REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 1 Running Head: REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY

Refinement of the Multidimensional School Anger Inventory: Further Construct Validation, Extension to Female Adolescents, and Preliminary Norms Michael J. Furlong University of California at Santa Barbara Douglas C. Smith University of Hawaii at Manoa Michael P. Bates University of California at Santa Barbara Author Note. Michael Furlong is a professor in the Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology program at UCSB. Douglas Smith is an associate professor in the Counselor Education program at the University of Hawaii. Michael Bates is a doctoral research associate at UCSB. Send correspondence to Mike Furlong at UCSB, Education, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (electronic mail: mfurlong @education.ucsb.edu) or Doug Smith at UH Manoa, Counselor Education, 1776 University Ave., Honolulu, HI 96822 (electronic mail: mfurlong@education.ucsb.edu. A version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA, March 30, 2000. Abstract The responses of 1,166 students in grade 9 to 12 to a refined version of the Multidimensional School Anger Inventory were used in four analyses to further examine its psychometric properties. In analysis 1, the four-factor structure (Anger Experience, Hostility, Destructive Expression, and Positive Coping) of the original MSAI was validated with an independent subsample of males and extended to a sample of females. Analysis 2 used another independent subsample to refine the MSAI by exploring the utility of adding additional items to the two anger expression subscales (Destructive Expression and Positive Coping). This analysis added four parallel items to Destructive Expression and one item to Positive Coping while principal components once again analysis replicated the four-factor structure. A third analysis was completed using another independent subsample of males and females to substantiate the fourfactor structure of the refine MSAI. Given the robustness of the MSAI factor structure across independent subsample and comparability for males and females, analysis 4 combined data for all 1,166 students to obtain develop preliminary norms for the MSAI. It was also possible to obtain test-retest data for 508 students and it was found that stability coefficients were substantial (.56 to .62) across the four subscales. Uses of the MSAI for school-based assessment and program evaluation and the need to further develop ways to assess students anger expression is discussed.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 2 Refinement of the Multidimensional School Anger Inventory: Further Construct Validation, Extension to Female Adolescents, and Preliminary Norms Youth anger and the associated constructs of hostility and aggression are of considerable interest to both researchers and practitioners in school psychology and counseling (see Goldstein & Conoley, 1997; Larson et al. book chapter). Given continuing concerns with violence in school settings (Astor, Behre, Fravil, & Wallace, 1997; Brenner, Simon, Krug, & Lowry, 1999; Furlong, Morrison, & Pavelski, 2000; Kaufman, Chen, Choy, Chapman, Rand, & Ringel, 1998; Kingery, Coggeshall, & Alford, 1998), there is a need to identify students experiencing angerrelated problems and to develop effective intervention strategies to increase their capacity to manage anger-related behaviors and cope more effectively with interpersonal conflicts. The Multidimensional School Anger Inventory (D. C. Smith, Furlong, Bates, & Laughlin, 1998) was designed to assess affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of anger specific to the general school setting and context. The original 31-item scale, developed for males in grades 6 to 12, demonstrated positive psychometric properties with regard to internal consistency and construct and concurrent validity. A principal components analysis supported the hypothesized four-factor structure of the scale, which included subscales measuring Anger Experience, Hostile/Cynical Attitudes, Destructive Expression, and Positive Coping. Encouragingly, each of the subscales emerged as measuring a relatively independent aspect of the general construct of anger in adolescent males. In subsequent studies (Bowman, 19xx; Furlong & D. C. Smith, 1998) the MSAI has proven to be useful in identifying subgroups of students manifesting anger-related needs within school settings. The Furlong and D. C. Smith (1998) analysis supported an empirically-based typology of anger responses in males that included both normal variation clusters and distinctive patterns of anger-related problems at school. The resulting typology has important implications for making clinical diagnoses, screening for prevention programs, and for evaluating intervention efforts. Despite these promising findings, there is a need to confirm the MSAI structure for males and to explore its relevance for females in order to enhance its usefulness as a diagnostic instrument and to establish its utility as an outcome measure for school-based anger and conflict management efforts. In this study we explore three aspects of refining the MSAI for use with adolescents. First, we sought to determine the extent to which the original factor structure and psychometric properties of the scale could be cross-validated with a larger sample of adolescent males. The original sample of 202 males had limited generalizability due to its size and the fact that a majority of the students attended a parochial school in Hawaii. Secondly, we were interested in the anger experiences and responses of female students in schools settings. Although anger, and particularly aggression, have been mainly viewed as a characteristically male response pattern (and justifiably so given the prototypical perpetrators of extreme violence on school campuses; see Brenner et al, 1999; Furlong, Pavelski, & Saxton, in press) there has been recent interest in understanding the female anger experience (Crick, 1996; Crick & Dodge, 1996). This literature suggests that although females may experience anger to the same extent as males, they differ in terms of the means by which it is expressed. Rather than relying upon physical aggression or other more direct forms of anger expression, females characteristically employ indirect or passive-aggressive strategies as a means of expressing anger and associated frustration. One purpose of this study was to determine whether the factor structure of the MSAI obtained for males accurately reflected females anger, hostility and aggression at school. Finally, we wanted to determine the stability of the MSAI subscale scores over time. It is important to understand the extent to which youths anger-related problems in school settings might be best viewed as fairly stable, immutable dispositions or more situationally determined responses that vary over time. In the context of school, we were particularly interested in being able to identify the needs of students who may manifest chronically high levels of anger, hostility, and aggression. If the MSAI is to prove useful as a diagnostic instrument for this purpose, it must demonstrate a reasonable degree of score stability over time.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 3 The original development of the MSAI was based on the three-component model of the global anger process that involves an emotional-affect component, a cognitive hostile-cynicism component, and an expressive component. We purposefully used a process to select items for each subscale that would result in high within-scale item-total correlations and low betweenscale item-total correlations. Based on the three-component model of anger, we anticipated that this would produce three unique sets of items having some semblance of unidimensionality to them. What we found, however, was that anger expression was not a unidimensional construct. In retrospect, this should not have been surprising since anger expression represents a complex class of behaviors encompassing a broad range of responses to anger experiences. Specifically, we found that MSAI expression items comprised two domains, which we called Destructive Expression (including aggressive and suicidal or self-injurious responses) and Positive Coping (including more socially acceptable responses). The next steps in the refinement of the MSAI include: (a) cross-validating its factor structure with an independent sample of males and (b) exploring its validity for female adolescents. In addition, it was of interest to improve the psychometric properties of the two Anger Expression subscales due to moderate-sized alpha coefficients found among samples in the previous studies. Finally, there is a need for the computation of preliminary norms for research, evaluation, and clinical purposes. Given these next steps, the analyses in the current study addresses the following research questions: 1. Does the four-factor structure reported in the original development of the MSAI crossvalidate across an independent sample of males? (Analysis 1) 2. Does the original MSAI factor structure hold for a sample of female adolescents? (Analysis 1) 3. Do males and females obtain comparable scores on the MSAI subscales? (Analysis 1) 4. Can the anger e xpression subscales (Destructive Expression and Positive Coping) be refined to improve their psychometric characteristics? (Analysis 2) 5. Do any subscale refinements cross-validate to independent samples of males and females? (Analysis 3) 6. What are the preliminary norms for the refined MSAI? (Analysis 4) 7. What is the stability of the MSAI over time? (Analysis 4) Method Participants and Response Verification Data were obtained from 1,589 students in grades 912 attending a comprehensive public high school in central California, who were administered the MSAI as part of a school safety needs assessment. Because the primary purpose of this study was to explore and refine the psychometric properties of MSAI, it was essential that all items have valid responses. Forty-eight participants were eliminated because they did not indicate their gender and eight were eliminated for failure to indicate their age level. In addition, each response sheet was read by an optical scanner and then individually reviewed and verified. This allowed for the accurate recording of items in which responses might have been changed (i.e., an initial response was crossed out and another response clearly given) and to examine any items with multiple responses. Once these data were verified and transferred to an SPSS database, each item was examined for missing responses. In most cases, missing responses were due to the fact the student did not have enough time to complete all of the items in the questionnaire. Our approach was to use a backwardelimination strategy by removing cases in which the last item was incomplete and then preceding to the next to last item, and so on. Using this strategy, it was found that 90 students did not complete the last item. Once these cases were deleted from the database, no single item contributed more than 90 cases with missing responses; in fact, only eight cases were eliminated due to missing responses on any of the questionnaires first 10 items. The version of the MSAI used in this investigation also included three items designed to

