See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301805569

Deviant behavior variety scale: Development and validation with a sample of

Portuguese adolescents

Article  in  Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica · December 2016

DOI: 10.1186/s41155-016-0035-7

CITATIONS READS

10 1,525

5 authors, including:

Cristina Sanches Maria Gouveia-Pereira

ISPA Instituto Universitário ISPA Instituto Universitário
23 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   318 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

João Maroco Hugo S. Gomes

ISPA Instituto Universitário University of Minho
481 PUBLICATIONS   11,637 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Prevalence and Determinants of Illicit Performance-Enhancing Substances use in Gym users View project

eye tracking in mild cognitive impairment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hugo S. Gomes on 03 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31
DOI 10.1186/s41155-016-0035-7
Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica

RESEARCH Open Access

Deviant behavior variety scale:

development and validation with a sample
of Portuguese adolescents
Cristina Sanches1,3*, Maria Gouveia-Pereira1,3, João Marôco2,3, Hugo Gomes3 and Filipa Roncon3

Abstract
This study presents the development and analysis of the psychometric properties of the Deviant Behavior Variety
Scale (DBVS). Participants were 861 Portuguese adolescents (54 % female), aged between 12 and 19 years old. Two
alternative models were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Although both models showed good fit indexes,
the two-factor model didn’t presented discriminant validity. Further results provided evidence for the factorial and
the convergent validity of the single-factor structure of the DVBS, which has also shown good internal consistency.
Criterion validity was evaluated through the association with related variables, such as age and school failure, as
well as the scale’s ability to capture group differences, namely between genders and school retentions, and
finally by comparing a sub-group of convicted adolescents with a group of non-convicted ones regarding
their engagement in delinquent activities. Overall, the scale presented good psychometric properties, with
results supporting that the DBVS is a valid and reliable self-reported measure to evaluate adolescents’
involvement in deviance.
Keywords: Deviant behavior, Adolescents, Variety scale, Validation

Background for a social group” (pp.276), while delinquency is defined as a

Youth involvement in behaviors that violate social and/ “behavior violating social rules or conventions” (pp. 265).
or legal norms, rules or conventions has been for long There is an apparent overlap between these two concepts,
the subject of interest and research, within the most di- although the same dictionary defines juvenile delinquency as
verse theoretical approaches. Despite the existence of an “illegal behavior by a minor (usually identified as a person
several Portuguese studies on this topic (e.g. Ferreira under age 18), including behavior that would be considered
1997; Fonseca 2004; Lemos 2010; Pechorro et al. 2013, criminal in an adult” (pp. 510). This conceptual overlap is
2014; Sanches et al. 2012), we have done an extensive confounding and is frequently reflected in the measurement
literature review and we could not find any publication instruments used in research, with delinquency scales
addressing the validation or the analysis of the psycho- and deviance scales frequently having identical contents.
metric properties of a Portuguese scale to measure the Although the term delinquency is the most often used in the
deviant or delinquent behavior of adolescents. Our aim literature, it is closely associated with law-breaking behaviors.
with this study was to fill this gap. Given that our aim was to develop a scale that includes
According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology (VanDen- illegal behavior but also rule-breaking behavior that is not
Bos 2007), deviance is defined as “any behavior that deviates illegal, we considered that the term deviance was broader
significantly from what is considered appropriate or typical and therefore more adequate to our purposes.
Deviance or delinquency are commonly measured in
two ways: through official records concerning convictions
* Correspondence: sanches.acp@gmail.com
1
CIE -Centro de Investigação em Educação; ISPA-Instituto Universitário,
and through self-reported measures. Official records have
Lisboa, Portugal the advantage of being more reliable, but the disadvantage
3
ISPA-Instituto Universitário Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34 1141-049 Lisboa, of over-representing the most serious offenses and the
Portugal
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
most serious offenders (those who have been caught and

