The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire: Some unfinished business

Journal of Research in Personality

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 434-452

  Becker, Gilbert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

Author keywords

Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ); Higher order communality structure; Social desirability response set

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947494180     PISSN: 00926566     EISSN: 10957251     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Becker G. The meta-analysis of factor analyses: An illustration based on the cumulation of correlation matrices. Psychological Methods 1 (1996) 341-353
2. Becker G. How important is transient error in estimating reliability? Going beyond simulation studies. Psychological Methods 5 (2000) 370-379
3. Becker, G. (In press). NEO-FFI scores in college men and women: A view from McDonald's unified treatment of test theory. Journal of Research in Personality, doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.009.
4. Becker G., and Cherny S.S. Gender-controlled measures of socially desirable responding. Journal of Clinical Psychology 50 (1994) 746-752
5. Buss A.H., and Durkee A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology 21 (1957) 343-349
6. Buss A.H., and Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (1992) 452-459
7. Carroll J.B. The five-factor personality model: How complete or satisfactory is it?. In: Braun H.I., Jackson D.N., and Wiley D.E. (Eds). The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (2002), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 97-126
8. Cronbach L.J., and Azuma H. Internal consistency reliability formulas applied to randomly-sampled single-factor tests: An empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement 22 (1962) 645-665
9. Crowne D.P., and Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 24 (1960) 349-354
10. Cureton E.E. Reliability and validity: Basic assumptions and experimental designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement 25 (1965) 327-346
11. Edwards A.L. The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology 37 (1953) 90-93
12. Gorsuch R.L. Factor analysis. 2nd ed. (1983), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
13. Harris J.A. A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: Issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research and Therapy 35 (1997) 1047-1053
14. Humphreys L.G. The hierarchical factor model and general intelligence. In: Hirschberg N., and Humphreys L.G. (Eds). Multivariate applications in the social sciences (1982), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 223-239
15. Jackson D.N. Personality research form manual. 3rd ed. (1989), Sigma Assessment Systems, Port Huron, MI
16. Loehlin J.C. Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. 2nd ed. (1992), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
17. McDonald R.P. Test theory: A unified treatment (1999), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
18. Paulhus D.L. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1984) 598-609
19. Roff M. The relation between results obtainable with raw and corrected correlation coefficients in multiple factor analysis. Psychometrika 2 (1937) 35-39
20. SAS (1999). SAS/STAT user's guide (version 8.0). Cary, NC: Author.
21. Schmid J., and Leiman J. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika 22 (1957) 53-61
22. Spearman C. The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement (1927), Macmillan, London
23. Williams T.Y., Boyd J.C., Cascardi M.A., and Poythress N. Factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological Assessment 8 (1996) 398-403
24. Wolins L. A Monte Carlo study of constrained factor analysis using maximum likelihood and unweighted least squares. Educational and Psychological Measurement 55 (1995) 545-557