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 4 assess response consistency. These three items assessed a students reluctance to admit to angry feelings (Somebody punches you for no reason at all; Somebody grabs your lunch bag and throws in on the roof of the school; and In the restroom, somebody trips you on purpose and everyone starts to laugh at you.) Examination of responses to these items indicated that only one student responded to all three response-check items by indicating that these situations would not evoke any angry feelings. An additional 20 students responded in this way to two of the three response check items. The average score of these 21 students for the 13 Anger Experience items (25.1) was compared to that of the remaining students (31.3) and was found to be significantly lower, t (1,186) = 3.81, p = .0001. This shows that these students, as expected, under subscribed to angry affect. Due to concerns about response bias, these 21 students were not included in further analyses. Insert Table 1 about here After the data management procedures were completed, there remained a total of 1,166 cases with complete responses for all MSAI itemsthese students were included in subsequent analyses. Characteristics of these students are shown in Table 1. There were comparable numbers of males and females and adequate representation across grades 9 to 12. The sample consisted of 62% white students, with about 27% being from a diverse representation of racial or ethnic backgrounds including biracial youths. Ten percent of the students declined to identify their racial or ethnic background. MeasuresMultidimensional School Anger Inventory In the initial development of the MSAI (D. C. Smith et al., 1998), items were purposefully selected to maximize item-total correlations within each subscale and minimize item-total correlations between subscales. Items from the original item pool that were significantly correlated with the composite score of one or more other subscales were eliminated from the scale. The objective was to develop an instrument that provided relatively independent measures of the three components of anger assessing the tripartite of affect, cognitions, and behavior. The instrument construction process was consistent with conceptual definitions of anger (e.g., Speilberger, Johnson et al., 1985) A-H-A [anger-hostility-aggression]) and was identified as an example of good practice by Goodwin and Goodwin (1999) in a review of scale development procedures. Although the original analyses of the MSAI yielded promising results, the samples used in its initial development were small and consisted exclusively of male adolescents. There was a need, as in all scale development, to replicate the factor structure of the MSAI across independent samples and, further, to extend its utility by exploring its validity for female adolescents. Procedure Prior to collecting data for this confirmation and extension study, it was recognized that we wanted to develop parallel items in an effort to bolster the reliability of the subscales, as suggested by Smith and McCarthy (1995). This was particularly true of the anger expression subscales. Trial parallel items were drafted and presented to focus groups of adolescents and graduate students in school psychology for feedback about their meaningful representation of aspects of anger expression. This process resulted in the addition of five trial parallel items for use in the extension analysis of this study (Analysis 2). Original and trial items are presented in Table 2.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 5 Insert Table 2 about here The site school counselor and health class teachers administered the MSAI with trial items to students as part of a school-wide conflict management program. The survey was completed in September 1998 to all students in attendance on the administration day. The MSAI itself was printed on one page (two-sided) using a machine readable response format designed by the authors using Teleform software. In addition, the following March 1999, the MSAI was readministered to 508 youths to gather information about the stability of its scores. Results Analysis 1: Confirmation of the Factor Structure of the Original MSAI and Extension to Females A subsample of 176 males and 192 females was drawn from the total sample of 1,166 adolescents for this analysis using random case selection procedures in the SPSS program (the subsamples used in the subsequent analyses were mutually exclusive). The responses of these youths to the original 31 MSAI items (the refinement items were ignored in Analysis 1) were evaluated using principal components analyses with varimax rotation for purposes of examining the factor structure with an independent sample of males and cross-validating its factor structure for females. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 3 and show that the four factors reported in the original MSAI study (D.C. Smith et al., 1998) were replicated for the subset of males in this study. Within-scale factor loadings for each of the four MSAI subscales were substantial (.46 to .72). These factors accounted for 46.4% of the common variance. Insert Table 3 about here Results of the principal components analysis with varimax rotation for the female subsample showed that the original four factors also emerged unchanged. Within-subscale factor loadings for the females were all substantial, ranging from .39 to .77. These four factors accounted for 39.8% of the common item variance. One specific outcome was that the Positive Coping subscale was not as strongly replicated for females. Four of the original seven items (Nos. 21, 24, 27, and 30) had high loadings (.48 to .69), but three other items (Nos. 22, 26, and 29) had lower loadings (.26 to .36). In addition, the Destructive Expression and Positive Coping subscales had lower alpha coefficients for females than males. In summary, the factor structure of the MSAI was maintained for female adolescents but was not as robust. Nonetheless, given the utility and convenience of having a single version of the MSAI, these minor differences do not appear to warrant separate male and female versions of the scale. In an effort to further investigate the nature of gender differences in anger and anger expression, independent t-test analyses were conducted to determine whether males and females scored differently on the four subscales. Results indicated that females, on average, scored higher on Positive Coping, t (366) = 7.69, p = .0001, and lower on Hostility, t (366) = -3.96, p = .0001. This finding is congruent with the results of other studies investigating gender differences in anger-related behaviors and cognitions (Furlong, Chung, Bates, & Morrison, 1995). In summary, the results of Analysis 1 provide evidence that the MSAIs four-factor structure was replicated for males and was substantially the same for female adolescents. On the whole, females harbor less hostility toward experiences in the school context than males and appear to endorse more positive coping strategies as a means of managing or expressing angry feelings. The Anger Experience and Hostility subscales, as in the original study (D. C. Smith et al., 1998), had the highest alpha coefficients. In contrast, the Positive Coping and Destructive