© 2016 Sanches et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 2 of 8

convicted). Self-reports instead, have the advantage of involvement in deviance–the Deviant Behavior Variety
detecting a wider range of behaviors, both in terms of Scale (DVBS)–and to study its psychometric properties
variety, frequency and seriousness, but the disadvantage of with a sample of Portuguese adolescents. Two criteria were
being less reliable, since they might be affected by mem- taken into account during scale development. First, the
ory, bias and concealment. Despite this disadvantages, sev- scale should be as simple and short as possible, so that it
eral studies have accounted for the validity of self-reports could be easily understood and quickly answered, given that
(e.g. Farrington 1999; Jolliffe et al. 2003; Webb et al. 2006) young people involved in deviance frequently have poor
and this is the method most often used in psychological reading skills,. Second, the scale should be sufficiently var-
research to measure delinquent and deviant behavior. ied, both in terms of the type of behavior, and in terms of
Self-reported scales can be of three types, depending on its severity, so that it would be able to detect different types
whether they are focused on the frequency, the seriousness, and levels of deviant engagement.
or the variety of the behaviors. Frequency scales measure Two alternative models were analyzed using Con-
the number of times that each deviant act has been com- firmatory Factor Analysis, to see which one best repre-
mitted in a certain period of time. Seriousness scales are sented the internal structure of the scale. The first one
based on severity ratings of behaviors, usually developed was a single-factor model, frequently used in deviance
by experts in the field. They are frequently divided in two and delinquency research, namely when a variety scale is
or three seriousness levels, such as minor and serious used (e.g. Brown and Jennings 2014; Hirtenlehner et al.
offenses, or minor, moderate and serious offenses, or even 2014; Sanches et al. 2012; Smith and McVie 2003; Sutton
high and low prevalent offenses, and individuals are labeled and Winnard 2007; Trinkner et al. 2012; Weerman
according to the level of the most serious offense commit- 2011; Yu et al. 2013). The second one was based on the
ted. Variety scales in turn, measure the range or number seriousness of the infractions and is a two-factor model
of different deviant acts that have been committed in a composed by minor and serious infractions (which cor-
certain period of time, so in these scales each item is respond to high and low prevalence rates respectively),
assumed to represent a different type of infraction. that is also quite common, namely in research using var-
Although frequency scales are the most commonly iety scales (e.g. Bendixen and Olweus 1999; Peck 2013;
used in deviance and delinquency research, a compara- Weerman and Bijleveld 2007). Although the factorial
tive study by Bendixen et al. (2003) has shown that var- structure of most deviance scales is organized around
iety scales are superior to frequency scales in what different categories of infractions (e.g. thefts, drugs use,
concerns their psychometric properties: they have higher aggressive behavior, vandalism, etc.), this is not appropri-
internal consistency, higher stability over time, higher ate for a variety scale, where each item is assumed to
group differences, and stronger associations with con- represent a different type of infraction.
ceptually related variables. Moreover, variety scores tend
to be less skewed than frequency scores and they assign
equal weight to all offenses, while frequency scores tend Methods
to overweight minor offenses, given that they usually Participants
occur more frequently. Variety scales also have some Participants were 861 Portuguese adolescents (46 %
practical advantages over frequency scales: they have a male) aged between 12 and 19 years old (M = 15.7; SD =
simpler answering format, which decreases both the prob- 2.05). School attendance varied from the 5th grade to
ability of respondent guessing, as well as the time neces- the 2nd year of college, with 51 % of the participants
sary to answer the questions (Bendixen et al. 2003). having already failed at least once. The majority of par-
Although variety scales are considered a reliable and valid ticipants (51.6 %) frequented public schools, 40.5 % fre-
measure and have been used for long (e.g. Bendixen et al. quented a private school and 7.9 % a private university.
2003; Bendixen and Olweus 1999; Caspi et al. 1994; Participants were distributed in two sub-groups based
Junger-Tas and Marshall 1999; Weerman and Bijleveld on their answer to the following question included in
2007), they seem to be gaining an increasing relevance the questionnaire: “Have you ever been convicted by the
recently, given the growing number of publications court to fulfill a sentence due to your involvement in
using this kind of scale (e.g. Brown and Jennings 2014; illegal or criminal activities?”. Those who answered “yes”
Cohn et al. 2012; Donner et al. 2014; Flexon, and (N = 84) were assigned to the “convicted” group, while
Meldrum 2013; Hirtenlehner et al. 2014; Intravia et al. the remaining (N = 777) were assigned to “non-con-
2012; Malouf et al. 2014; Megens and Weerman 2012; victed” group. This small sub-group of convicted adoles-
Meldrum et al. 2012; Peck 2013; Trinkner et al. 2012; cents was mainly composed by boys (75 %) and it was
Yu et al. 2013). slightly older (M = 16.2; SD = 1.45) than the non-
Taking all these reasons into account, our aim was to de- convicted group (M = 15.72; SD = 2.10). All convicted
velop a variety scale intended to measure the adolescents’ adolescents frequented public schools, from the 5th to
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 3 of 8

the 12th grade, and 95 % of them reported having failed and 19, with higher scores indicating a wide variety of
at least once. deviant behaviors committed.

