SHORT FORM (BPAQ-ST) –TAMIL VERSION IN CHENNAI

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162)

JETIR1908500 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 225

STANDARDIZATION OF BUSS PERRY

AGGRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE- SHORT FORM

(BPAQ-ST) –TAMIL VERSION IN CHENNAI

POPULATION

S. SamuelDinakaran, Lecturer, National Institue for Empowerment of Persons

with Multiple Disabilities, Chennai.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop Tamil version of the Buss Perry Aggression

Questionnaire (BPAQ –ST) in Chennai population

METHOD: The original version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire which has got 12 questions was

translated in Tamil .Tamil & English version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire –Short Form was

administered to a sample of general population to assess reliability. Tamil version of Buss Perry Aggression

Questionnaire – Short Form was administered to persons with diagnosis of Aggression and Data collected to

establish discriminant validity.

RESULTS: The Cronbach’s alpha value 0.759, which is above 0.7 reveals that the English and Tamil

questionnaire instruments are reliable. The intaclass correlation coefficient value of 0.612 shows a good degree of

agreement between two questionnaires. Confidence interval also given for 5% level of significance. The inter-item

correlation value the discriminant value computed is 0.53 and any values that below 0.85 says that there is a

discriminant validity among items, shows discriminant validity of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire.

CONCLUSION: The Tamil version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire has been found to be reliable &

discriminant validity has been established. It provides a useful measure of Aggression for use in clinical research

and practise

KEYWORDS: Aggression, Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, Hostility, Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION The definitions of the words violence and aggressionare similar in their emphasis on the delivery of

punishment to another organism. Of the two, “aggression” has been operationally defined with greater precision.

Therefore, the term aggression will be used throughout this study.

Many definitions of aggression have been offered in the literature. Baron’s (1977) definition of aggression

is “any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to

avoid such treatment”. This definition excludes cases in which

1) Hurtful behaviour is intended to help another person

2) Is acceptable to the target (e.g., the harm received by a surgical or dental patient).

It also implies that the essential feature of aggression is behaviour that reflects intention to harm.

Renfrew (1997) proposed that “aggression is a behaviour that is directed by an organism toward a target,

resulting in damage”. Renfrew argued that this definition is broad enough to cover a wide range of aggressive

situations such as aggression toward animals or objects, and self-injurious behaviours. However, the emphasis on

“resulting in damage” excludes unsuccessful attempts to hurt the target. Also, for many researchers, the impact of

aggression toward animals or objects is not as interesting or relevant as aggression toward other people.

Buss (1961) defined aggression as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism”. This

definition ignores intent or goal to cause damage or injury because Buss insisted that intent is unnecessary in the

analysis of aggressive behaviour

In his view, “the relationship between reinforcement history of an aggressive response and the immediate

situation eliciting the response” is the critical relationship because it is most likely to predict the occurrence and

http://www.jetir.org/



strength of aggressive responses. Buss’ definition fits well within a behavioural approach that circumvents

unobservable cognitions such as intent. However, cognitions (e.g., intentions, expectancies, etc.), such as those

implied by Baron’s definition, are central to an attentional approach, such as the one taken in this study.

Intention to harm another person whether, damage is caused or not, appears to be an important aspect of

aggression. Therefore, Baron’s definition of aggression will serve as the backdrop for the following discussion of

the origins of aggression.

In addition to various definitional issues concerning aggression, researchers have struggled to distinguish

among definitions of aggression, anger and hostility. One distinction recognizes that these terms are different

facets of the same global construct: anger is the affective component; hostility is the complex cognitive, thought,

or attitudinal component; and aggression is the behavioural component (Buss, 1961; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell,

& Crane, 1983; Epps & Kendall, 1995). Unfortunately, some investigators continue to use anger, hostility and

aggression interchangeably, contributing to ongoing definitional ambiguities. One method of minimizing this

ambiguity has been to distinguish between angry or hostile aggression on the one hand and instrumental

aggression on the other. These distinctions are generally made using Buss’s (1961) definitions. Buss characterized

all aggressive responses as involving an interpersonal context and either being reinforced by the victim’s pain

(which is considered angry/hostile aggression) or by extrinsic rewards (which is considered instrumental

aggression). Angry or hostile aggression, then, is reinforced by the victim’s emotional suffering, physiological

reaction, or physical injury, whereas with instrumental aggression “the acquisition of some extrinsic reinforcer or

the cessations of aversive stimuli are the crucial consequences, not the victim’s discomfort”.

Recently, however, the dichotomy between hostile and instrumental aggression has come under attack.

Bushman and Anderson (2001) recommended “pulling the plug” on this dichotomy claiming that it has outlived its

usefulness. The authors made a cogent argument that too many acts of aggression serve multiple purposes and

include both impulsive anger and a premeditated, instrumental component. The relative influence of each type of

aggression is often incalculable. In fact, Bushman and Anderson expressed appreciation for the past utility of the

hostile vs. instrumental aggression dichotomy, but suggested that psychologists will realize future advances in the

study of human aggression by utilizing a knowledge structure (information-processing) approach, which will be

discussed shortly.