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 6 Expression scales had only moderate alphas, suggesting the need to bolster the two anger expression subscales by adding parallel items (see G. T. Smith & McCarthy, 1995). This was pursued in Analysis 2. Analysis 2: Item Refinement of the MSAI As discussed in the Procedures section, parallel items were written for possible inclusion in the Destructive Expression and Positive Coping subscales. This was of particular importance because in the preliminary development of the scale we found that these subscales had lower reliabilities than the Anger Experience and Hostility subscales. For the purposes of Analysis 2, the five parallel items were included with the original 31 MSAI items in a principal components analyses with varimax rotation using a second randomly selected subsample of 416 students. Male (n = 198) and female (n = 195) respondents were combined into a single sample due to the confirmation of identical factor structures in Analysis 1. In addition to contributing to the refinement of the MSAI by including parallel items, the principal components analysis with varimax rotation provided yet another opportunity to replicate the factor structure with an independent sample. Insert Table 4 about here Results of Analysis 2 again strongly replicated the MSAIs original four-factor structure with all intra-scale loadings between .43 and .72 (see Table 4). The only item with an inter-factor loading above .40 was Destructive Expression item No. 35 (When Im mad at a teacher, I make jokes in class to get my friends laughing), which had a loading of .44 on the Hostility subscale. Alpha coefficients for Anger Experience, Hostility, and Destructive Expression were all above .78. Positive Coping again had the lowest reliability coefficient (.65). The five parallel items included in this analysis all had substantial loadings on existing factors. Item Nos. 33 (.66), 34 (.63), 35 (.44), and 36 (.55) all were added to Destructive Expression and item No. 32 (.45) loaded substantially on Positive Coping. In summary, Analysis 2 lent further credibility to the four-factor structure of the MSAI, while improving the reliabilities of the anger expression scales by adding parallel items. Analysis 3: Cross-Validation of the Refined MSAI This analysis was completed with a third randomly selected sample of 416 youths (females, n = 203; males, n = 202) from the original 1,166 youths. This analysis provided an independent test of the factor structure for the 36 items included in the refined MSAI with a combined sample of males and females. Again, a principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the original MSAI items and five trial items (see Table 5). Insert Table 5 about here As in Analyses 1 and 2, the within-scale loadings were all substantial ranging from .41 to .68. The alpha coefficients for Anger Experience, Hostility, and Destructive Expression were all above .80, with a lower reliability for Positive Coping (.67). In this analysis, the only item with an inter-item loading above .40 was Anger Experience item No. 5 (You ask to go to the bathroom and the teacher says, no), which had a loading of .44 on the Hostility subscale. Analysis 4: Final Factor Structure and Preliminary Norms