Measures/instrument Procedure
Item generation This study was approved by the General Education
An initial pool of 34 items was compiled from different Directorate of the Ministry of Education and Science,
sources, including literature review on pre-existing self- as well as by the ethical committee of the ISPA–Insti-
reported measures for delinquent behavior (e.g. Bendixen tuto Universitário. Participants were selected by con-
and Olweus 1999; Junger-Tas et al. 2003; Smith and McVie venience. Data were collected in seven public schools,
2003), and a Portuguese self-reported frequency scale three of them being vocational schools, one private
measuring adolescents’ deviant behavior (see Sanches et al. school and one private university, all in the Lisbon
2012). Items had different severity levels and pertained to area, after obtaining the consent from school boards.
11 categories: thefts, alcohol and drugs consumption, verbal Parental consent was also obtained, except for univer-
and physical aggression, possession of weapons, vandalism, sity students. Questionnaires were administered col-
truancy, driving without a license, assault, use of public lectively in classrooms, in the exclusive presence of
transport without paying, lies and defiance of authority, and the researcher. All participants took part on a volun-
selling drugs. tary basis. They were informed that the questionnaire
was anonymous and that the data was strictly confi-
dential and no one they knew would have access to
Item selection their answers. Questionnaires took about 5–10 min to
Items were evaluated by 81 professionals (13 Judges, 9 be completed.
Prosecutors, 21 Social Workers, 17 Psychologists and 20
Teachers) belonging to several organizations in the Data analysis
Lisbon area that work with youth at-risk and involved in Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical
deviance. Item evaluation was based on two criteria: type Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22.0)
of infraction (answers given on a 3-point scale: 1) behav- (IBM SPSS, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics were used
ior that does not violate a law, nor violates a social to analyze the distribution responses of each item.
norm; 2) behavior that does not violate a law, but that Construct validity was examined through factor, conver-
violates a social norm; or 3) behavior that violates a law; gent and discriminant validity. The factorial structure of
and severity of the behavior (answers given on a 4-point the scale was evaluated using Confirmatory Factor Ana-
scale: from 1 = non-serious behavior; 4 = very serious be- lysis (CFA), but since the scale items were dichotomous,
havior). The 14 items that were classified by at least the model was estimated using tetrachoric correlations
90 % of the professionals as a violation to a social and the weighted least squares mean and variance ad-
norm or, alternatively, as a violation to a law were justed estimation procedure implemented in Mplus 6.1
selected, accounting for 10 of the 11 categories of be- (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA). The goodness-
haviors initially included. Truancy, alcohol consump- of-fit of the factorial models tested was evaluated
tion and the use of soft drugs were left out. However, through the following indices, with the reference values
given that these behaviors are present in most devi- generally assumed in CFA (Byrne 2001; Marôco 2014):
ance and delinquency scales and are relevant for the χ2/df (~2–3); CFI and TLI (> 0.9); RMSEA (< 0.05) and
age group to which the scale is intended, five more WRMR (<1). Convergent validity was evaluated through
items pertaining to these three categories were in- the average variance extracted (AVE), which accounts
cluded. The 19 behaviors selected were then sorted ac- for the proportion of variance in the items that is
cording to the judges’ evaluation of their severity level, explained by the underlying factor, and is considered ap-
which ranged between 2.4 and 4 (M = 3.41; SD = 0.35). propriate when AVE >0.5 (Fornell and Larcker 1981;
Table 1 presents a complete list of the 19 items composing Marôco 2014). Discriminant validity was analyzed com-
the final version of DBVS. paring the squared correlation between factors with the
AVE of each factor. In order to have discriminant valid-
Question format and score calculation ity, the association between factors should be smaller
For each of the 19 deviant behaviors composing the than the individual AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981;
DBVS, participants are asked whether they have com- Marôco 2014). The internal consistency of the scale was
mitted it during the last year. Answers are given in a yes examined using both the Cronbach’s Alpha and the
or no format. A participants’ variety score, which is a Composite Reliability (CR), where values ≥0.70 are con-
sum score, is calculated by summing the dichotomous sidered adequate. Finally, criterion validity was evaluated
scores on each individual item, and it ranges between 0 through Person’s Correlations between the scale and
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 4 of 8

