and weapon carrying, whereas relational victimization correlates most strongly with relational aggression ($r = .38$ to $.50$).
• Peer Rejection and Sociometric Status: Sociometric nominations by peers and teacher ratings of student social standing correlate predictably with VPBFS scores; students with elevated relational victimization scores receive significantly more “least liked” peer nominations and lower perceived popularity ratings.

Predictive and Longitudinal Validity

Longitudinal investigations tracking middle school cohorts across multi-year trajectories indicate that baseline VPBFS scores significantly predict subsequent school absenteeism, academic decline (drop in GPA), somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, stomach pains), and onset of severe depressive episodes 12 to 24 months post-baseline, even after controlling for baseline internalizing symptoms and demographic covariates. Furthermore, elevations on the overt victimization subscale prospectively predict increased risk for physical fight involvement and disciplinary suspensions over subsequent academic semesters.

8. Reliability

The VPBFS demonstrates high internal consistency and psychometric reliability across diverse developmental populations, clinical contexts, and community intervention trials.

Internal Consistency

Estimates of internal consistency, evaluated via Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$), consistently surpass conventional psychometric thresholds ($ge .70$) for research and screening tools:

• Relational Victimization Subscale: Internal consistency estimates across published validation cohorts consistently range from $lpha = .78$ to $lpha = .86$. In the primary MVPP normative evaluation sample ($N > 5,000$), the 6-item relational subscale achieved an alpha of $.82$. Corrected item-total correlations for this dimension uniformly exceed $.45$, indicating that each item contributes meaningfully to the shared latent construct.
• Overt Victimization Subscale: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the overt victimization dimension fall between $lpha = .76$ and $lpha = .84$ ($lpha = .80$ in the core MVPP cohort). Item-total correlations generally range from $.42$ to $.61$. The lowest individual item-total correlation is typically observed for Item 11 (weapon-related threat/injury), which is attributable to the extreme skewness and low base rate of lethal weapon exposure in normative school populations; however, retention of this item is supported by its clinical and predictive utility.
• Total Combined Victimization Scale: When utilized as a comprehensive 12-item composite victimization score, internal consistency coefficients consistently fall between $lpha = .85$ and $lpha = .89$.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the VPBFS measures behavioral events experienced within a specific, transient 30-day time frame, conventional long-term test-retest reliability reflects real environmental changes rather than instrument error. However, short-term stability assessments (2 to 4-week test-retest intervals) among control groups not receiving behavioral interventions have demonstrated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) between $.68$ and $.78$, confirming satisfactory temporal reliability while preserving responsiveness to actual environmental shifts.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal dimensionality of the VPBFS has been rigorously tested using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous adolescent datasets.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with oblique rotations (such as Promax or Oblimin, given the theoretical expectation that victimization types correlate) consistently extract two prominent eigenvalues exceeding Kaiser’s criterion of 1.0. Scree plot inspections universally reveal a clean two-factor inflection point. The first factor accounts for the majority of shared variance and captures relational victimization behaviors (Items 1 through 6), with primary factor loadings ranging from $.54$ to $.78$ and minimal cross-loadings onto the overt dimension ($< .20$). The second factor accounts for direct physical and verbal aggression (Items 7 through 12), yielding clean factor loadings ranging from $.51$ to $.75$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have evaluated competing structural models to identify the most parsimonious and theoretically coherent representation. In rigorous multi-group structural equation modeling conducted by Sullivan, Farrell, and colleagues, the correlated two-factor model demonstrated exceptional goodness-of-fit indices across middle school cohorts, substantially outperforming alternative one-factor or orthogonal models:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely observed between $.95$ and $.98$, exceeding the standard $.95$ cutoff for excellent fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently falls between $.94$ and $.97$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates range from $.038$ to $.052$ (with 90% confidence intervals spanning $.032$ to $.058$), well below the stringent $.06$ threshold indicative of close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Typically observed between $.030$ and $.044$.

The standardized factor loadings from representative CFA models are summarized in the structural table below:

The estimated latent inter-factor correlation between Relational Victimization and Overt Victimization generally ranges between $r = .52$ and $r = .65$ ($p < .001$), supporting the conceptualization that while these two forms of victimization frequently co-occur within the adolescent ecology, they represent distinct behavioral phenomena warranting separate measurement.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report behavioral frequency questionnaire.
• Target Population: Children and adolescents, primarily validated for middle school students aged 11 to 15 years (grades 6–9); adaptable to older youth.
• Administration Format: Individual or group-administered paper-and-pencil or secure computer/web-based assessment.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Recall Period: Explicitly restricted to “In the last 30 days” to maximize recall accuracy and establish a definitive baseline for longitudinal or intervention tracking.
• Total Number of Items: 12 items.
• Subscale Structure:
  • Relational Victimization: 6 items (Items 1 through 6).
  • Overt Victimization: 6 items (Items 7 through 12).
• Response Format and Anchor Points: 6-point ordinal frequency scale:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = 1-2 times
  • 3 = 3-5 times
  • 4 = 6-9 times
  • 5 = 10-19 times
  • 6 = 20 or more times
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by summing the numerical point values of the corresponding items. Scores for both Relational Victimization and Overt Victimization range from 6 to 36.
  • Total Score: A composite Global Victimization score can be derived by summing all 12 items (range: 12 to 72).
  • Directionality: Higher scores reflect greater frequency and severity of victimization experiences.
  • Alternative Scoring (Mean Scores): Researchers frequently calculate the subscale mean (ranging from 1.0 to 6.0) by dividing the sum by 6, which retains the intuitive metric of the original behavioral anchors.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Victimization—Problem Behavior Frequency Scale was developed primarily through federal funding provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under cooperative agreements associated with the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (2000–2004). The formal documentation, psychometric parameters, and complete scale items were compiled and published in 2004 (and subsequent updates) within the public domain resource: Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (pages 265–266).

Permissions and Accessibility: As a government-sponsored research instrument published within a CDC technical compendium, the scale is in the public domain. It is free to use for non-commercial research, academic, and clinical screening purposes without payment of royalty fees. While formal written permission from the original developers is not legally required for academic use, researchers are expected to adhere to standard scientific conventions by maintaining item integrity and citing the original Multisite Violence Prevention Project compendium and primary validation publications (e.g., Sullivan et al., Crick & Bigbee, Orpinas & Frankowski).

12. References

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (pp. 265–266). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf
• Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.337
• Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74
• Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., Sullivan, T. N., & Valois, R. F. (2000). The development of a Problem Behavior Frequency Scale for adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(4), 580–592. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP2904_11
• Multisite Violence Prevention Project. (2004). Description of measures: Cohort-wide student survey. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
• Orpinas, P., & Frankowski, R. (2001). The Aggression Scale: A self-report measure of aggressive behavior for young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431601021001003
• Sullivan, T. N., Esposito, L., & Farrell, A. D. (2003, November). Relation between overt and relational victimization and problem behaviors in adolescence. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Convention of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA.
• Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1193–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1193

13. Items of the Scale