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 7 The results of the first three analyses provided evidence supporting the underlying fourfactor structure of the MSAI. To aid researchers and practitioners who want to use the MSAI, we computed a principal components analysis with varimax rotation for the 36-item refined MSAI using the responses of all 1,166 students. The item loadings are shown in Table 6. None of the items had an between-subscale loading greater than .40, which reflects our successful attempt to develop subscales that independently assess the triad of anger constructs: affect, cognitions, and behavior. Consistent with scale development strategy, all within-scale correlations were nonsignificant except for the correlation of .56 between Hostility and Destructive Expression. This indicates that students who reported higher levels of cognitive hostility were more likely than were their less hostile peers to report that they expressed their anger in outward, destructive ways. Insert Table 6 about here The previous analyses using subsamples of students found some meaningful differences in the subscale means for males and females. In addition, prudent use of any instrument should take into consideration developmental (age) and cultural influences on responses to items. To assess these factors, analyses were completed to compare the subscale means by gender (female male), grade level (grades 9, 10, 11, and 12), and racial or ethnic identification (whiteracial/ ethnic minority). As shown in Table 7, there were no mean subscale scores differences across grade level or by racial/ethnic identity. For males and females differences between the mean subscale scores for Anger Experience and Hostility were nonsignificant. In contrast, males had a higher mean score on Destructive Expression and females a higher mean score on Positive Coping (refer to Table 7 for statistical tests). Insert Table 7 about here In order to provide researchers with preliminary normative data, the combined responses of all 1,166 youths included in this study were tabulated and distribution characteristics were established. Figure 1 shows the score distribution of the four MSAI subscales. Anger Experience, Hostility, and Positive Coping are roughly normally distributed. Destructive Expression is positively skewed with the majority of students acknowledging low rates of destructive reactions when angry. In addition, we were able to obtain test-retest data for 508 youth. These stability coefficients are also reported in Table 7 and verify that students responses were moderately stable over a six-month period of time regardless of gender, age, or racial/ethnic identification. These coefficients ranged from .47 (for racial/ethnic minority respondents on Positive Coping) to .73 (grade 10 respondents on Destructive Expression). Insert Figure 1 about here Discussion Taken as a whole, the results of analyses reported in this study provide convincing support for the conceptual structure of the Multidimensional School Anger Inventory and its utility as an assessment tool for both male and female adolescents. In following the recommendations of G. Smith and McCarthy (1995) for best practices in clinical scale development, we sought to examine (a) the dimensionality of the MSAI across subscales, (b) the content homogeneity of the MSAI subscales, and (c) the internal consistency of the MSAI subscales. In addition, we wanted to determine the extent to which the MSAI, as currently conceived, adequately assessed the anger experiences, cognitions, and behaviors of a broad range