Table 1 Percentage of positive answers on the scale items

During the last year, have you ever… %
[Durante o último ano, alguma vez…]
1. Been to school or to class after drinking alcohol?(mi) 14
[Foste para a escola ou para as aulas depois de teres bebido bebidas alcoólicas]
2. Lied to adults (e.g., family members, teachers, etc.)?(mi) 74.5
[Mentiste a adultos (ex: familiares, professores, etc.)]
3. Used cocaine or heroin?(si) 1.6
[Consumiste cocaína ou heroína]
4. Used a motorbike or a car to go for a ride without the owner’s permission?(si) 4.1
[Usaste uma mota ou um carro para ir dar uma volta sem a autorização do dono ou proprietário]
5. Hitted an adult (e.g., teacher, family, security guard, etc.)?(si) 7.9
[Bateste a um adulto (ex: professor, familiar, agente de segurança, etc.)]
6. Used public transport without paying?(mi) 51
[Andaste em transportes públicos sem pagar bilhete]
7. Damaged or destroyed public or private property (e.g., parking meters, traffic signs, product distribution 14.2
machines, cars, etc.)?(si)
[Estragaste ou destruíste bens públicos ou privados (ex: parquímetros, sinais de trânsito, máquinas de distribuição de
produtos, carros, etc.)]
8. Used hashish (“hash”) or marijuana (“grass”)?(mi) 27.8
[Consumiste haxixe (“ganzas”) ou marijuana (“erva”)]
9. Stolen something worth more than 50 euros (e.g., in shops, at school, to someone, etc.)?(si) 7
[Roubaste alguma coisa que valesse mais de 50 euros (ex: em lojas, na escola, a uma pessoa, etc.)]
10. Skipped school for several days without your parents’ knowing?(mi) 18.3
[Faltaste vários dias à escola sem os teus pais saberem]
11. Sold drugs (e.g., hashish, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, etc.)?(si) 5.1
[Vendeste droga (ex: haxixe, marijuana, cocaína, ecstasy, anfetaminas, etc.…)]
12. Stolen something worth between 5 and 50 euros (e.g., in shops, at school, to someone, etc.)?(si) 16.7
[Roubaste alguma coisa que valesse entre 5 e 50 euros (ex: em lojas, na escola, a uma pessoa, etc.)]
13. Skipped classes because you didn’t felt like going, to stay with colleagues, or to go for a ride?(mi) 48.5
[Faltaste às aulas porque não te apeteceu ir, para ficar com colegas ou para ir dar uma volta]
14. Drove a motorbike or a car without having a driver’s license?(si) 20.6
[Conduziste uma mota ou um carro sem ter carta de condução]
15. Used LSD (“acid”), ecstasy (“tablets”) or amphetamines (“speeds”)?(si) 5
[Consumiste LSD (“ácidos”), ecstasy (“pastilhas”) ou anfetaminas (“speeds”)]
16. Carried a weapon (e.g., knife, pistol, etc.)?(si) 18.3
[Transportaste uma arma (ex: navalha, pistola, etc.)]
17. Stolen something worth less than 5 euros (e.g., in shops, at school, to someone, etc.)?(mi) 24.8
[Roubaste alguma coisa que valesse menos de 5 euros (ex: em lojas, na escola, a uma pessoa, etc.)]
18. Done graffiti on buildings or other locations (e.g. school, public transports, walls, etc.)?(mi) 12.9
[Fizeste graffitis em edifícios ou noutros locais (ex: escola, transportes, muros, etc.)]
19. Broken into a car, a house, shop, school or other building?(si) 4.2
[Assaltaste um carro, uma casa, loja, escola ou outro edifício]
Note. (mi)
items classified as “minor infractions”; (si) items classified as “serious infractions”
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 5 of 8

associated variables, while group differences were ex- infractions was 0.80, which is larger than their individual
amined using the Student-t test and ANCOVA. The AVE, and therefore indicates the absence of discriminant
Welch’s Student-t test was used when the Levene validity between these two factors in the present sample.
test revealed heterocedasticity of variances for the Given these results, the one-factor structure is the most
groups under study (p < 0.05). parsimonious and the one that more adequately fits the
data. The standardized factor weights, as well as the items’
Results squared multiple correlations for the one-factor solution
Item analysis are presented in Fig. 1.
We started by analyzing the distribution response for
each dichotomous item (coded as 0 or 1). Results are Reliability
presented in Table 1. The internal consistency of the DBVS was assessed using
Prevalence rates ranged between 1.6 and 74.5 % and, Cronbach α and Composite Reliability (CR). Cronbach α
as expected, serious infractions displayed lower preva- for the 19 items composing the scale was 0.829 and no
lence rates than minor infractions. Seven items had significant improvements were found excluding any
prevalence rates <10 %, three of which <5 %, 10 items item. Following the indications of Fornell and Larcker
had prevalence rates ranging between 10 and 50 % and (1981), the internal consistency of the scale was also ex-
only 2 items had prevalence rates >50 %. This wide amined using CR, which in the present sample was 0.90.
range of prevalence rates reflects the different severity
level of the behaviors included in the scale. .56
D1
.75
Construct validity .23
.48 D2
Factor validity
.58
Two models were tested using CFA. The first model .76 D3
was a one-factor structure, commonly used in delin- .46
.68 D4
quency research, especially when using variety scales
(e.g. Bendixen and Olweus 1999; Trinkner et al. 2012; .70 D5
.49