Research related to the current study has centred on aggression that is performed concurrently with or

secondary to anger arousal. While there may be an instrumental component to such aggression, the presence of

anger arousal as a common theme makes it appropriate to focus primarily on literature related to angry aggression.

However, instrumental aggression will be mentioned where appropriate.

Definition of AGGRESSION: (Bushman, Cooper, & Lemke, 1991)

Aggression describes an overt behaviour intended to harm another person

Renfrew (1997)

“Aggression is a behaviour that is directed by an organism toward a target, resulting in damage”

Bushman, Cooper, & Lemke (1991)

Aggression describes an overt behaviour intended to harm another person

Baron’s (1977)

“Any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to

avoid such treatment”

Buss (1961)

“A response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism”

PURPOSE OF STUDY: The purpose of the study is to standardize Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short Form in Tamil

Language for Chennai population

NEED FOR THE STUDY: Patients with most psychiatric illnesses have aggression and it affects their daily functioning (Reiss.S,

Rojahn J. (JID 1993). So, early assessment of aggression and intervention is essential. BPAQ-ST has been

validated in Dutch, German, Chinese, Spanish languages .Cross cultural variation has been reported in the




literature (Jonathan P. Maxwell November 2007) has been carried out to avert cultural influence. Hence, this

current study has been done to form the Tamil version on BPAQ-ST and to strengthen its psychometric properties,

reliability has been done in Chennai population.

CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION:

Buss (1961)

“A response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism”

Renfrew (1997)

“Aggression is a behaviour that is directed by an organism toward a target, resulting in damage”. Aggression has

basically four components- verbal aggression, physical aggression, anger and hostility.

Verbal aggression- Outbursts or inappropriate language used in socially inappropriate settings.

Physical aggression- A forceful physical action performed as a self protective or inappropriate to the particular

situation.

Anger- A strong emotion; a feeling that is oriented towards some real or supposed grievance

Hostility- An act expressing enmity or opposition.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Operational definition in this study for Aggression is same as conceptual definition assessed in Chennai

population.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

Aim: To standardize Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST) version in

Tamil language.

Objectives: 1. To develop standardized Tamil version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST) in

Chennai population.

2. To test the reliability of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST) in Chennai population

3. To establish discriminatory validity of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ – ST) in

Chennai Population.

HYPOTHESIS: The following are the statement of null hypothesis in this study.

1.There is no significant correlation between the Tamil and English version of BPAQ-ST.

There is no statistical difference in BPAQ- ST scores between normal individuals and individuals with

aggression.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

This is a quantitative research with cross sectional study design.

SAMPLE: Complete data from the Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST) was collected from

80 individual between the age range of 21 to 45 years from a wide variety of sources in and around Chennai city. The

sampling method used was convenience sampling. Participants included college students, faculty members, and volunteers

from commercial areas, public organization service and old age homes. Subjects were purely selected based on the following

criteria.




SCREENING CRITERIA Subjects in the age group of 21 years to 45 years who had good English and Tamil Reading language were

included in the study. Individuals with comprehension, reading deficit or any co morbid mental illness were

excluded.

TEST USED:

Buss Perry aggression questionnaire –Short Version (BPAQ-ST)

Description: Buss & Perry,(1992),Buss & Warren (2000) developed the BPAQ-ST. This is a brief (12 item)

measure of Aggression in individuals. The 12 items were designed to assess the different types of aggression.

Participants were asked to rate based on how the item was characteristic of them.

Scoring criteria:

Ratings were subsequently assigned numerical values of 1 (Extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5

(Extremely characteristic of me), resulting in minimum and maximum possible total score of 12 and 60

respectively.

Reliability and validity of the BPAQ-ST:

To test the validity of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) Bryan and Smith (2001) did a

confirmatory factor analysis with a total sample of 1154 respondents to compare four alternative measurement

models for the Aggression Questionnaire that are currently in use to develop a more appropriate measurement

model, they omitted items with low loadings or multiple loadings based on principal components analysis and

excluded items with reverse-scored wording. This yielded a 12-item, four-factor measurement model with

acceptable goodness of-fit (GFI 5 .94). Secondary analysis of two independent data sets confirmed the refined

model’s generalizability for British (Archer, Holloway, &McLoughlin, 1995; GFI 5 .93) and Canadian (Harris,

1995; GFI 5 .94) samples. The refined model yielded equivalent factor structures for males and females in all three

samples. They also replicated the refined four-factor model in two additional American samples, who completed a

new short form of the Aggression Questionnaire containing only the subset of 12 items in random order.

Additional analyses provided evidence supporting the model’s construct validity and demonstrated stronger

discriminant validity for the refined Hostility factor compared to its predecessor. The new short form of the AQ

thus not only contains fewer than half as many items as the original, but also is psychometrically superior.

PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION

The permission was requested from the Professor Fred B. Bryant, Loyola University, Chicago, U.S.A to translate

the Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST) in Tamil language for Chennai

Population. This was translated into Tamil both front and back with the help and guidance of two Professors who

were well versed in both English and Tamil. The participants were asked to sign the written consent form and were

explained the purpose of the study. Those who have consented to participate were given the Tamil and English

version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire – Short form Questionnaire (BPAQ-ST). The Tamil version was

then given with individuals with Aggression and data collected to establish discriminant validity. According to the

5 point scale the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire.

STATISTICAL METHODS TO ANALYZE THE DATA

1. Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency) test was used to find out the reliabilities of the total scale and the

subscales.

2. Independent ‘t’ test was used to analyze the Tamil version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ)




DISCUSSION

In this study standardized Tamil version of BPAQ-ST was developed. The psychometric testing of the BPAQ

showed that the scale whole, as well as the subscales, demonstrated good reliability.

Standardized BPAQ-ST in Tamil version:

Original version of BPAQ-ST was developed by Bryant et al (2001).This scale was translated into Tamil

language with the help of two professors. The goal of the BPAQ-ST Tamil translation was to recast the meaning of

the source version in the target language rather than to translate literally the words of the source version. In recent

years the Occupational therapy literature has suggested an increasing involvement of Occupational therapist in the

application of knowledge and clinical techniques across different cultural groups (Demar 1992). When

international or cross-cultural applications are involved in therapy or in research, one of the major problems that

clinicians and researchers encounter is the translation of material from one language to other, a process that is

impeded to linguistic and cultural difference (Brislin, Lonner, &Thirndike, 1973).

Reliabilities and normative data:

The reliability of the BPAQ-ST (Tamil Version) scale was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. High level of

reliability was found in the total scale (r = 0.75) (table 1).The correlation Co-efficient value was 0.612 which

showed a good degree of agreement between the two questionnaires(table4).With the inter item correlation value

the discriminant value is 0.53 which proves there is a discriminant validity among items.(table 6)

Clinical Implication:

1. Tamil version of the BPAQ-ST can be used to screen adults with aggression in Chennai population.

2. BPAQ-ST can be used as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment given for aggression by

occupational therapist.

Limitation:

The study used Convenience sampling method. Due to constraint in accessibility study was conducted on

organized group in selected public places. Hence randomize sampling was not feasible.Being a self administered

questionnaire, there is a chance for misinterpretation of questions especially among the subjects who were

relatively silent without asking for clarification.

Conclusion

The BPAQ-ST (Tamil version) was designed systematically, following methodologically sound steps, leading to

the development of a measure that is able to evaluate aggression. Furthermore, the Tamil version has found to

possess high reliability. The BPAQ-ST has a potential advantage over other self report scales Therefore BPAQ-ST

(Tamil version) is a useful measure of aggression.




Recommendation

This study provides a foundation for future research, in using BPAQ-ST in various cultures and languages in

India, since India being a multi lingual country.Self rating BPAQ-ST can be examined in the clinical population

also.

Figures and Tables

table:1 reliability

Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items

.759 .760 2

Table 1 shows the reliability analyze (internal consistency) of the Tamil version of BPAQ-ST using

Cronbach’s alpha. High level of reliability was found in the total scale (r=0.759).

The Cronbach’s alpha value 0.759, which is above 0.7 reveals that the English and Tamil questionnaire

instruments are reliable

Table 2 shows the analyze of total scores of Tamil and English versions of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire.It

is found that the reliability is good.

table 2 : item statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

ST_eng 29.96 9.241 80

St_tamil 29.62 8.715 80




Table3. Summary Item Statistics

Table 3 shows the total score of Tamil and English version of Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire .It is found

that it has Good reliability.

Mean Minimum Maximum Range

Maximum /

Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 29.794 29.625 29.962 .337 1.011 .057 2

Item Variances 80.681 75.959 85.404 9.445 1.124 44.602 2




Table 4.Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

Table 4 gives the interclass correlation coefficient value of 0.612, which shows a good degree of agreement between two

questionnaires. In this table confidence interval also given for 5%level of significance

Intraclass

Correlationa

95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value 0

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound Value df1 df2 Sig

Single Measures .612b .454 .733 4.155 79 79 .000

Average Measures .759c .625 .846 4.155 79 79 .000




Table 5 shows the discriminant validity among the Tamil and English versions of Buss Perry Aggression

Questionnaire.

table 5 . item statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

bapq 104.73 37.777 81

bapq_st 35.85 9.545 81




Table 6 shows inter – item correlation value computed which is 0.53 and any values below 0.85 says

that there is discriminant vaidity among items.

Table 6 .Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

Bapq bapq_st

Bapq 1427.100 191.259

bapq_st 191.259 91.103




Table 7 shows there is discriminatory validity among items

Table 7 . Summary Item Statistics

Mean Minimum Maximum Range

Maximum /

Minimum Variance N of Items

Item Means 70.290 35.852 104.728 68.877 2.921 2.372E3 2




GRAPH 1 – RELIABILITY

GRAPH 1 – RELIABILITY

graph 1 – reliability




graph 2 – discriminant vadility


Documents

SHORT FORM (BPAQ-ST) –TAMIL VERSION IN CHENNAI