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 8 of students varying in gender, age, and ethnicity. With regard to the question of the dimensionality of the MSAI across its subscales, the set of analyses reported here offer further evidence in support of a four-factor structure that includes an affective (Anger Experience) component, a cognitive (Hostility) dimension, and two aspects of anger expression, which we labeled as Destructive Expression and Positive Coping. The fact that this structure was replicated within three independent samples of students in the current study attests to the robustness of the original factor solution. The answer to the question of: Does the original four-factor structure reported in development of the MSAI cross-validate across independent samples of students, is overwhelmingly yes. In terms of homogeneity of content of MSAI subscales, our data suggest that within each of the four content domains sampled by the scale, all individual items contributed uniquely and substantially to total subscale scores. Within-scale factor loadings across each of the samples included ranged from .39 to.77. Homogeneity of subscale content is also evidenced by the fact that alpha coefficients for the four subscales identified in this research ranged from .59 to .88 across the various samples studied. As an example of how a specific subscale score might provide a useful and relatively independent measure of one aspect of anger, we have used the MSAI Hostility subscale alone in studies examining violence victimization in school settings. These studies have shown that students with high scores on the Hostility subscale are 20 times more likely to report that they have been victimized at school, are less well-connected or bonded to adults at school, and are more aware of drugs, gangs, and weapons on school campuses (Bates, Chung, & Chase, 1997; Furlong, Chung, Bates, & Morrison, 1995; Furlong, Casas, Corral, Chung, & Bates, 1997). Limitations and Next Steps The answer to the question of whether the MSAIs four-factor solution applies equally well to females and to students differing according to ethnicity, developmental level and other salient characteristics is somewhat more complex. Related to this is whether the psychometric characteristics of the subscales can be improved by further refinement of items. Our data suggest that both the Anger Experience and Hostility dimensions as presently conceived adequately represent females affect and cognitions with regard to anger at school. With regard to anger expression, however, the findings are less conclusive. Four of the five items that were added to the original MSAI loaded on the Destructive Expression subscale and these additional items increased the reliability of this subscale for both males and females. Although it is clear from our data that females are less likely than males to endorse aggression and other destructive strategies for expressing anger at school, it does not appear that the content of the scale is less viable for both males and females. In the case of Positive Coping, despite the addition of one item explicitly designed to measure an aspect of coping purportedly preferred by females, this factor did not emerge as clearly in the female samples. Our sense is that nonaggressive anger responses are complex and difficult to classify and interpret. For example, if someone reports that they exercise when they are angry, is this good or bad? Is this suppressing their anger or positively coping with it? Upon further reflection it appears that Positive Coping may encompass a wide range of coping responses including suppression/distraction, withdrawal, problem solving, and emotional management. More work is needed to clarify the types of responses characteristic of coping with anger in school-age populations and the extent to which each of these differs according to gender. In the meantime, practitioners interested in adding to their anger assessment resources will want to examine the Childrens Inventory of Anger (Nelson & Finch, 2000; Pediatric Anger Experience Scale, the Aggression Scale (Buss & Perry, 19xx) and the Childrens Hostility Inventory (Kazdin) On a similar note, much more work is needed to explore the relevance of the MSAI and