Weerman 2011). The second alternative model tested

.50
was based on the seriousness of the behaviors and it .71 D6
was a two-factor structure, composed by serious and .58
.76 D7
minor infractions (see Table 1 for information on the
.49
items’ composing each of the factors), which is also .70
D8
commonly used (e.g. Bendixen and Olweus 1999; Peck .82 .67
2013; Weerman, and Bijleveld 2007). The results of the D9

CFA showed adequate goodness-of-fit indices for both .58 .34

D10
models, with the two-factor structure showing a slightly Deviant behavior
.83 .70
better fit to the observed data in all the indices consid- D11
ered (χ2/df = 2.437, p <0.001; CFI = 0.951; TLI = 0.944; .82 .66
RMSEA = 0.041, I.C.]0.036–0.047[; WRMR = 1.290) D12
.67
than the one-factor structure (χ2/df = 2.591, p <0.001; D13
.44

CFI = 0.945; TLI = 0.938; RMSEA = 0.043, I.C.]0.038– .49

.24
0.049[; WRMR = 1.345). Despite these results, the cor- D14
relation between serious and minor infractions in the .44
.19
two-factor model was very strong (r = 0.895, p <0.001), .73 D15
suggesting the absence of discriminant validity. .53
.73 D16

Convergent and discriminant validity .53

D17
Convergent and discriminant factor validity were evalu- .72

ated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE, see .51

D18
Marôco 2014; Fornell and Larcker 1981). The AVE for the .78

total score was 0.49, for serious infractions 0.54 and for .60
D19
minor infractions 0.48. These results indicate that both
the total score and the two factors have appropriate Fig. 1 Standardized regression weights (displayed on the left side)
and squared multiple correlations (displayed on the right side) for
convergent validity. However, as we suspected, the
the one-factor model
squared correlation between serious infractions and minor
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 6 of 8

Finally, the item/domain discriminating power was

assessed through the corrected item-total correlations.
All the items were significantly (p ≤ 0.001) and posi-
tively related with the total score, with correlation coef-
ficients ranging between 0.20 and 0.52, although more
than 2/3 of the items presented coefficients ≥0.40.
These results strongly support the adequacy and reli-
ability of the single-factor solution of the DBVS in the
present sample.