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 9 similar scales with students differing according to ethnicity, cultural background and other important characteristics. Although we found no significant differences in MSAI subscale scores based on the ethnic distributions included in this set of analyses, our samples did not include a large proportion of ethnic minority students and did not specify the particular ethnic identity of students within this grouping. One specific expectation, for example, based upon the conflict resolution literature (reference) is that Asian-American students as a group would be more likely to engage in negotiation and other problem-solving strategies as a response to provocation than students from other ethnic backgrounds. Another highly salient student characteristic relevant to the work of clinicians working within schools is the degree of anger and frustration experienced by students manifesting learning and behavior problems at school. We are currently collecting data with the MSAI and other instruments in an effort to understand the anger-related emotions, cognitions, and behaviors of students identified as requiring mental health/special education services. The results of this and previous studies that have developed and refined the MSAI provide evidence of its reliability, validity and stability. It current has potential for use as part of a comprehensive school-based social-emotional assessment. In this capacity it would prudently be used as part of a cross-informant evaluation by adding information about how the student himself or herself experiences anger at school. In addition, the MSAI can be used in of evaluations of schoolbased conflict mediation programs and anger management programs. The degree to which the MSAI can prove relevant to understanding the needs of these students will go a long way toward determining its utility as both a diagnostic and assessment tool in school settings. References Astor, R. A., Behre, W. J., Fravil, K. A., & Wallace, J. M. (1997). Perceptions of school violence as a problem and reports of violent events: A national survey of school social workers. Social Work, 42(1), 55-68. Brenner, N. D., Simon, T. R., Krug, E. G., & Lowry, R. (1999). Recent trends in violence-related behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 440-446. Buss, A., & Perry, (19xx). Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of childrens future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 23172327. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Furlong, M. J., J. M. Casas, Corral, C., Chung, A., & Bates, M. (1997). Drugs and school violence. Education and Treatment of Children 20(3): 263-280. Bates, M., Chung, A., & Chase, M. (1997). The California School Psychologist Furlong, M. J., A. Chung, Bates, M., & Morrison, R. (1995). Who are the victims of school violence? Education and Treatment of Children 18(3): 282-298. Furlong, M. J., Pavelski, R., & Saxton, J. (in press). Thinking strategically about the prevention of school site violence. In P. Lazarus & S. Brock (Eds.), Crisis book. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Furlong, M. J., & Smith, D. C. (1998). Raging Rick to tranquil Tom: An empirically based multidimensional anger typology for adolescent males. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 229-245. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299. Furlong, M. J., Chung, A., Bates, M., & Morrison, R. (1995). Who are the victims of school violence? Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 282-298. Goldstein, A. P., & Conoley, J. C. (1997). Student aggression: Current status. In A. P.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 10 Goldstein & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), School Violence Intervention: A Practical Handbook (pp. 345). New York: Guilford. Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1999). Measurement myths and misconceptions. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 408-427. Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M. R., & Ringel, C. (1998). Indicators of school crime and safety, 1998 (NCES 98-251/NCJ-172215). Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Kazdin. A. E. (19xx). Kingery, P. M., Coggeshall, M. B., & Alford, A. A. (1998). Violence at school: Recent evidence from four national surveys. Psychology in the Schools, 7(2), 137-157. Smith, D. C., Furlong, M. J., Bates, M., & Laughlin, J. D. (1998). Development of the Multidimensional School Anger Inventory for males. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 1-15. Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessments, 7, 300-308. Rubey, R. N., Johnson, M. R., Emmanuel, M. R., Naresh, L. R., & Lydiard, R. B. (1996). Fluoxetine in the treatment of anger: An open clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 57, 398-401. Gelkopf, M. (1997). Laboratory pain and styles of coping with anger. Journal of Psychology, 131, 121-123. Forgays, D. K., Richards, J. C., Forgays, D. G., Sujan, S. (1999). Examination of the AHA! Illness relation to male and female university students from Australia, India, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 64-77. McFall, M. E., Wright, P. W., Donovan, D. M., & Raskind, M. (1999). Multidimensional assessment of anger in Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 40, 216-220. Tescher, B., Conger, J. C., Edmondson, C. B., Conger, A. J. (1999). Behavior, attitudes, and cognitions of anger-prone individuals. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 21, 17-139. Larson, J. (in press) Nelson, M. W., Hart, K. J., & Finch, A. J. (1993). Anger in children: A cognitive behavioral view of the assessment-therapy connection. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 11, 135-150. Feindler, E. L. (1995). Ideal treatment package for children with anger disorders. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 173-195). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Fryxell, D. R. K. (1998). Risk factors associated with chronic anger, hostility, and aggression in preadolescent youth. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 58(7-B), 3944. Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E, H., Russell, S. F., Crane, R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The experience and expression of anger: Construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in anger and cardiovascular disorder (pp. 5-30). New York: McGraw-Hill/Hemisphere. Swaffer, T., & Epps, K. (1999). The psychometric assessment of anger in male and female adolescents resident at a secure youth treatment centre. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 419422. Musante, L., Trieber, F. A., Davis, H. C., Waller, J. L., & Thompson, W. O. (1999). Assessment of self-reported anger expression in youth. Assessment, 6, 225-233.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 11 Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the combined sample (N = 1,166) N 590 576 352 290 267 257 729 319 118 % 50.6 49.4 30.2 24.9 22.9 22.0 62.5 27.4 10.1

Females Males Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 White Racial or ethnic minority Race or ethnicity missing

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 12 Table 2 Original 31 MSAI items and five trial refinement items (denoted by asterisks) __________________________________________________________________________ Anger Experience Subscale Response Scale (using line-drawn face icon depicting different levels of anger intensity): 1 = I wouldnt be mad at all 2 = Id be a little angry 3 = Id be pretty angry 4 = I would be furious __________________________________________________________________________ 1. You didnt notice that someone put gum on your seat and you sit on it. 2. At school, two bigger students take something of yours and play keep away from you. 3. You tell the teacher that you are not feeling well but she/he does not believe you. 4. Someone in your class acts up, so the whole class has to stay after school. 5. You ask to go to the bathroom and the teacher says, no. 6. You go to your desk in the morning and find out someone has stolen some of your school supplies. 7. Someone in your class tells the teacher on you for doing something. 8. You get sent to the principals office when other students are acting worse than you are. 9. The teachers pet gets to do all of the special errands in class. 10. Somebody cuts in front of you in the lunch line. 11. You are trying to do your work in school and someone bumps your desk on purpose and you mess up. 12. You study really hard for a test and still get a low grade. 13. Somebody calls you a bad name. ___________________________________________________________________________ Hostility Subscale Response Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Disagree ____________________________________________________________________________ 14. School is worthless (junk). 15. School is really boring. 16. Grades at school are unfair. 17. There is nothing worth learning at school. 18. Rules at school are stupid. 19. Adults at school dont care about students. ____________________________________________________________________________ Anger Expression Subscale (DE = Destructive Expression; PC = Positive Coping Response Scale (Frequency): 1 = Never 2 = Occasionally 3 = Often 4 = Always ____________________________________________________________________________ 20. When Im angry, Ill take it out on whoever is around. DE 21. I talk it over with another person when Im upset. PC 22. When I get angry, I think about something else. PC 23. When Im mad, I hate the world. DE 24. When I get mad at school, I share my feelings. PC 25. When Im mad, I break things. DE 26. Before I explode, I try to understand why this happened to me. PC 27. When Im upset, I calm myself down by reading, writing, painting, or some similar activity. PC 28. I get so mad that I want to hurt myself. DE 29. If something makes me mad, I try to find something funny about it. PC 30. When Im mad, I let my feelings out by some type of physical activity like running, playing, etc. PC 31. If I get mad, Ill throw a tantrum. DE

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 13 *32. When Im angry, I cover it up by smiling or pretending Im not mad. PC *33. I punch something when Im angry. DE *34. When I get a bad grade, I figure out ways to get back at the teacher. DE *35. When Im mad at a teacher, I make jokes in class to get my friends laughing. DE *36. When I get a bad grade on a test, I rip the test paper into little pieces. DE ____________________________________________________________________________ Note. DE = Destructive Expression; PC = Positive Coping; Items are shown in the order that they appear in the MSAI. The items are presented in a machine readable response sheet. *Items added to refine anger expression subscales

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 14 Table 3 Analysis 1summary of principal components analysis for males and females using the original 31 MSAI items MSAI Subscale Anger Hostility Destructive Experience Expression Males (n = 176) 31.1 13.1 8.6 7.5 3.7 3.0 .52.68 .65.71 .46.71 .88 .82 .75 17.0%. 10.8% 9.3% Females (n = 192) 29.8 11.7 8.0 5.9 2.9 2.5 .42.66 .60.72 .46.77 .83 .79 .66 14.3% 10.5% 7.6% Comparison of Subscale Means -1.90 -3.96 -1.97 .059 .000 .050

Positive Coping 13.8 3.8 .57.72 .71 9.3% 16.7 3.4 .39.57 .59 7.4% 7.69 .000

M SD Range of item loadings Alpha Variance explained M SD Range of item loadings Alpha Variance explained t value (df = 366) p value

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 15 Table 4 Analysis 2summary of principal components analysis for males and females combined using the original 31 MSAI items and five refinement parallel anger expression items MSAI Subscale Anger Hostility Destructive Experience Expression Males and Females (n = 393) .47.68 .44.72 .45.72 .87 .78 .83 13.8 9.6 10.7

Positive Coping .43.65 .65 7.2

Range item loadings Alpha Variance explained

Note. The only item with an inter-item loading above .40 was the Destructive Expression item No. 35 (When Im mad at a teacher, I make jokes in class to get my friends laughing.), which had a loading of .44 on the Hostility subscale.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 16 Table 5 Analysis 3summary of the cross validation principal components analysis for males and females combined using the 36 items in the refined MSAI MSAI Subscale Anger Hostility Destructive Experience Expression Males and Females (n = 416) .43.68 .46.65 .56.68 .84 .80 .82 9.8 7.5 8.8