Group differences and associations with related variables

Criterion validity was assessed through the scale’s ability
Fig. 2 Mean of the variety deviance score for each age-cohort,
to identify group differences, as well as its association
separated by gender
with variables that have been consistently related in the
literature with deviance and delinquency involvement,
such as age and gender (e.g. Emler and Reicher 1995; in deviant activities and again the results of the Welch’s t
Farrington et al. 2013; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; test showed a statistically significant difference between
Hansen 2003; Junger-Tas, et al. 2003; Junger-Tas et al. the two groups (t(91,11) = 5.84, p ≤ 0.001). Those who had
2004; Smith and McVie 2003), or school failure (e.g. already been convicted reported having been engaged in a
Defoe et al. 2013; Emler and Reicher 1995; Farrington higher number of deviant acts during last year (M = 6.43;
2005; Hansen 2003) Starting with gender differences, the SD = 4.53) than those who had never been convicted (M =
results of the Welch’s t test showed a statistically signifi- 3.47; SD = 3.01). Since the composition of these two
cant difference in deviant involvement (t(675,10) = 6.824, groups was significantly different in what concerns age
p < 0.001), with boys reporting having engaged in a and gender, and given the association between these vari-
higher number of deviant acts (M = 4.59; SD = 3.84) than ables and delinquency, it was important to control for
girls (M = 3.05; SD = 2.58). The results of the Welch’s t their effect, including them in the analyses as covariates.
test also revealed a significant difference regarding school So, although there was no homogeneity of variances
failure (t(725,32) = 11.431, p < 0.001), with those who had between the two groups, given the robustness of the F
been retained at school at least once reporting having en- statistic and the impossibility of including covariates in a
gaged in a higher number of deviant acts (M = 4.92; SD = non-parametric test, we performed an ANCOVA, with age
3.72) than those who had never been retained (M = 2.54; and gender as covariates. The results showed that the dif-
SD = 2.24). In the same line, Pearson correlation coeffi- ference between the two groups was still statistically sig-
cients showed that the deviance variety scores were sig- nificant (F(3856) = 40.89, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.05), even after
nificantly and positively related with the number of school controlling for age (F(3856) = 58.72, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.06) and
retentions (r = 0.18; p < 0.001). Also as expected, age was gender (F(3856) = 47.80, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.05).
positively associated with deviance (r = 0.23; p < 0.001).
According to the literature (e.g. Emler and Reicher 1995;
Farrington et al. 2013; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Discussion
Hansen 2003; Junger-Tas, et al. 2003), the engagement in The purpose of this study was to develop a scale
deviant and delinquent activities escalates from pre- intended to measure the variety of deviant behavior–the
adolescence to mid-adolescence, when it reaches its peak DBVS–and evaluate its psychometric properties with a
(generally around 16 years old), and then starts to stabilize sample of Portuguese adolescents. To date, we haven’t
and decrease in the subsequent years. To see if we were found studies reporting the development of a Portuguese
able to find this developmental pattern using the DBVS, deviance variety scale, nor have we found studies report-
the average deviance variety score was calculated for each ing the psychometric properties or specifically address-
age cohort, separated by gender, and is graphically repre- ing the validation of a deviance scale with Portuguese
sented in Fig. 2. Results clearly show that the developmen- adolescents. With this study we intended to contribute
tal pattern found with the DBVS is similar to the one to fulfill this gap. Although frequency scales are the ones
found in previous research, except that girl’s involvement most often used in deviance and delinquency research,
in deviance after 16 years old kept more or less stable our decision about developing a variety scale was based
instead of decreasing. on the results of a comparative study by Bendixen et al.
Finally, we wanted to examine the DBVS’s ability for de- (2003), which has shown that variety scales have better
tecting significant differences between the convicted and psychometric properties as well as some practical advan-
the non-convicted adolescents regarding their involvement tages over frequency scales.
Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 7 of 8

In order to analyze the construct related validity of the reflects the quite low prevalence of convicted girls at this
DBVS, two alternative models were tested using CFA: a age. Second, adolescents were assigned to the convicted
single factor model frequently used in delinquency re- group, according to a self-reported answer and it would
search (e.g. Sanches et al. 2012; Smith and McVie 2003; be more reliable to compare the results of convicted
Sutton and Winnard 2007), particularly when a variety adolescents, based on official records. Also stability over
scale is used (e.g. Brown and Jennings 2014; Hirtenlehner, time, which is a good reliability indicator, was not exam-
et al. 2014; Trinkner et al. 2012; Weerman 2011; Yu et al. ined in this study, and it would have been interesting to
2013); and a two-factor model organized around two ser- analyze the scale’s association with other related vari-
iousness levels (minor and serious infractions) which is ables, such as self-control or the association with delin-
also common in variety scales (e.g. Bendixen and Olweus quent peers. Finally, the analysis of the cross-cultural
1999; Peck 2013; Weerman and Bijleveld 2007). Overall, factorial invariance of the scale would provide stronger
both models showed a good fit in our data, and although evidence of its construct validity. More studies are there-
the two-factor model presented a slightly better fit, subse- fore necessary to overcome these limitations and provide
quent analysis showed that there was no discriminant further validity evidence to the scale.
validity between the two dimensions, therefore indicating
that the single-factor solution was the most appropriate. Conclusions
Convergent validity of the single factor structure of The results obtained in this study support the factorial,
DBVS was also confirmed, with AVE values on the convergent and criterion validity of the Deviant Behavior
threshold of adequacy. Variety Scale, suggesting that this simple and short scale
Item analysis also revealed the overall psychometric is a reliable measure to evaluate adolescents’ involve-
adequacy of the items of the scale. Despite the expected ment in deviant activities.
low response frequencies of some of the more serious
Competing interests
infractions (e.g. 3 items had response frequencies <5 %), The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
which consequently displayed lower correlations with
the total score, these items were not excluded. They pre- Authors’ contributions
CS: study planning, data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript writing.
sented appropriate factor weights and keeping them did MGP: study planning, reviewing the manuscript draft. JM: statistical analyses
not compromise the overall fit of the single-factor conducted with MPlus. HG: data collection. FR: data collection. All authors
model. Furthermore, this pattern of results was already read and approved the final manuscript.
expected: serious infractions have much lower preva- Acknowledgements
lence rates than minor infractions (see e.g. Bendixen and This work was supported by a PhD scholarship (Reference: SFRH/BD/40174/
Olweus 1999), and it was our aim to develop a scale suf- 2007) granted to the first author by the Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia (FCT).
ficiently varied, both in terms of the type of behavior,
and in terms of its severity, so that it would be able to Author details
1
detect different levels of engagement in deviant activ- CIE -Centro de Investigação em Educação; ISPA-Instituto Universitário,
Lisboa, Portugal. 2WJCR - William James Center for Research; ISPA-Instituto
ities. The DBVS has also shown good reliability, either Universitário, Lisboa, Portugal. 3ISPA-Instituto Universitário Rua Jardim do
through the Cronbach’s α or through the composite Tabaco, 34 1141-049 Lisboa, Portugal.
reliability indices. Finally, the scale’s association with re-
Received: 8 February 2016 Accepted: 7 April 2016
lated variables, such as the number of school years failed
and age, which displayed the developmental pattern
expected according to the literature, along with the ex- References
Bendixen M, Olweus D. Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early
pected group differences in deviant engagement, namely adolescence and adolescence: psychometric properties and substantive
in what concerns gender and official convictions, attested findings. Crim Behav Ment Health. 1999;9(4):323–54. doi:10.1002/cbm.330.
for the criterion validity of the scale. Bendixen M, Endresen IM, Olweus D. Variety and frequency scales of antisocial
involvement: which one is better? Leg Criminol Psychol. 2003;8(2):135–50.
Although the DBVS has presented good psychometric doi:10.1348/135532503322362924.
properties, some limitations must be addressed. First, Brown W, Jennings WG. A replication and an honor-based extension of
participants were selected by convenience and, despite Hirschi’s reconceptualization of self-control theory and crime and
analogous behaviors. Deviant Behavior. 2014;35(4):297–310. doi:10.1080/
our efforts in order to collect data in the most varied 01639625.2013.848114.
contexts (public, private and vocational schools), we Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with Amos: basic concepts, applications
cannot state that our sample is representative of the and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001.
Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Silva PA, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Krueger RF, Schmutte PS.
Portuguese adolescent population. Some age groups (the Are some people crime prone? Replications of the personality–crime
youngest and the oldest) are also underrepresented in relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology.
our sample. This happened especially in the convicted 1994;32(2):163–96. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01151.x.
Cohn ES, Trinkner RJ, Rebellon CJ, Van Gundy KT, Cole LM. Legal attitudes and
group, which had no 19-year-old participants, and no legitimacy: extending the integrated legal socialization model. Victims and
female participants with 12 or 13, although this probably Offenders. 2012;7(4):385–406. doi:10.1080/15564886.2012.713902.
 Sanches et al. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2016) 29:31 Page 8 of 8