Positive Coping .41.59 .67 6.5

Range item loadings Alpha Variance explained

Note. The only item with a inter-item loading above .40 was the Anger Experience item No. 5 (You ask to go to the bathroom and the teacher says, no ), which had a loading of .44 on the Hostility subscale.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 17 Table 6 Analysis 4Final item loadings, item-subscale communalities, and variance explained for the refined 36 item MSAI using the responses of all students in grades 912 (items numbers refer to those in Table 2) MSAI Subscale (N = 1,166) Destructive Expression

Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Anger Experience .48 .52 .59 .64 .60 .62 .58 .64 .54 .58 .60 .57 .54

Hostility

Positive Coping

.69 .68 .61 .65 .65 .60 .60 .60 .51 .54 .54 .67

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 18 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. % Variance No. items Range .60 .48 .66 .63 .50 .60 10.5 9 9-36 .55 .53 .44 .57 .52

13.0 13 1352

8.9 6 624

7.6 8 832

Note. These four factors account for 40.0% of common variance. No items had an inter-subscale loading of greater than .40. Items are showed in administration order.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 19 Table 7 Analysis 4descriptive, reliability, and 6-month stability data for the refined MSAI scale by gender, grade and ethnicity MSAI Subscale Anger Hostility Destructive Positive Experience Expression Coping Total Sample (n = 1,166) M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 508) M SD SEM Reliability 6-mo. stability (n = 223) M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 285) F-value (1, 1164) p-value Eta squared M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 200) M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 107) 30.8 6.8 .20 .86 .56 31.7 7.4 .31 .87 .53 29.9 6.0 .25 .83 .58 19.99 .000 .017 31.3 6.0 .32 .83 .53 31.0 6.6 .39 .85 .59 12.4 3.3 .10 .80 .62 Males (n = 576) 13.0 3.4 .14 .79 .59 Females (n = 590) 11.8 3.0 .12 .79 .61 41.46 .000 .034 th 9 Grade (n = 352) 12.1 3.1 .17 .79 .61 th 10 Grade (n = 290) 12.6 3.3 .20 .79 .57 14.5 4.8 .14 .82 .59 15.9 5.4 .23 .84 .57 13.1 3.6 .15 .74 .53 102.29 .000 .081 14.4 4.4 .23 .78 .54 14.5 4.5 .26 .78 .73 17.3 4.1 .12 .68 .58 15.9 4.1 .17 .68 .50 18.6 3.7 .15 .61 .5 140.20 .000 .107 17.6 3.9 .21 .62 .66 17.3 4.2 .25 .68 .51

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 20 M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 84) M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 117) F-value (3, 1162) p-value Eta squared M SD SEM Alpha 6-mo. stability (n = 345) 31.8 7.5 .46 .88 .55 28.8 6.7 .42 .85 .50 10.47 .000 .026 30.5 6.7 .25 .86 .56 11th Grade (n = 267) 12.8 3.6 .22 .82 .68 12 Grade (n = 257) 12.2 3.1 .19 .80 .62 3.17 .023 .008 White (n = 729) 12.2 3.3 .12 .81 .61
th

14.8 5.4 .33 .85 .51 14.2 4.9 .31 .85 .56 0.74 .530 .002 14.3 4.7 .18 .82 .54

17.0 4.4 .27 .73 .46 17.1 4.0 .25 .68 .59 1.43 .232 .004 17.5 4.1 .15 .69 .63

Racial or Ethnic Minority (n = 319) M 31.6 12.9 15.1 16.6 SD 6.8 3.4 5.1 4.1 SEM .38 .19 .29 .23 Alpha .84 .80 .83 .67 6 mo. stability (n = 120) .56 .62 .68 .47 F-value (1,1046) 260.15 9.43 4.93 9.73 p-value .017 .002 .027 .002 Eta squared .005 .009 .005 .009 Note. Six-month test-retest responses were available for 508 youths. Ethnicity was not indicated by 118 youths.

REFINEMENT OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCHOOL ANGER INVENTORY 21 Figure Captions Figure 1. MSAI distribution histograms and statistics for Anger Experience, Hostility, Destructive Expression, and Positive Coping.

Anger Experience
80 70 60 Mean = 30.8; SD = 6.8; Skewness = 0.48 180 160 140

Hostility
Mean = 12.4; SD = 3.3; Skewness = 0.66

Frequency

Frequency

50 40 30 20 10 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 5 10 15 20

Score Destructive Expression

160 140 120 Mean = 14.5; SD = 4.8; Skewness = 1.65 160 140 120

Score Positive Coping

Mean = 17.3; SD = 4.1; Skewness = 0.10

Frequency

Frequency
10 15 20 25 30 35

100 80 60 40 20 0

100 80 60 40 20 0 10 15 20 25 30

Score

Score