Defoe IN, Farrington DP, Loeber R. Disentangling the relationship between Peck J. Examining race and ethnicity in the context of general strain theory,
delinquency and hyperactivity, low achievement, depression, and low depression, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior. 2013;34(9):706–26. doi:10.
socioeconomic status: analysis of repeated longitudinal data. J Crim Just. 1080/01639625.2012.759050.
2013;41(2):100–7. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.002. Sanches C, Gouveia‐Pereira M, Carugati F. Justice judgements, school failure, and
Donner CM, Marcum CD, Jennings WG, Higgins GE, Banfield J. Low self- adolescent deviant behaviour. Br J Educ Psychol. 2012;82(4):606–21. doi:10.
control and cybercrime: exploring the utility of the general theory of 1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02048.x.
crime beyond digital piracy. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;34:165–72. Smith D, McVie S. Theory and method in the Edinburgh study of youth transitions
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.040. and crime. Br J Criminol. 2003;43(1):169–95. doi:10.1093/bjc/43.1.169.
Emler N, Reicher S. Adolescence and delinquency—the collective management Sutton R, Winnard E. Looking ahead through lenses of justice: the relevance of
of reputation. Oxford: Blackwell; 1995. justworld beliefs to intentions and confidence in the future. Br J Soc Psychol.
Farrington DP. Validity of self-reported delinquency. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2007;46(3):649–66. doi:10.1348/014466606×166220.
1999;9(4):293–5. doi:10.1002/cbm.327. Trinkner R, Cohn E, Rebellon C, Gundy K. Don’t trust anyone over 30: parental
Farrington DP. Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clin Psychol Psychother. legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent
2005;12(3):177–90. doi:10.1002/cpp.448. behavior over time. J Adolesc. 2012;35(1):119–32. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.
Farrington DP, Auty KM, Coid JW, Turner RE. Self-reported and official offending 2011.05.003.
from age 10 to age 56. Eur J Crim Pol Res. 2013;19(2):135–51. doi:10.1007/ VanDenBos GR, editor. APA dictionary of psychology. Washington: American
s10610-012-9195-x. Psychological Association; 2007.
Ferreira PM. Delinquência Juvenil, família e escola. Análise Social. 1997;XXXII(143/ Webb VJ, Katz CM, Decker SH. Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang
144):913–24. members: results from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime
Flexon J, Meldrum R. Adolescent psychopathic traits and violent delinquency: Delinquen. 2006;52(2):232–52. doi:10.1177/0011128705277972.
additive and nonadditive effects with key criminological variables. Youth Weerman F. Delinquent peers in context: a longitudinal network analysis of
Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2013;11(4):349–69. selection and influence effects. Criminology. 2011;49(1):253–86. doi:10.1111/j.
doi:10.1177/1541204012470850. 1745-9125.2010.00223.x.
Fonseca AC. Comportamento anti-social e crime: da infância à idade adulta. Weerman F, Bijleveld C. Birds of different feathers: school networks of serious
Coimbra, Portugal: Almedina; 2004. delinquent, minor delinquent and non-delinquent boys and girls. Eur J
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Criminol. 2007;4(4):357–83. doi:10.1177/1477370807080718.
variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.2307/ Yu R, Branje S, Keijsers L, Koot H, Meeus W. Pals, problems, and personality: the
3151312. moderating role of personality in the longitudinal association between
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T. A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford adolescents’ and best friends’ delinquency. J Pers. 2013;81(5):499–509. doi:10.
University Press; 1990. 1111/jopy.12027.
Hansen K. Education and the crime‐age profile. Br J Criminol. 2003;43(1):141–68.
doi:10.1093/bjc/43.1.141.
Hirtenlehner H, Pauwels L, Mesko G. Is the effect of perceived deterrence on
juvenile offending contingent on the level of self-control? Results from three
countries. Br J Criminol. 2014;54(1):128–50. doi:10.1093/bjc/azt053.
Intravia J, Jones S, Piquero A. The roles of social bonds, personality, and
perceived costs: an empirical investigation into Hirschi’s ‘new’ control theory.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2012;56(8):1182–200. doi:10.1177/
0306624X11422998.
Jolliffe D, Farrington DP, Hawkins J, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Kosterman R. Predictive,
concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self-reported delinquency.
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2003;13(3):179–97. doi:10.1002/cbm.541.
Junger-Tas J, Marshall IH. The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime
Justice. 1999;25:291–367. doi:10.1086/449291.
Junger-Tas J, Marshall IH, Ribeaud D. Delinquency in an international
perspective–the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 2003.
Junger-Tas J, Ribeaud D, Cruyff MJ. Juvenile delinquency and gender. Eur J Criminol.
2004;1(3):333–75. doi:10.1177/1477370804044007.
Lemos I. Risco psicossocial e psicopatologia em adolescentes com
percurso delinquente. Análise Psicológica. 2010;1(28):117–32. doi:10.
14417/ap.258.
Malouf E, Schaefer K, Witt E, Moore K, Stuewig J, Tangney J. The brief self-control
scale predicts jail inmates’ recidivism, substance dependence, and post-release
adjustment. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40(3):334–47. doi:10.1177/
0146167213511666.
Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais. 2nd ed. Lisboa, Portugal: ReportNumber;
2014. Submit your manuscript to a
Megens K, Weerman F. The social transmission of delinquency: effects of peer
attitudes and behavior revisited. J Res Crime Delinq. 2012;49(3):420–43. journal and benefit from:
doi:10.1177/0022427811408432.
7 Convenient online submission
Meldrum R, Young J, Weerman F. Changes in self-control during adolescence:
investigating the influence of the adolescent peer network. J Crim Just. 2012; 7 Rigorous peer review
40(6):452–62. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.07.002. 7 Immediate publication on acceptance
Pechorro P, Gonçalves R, Marôco J, Nunes C, Jesus N. Age of crime onset and 7 Open access: articles freely available online
psychopathic traits in female juvenile delinquents. Int J Offender Ther Comp 7 High visibility within the field
Criminol. 2013;20(10):1–19. doi:10.1177/0306624X13489864.
Pechorro P, Marôco J, Gonçalves R, Nunes C, Jesus N. Psychopathic traits 7 Retaining the copyright to your article
and age of crime onset in male juvenile delinquents. Eur J Criminol.
2014;11(3):288–302. doi:10.1177/1477370813495759. Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

View publication stats