Table 1.
ESI | ESI-bf | r | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Externalizing Facet | Items | M | SD | α | Items | M | SD | α | θ | EM |
Problematic Impulsivity | 20 | 1.46 | 0.89 | .96 | 7 | 1.38 | 1.04 | .93 | .97 | .98 |
Irresponsibility | 25 | 1.10 | 0.86 | .96 | 10 | 1.15 | 0.98 | .92 | .97 | .97 |
Theft | 15 | 0.98 | 0.99 | .95 | 8 | 1.04 | 1.06 | .92 | .98 | .98 |
Fraud | 14 | 1.00 | 0.83 | .92 | 6 | 0.88 | 0.88 | .85 | .95 | .96 |
Impatient Urgency | 12 | 1.60 | 0.70 | .90 | 5 | 1.64 | 0.80 | .85 | .94 | .92 |
Planful Control | 11 | 1.95 | 0.66 | .91 | 6 | 2.02 | 0.72 | .89 | .97 | .96 |
Dependability | 23 | 2.16 | 0.61 | .95 | 7 | 2.18 | 0.70 | .88 | .95 | .96 |
Alienation | 9 | 1.47 | 0.73 | .85 | 3 | 1.47 | 0.84 | .74 | .91 | .89 |
Boredom Proneness | 12 | 1.49 | 0.75 | .92 | 4 | 1.53 | 0.93 | .92 | .97 | .94 |
Blame Extemalization | 14 | 1.11 | 0.74 | .93 | 4 | 1.15 | 0.92 | .91 | .96 | .94 |
Honesty | 15 | 2.06 | 0.63 | .93 | 5 | 2.10 | 0.71 | .85 | .95 | .95 |
Rebelliousness | 15 | 1.24 | 0.80 | .90 | 6 | 1.18 | 0.97 | .93 | .97 | .97 |
Physical Aggression | 21 | 1.01 | 0.85 | .95 | 8 | 1.02 | 0.96 | .91 | .96 | .97 |
Destructive Aggression | 15 | 0.59 | 0.76 | .94 | 7 | 0.60 | 0.87 | .92 | .93 | .96 |
Relational Aggression | 19 | 1.09 | 0.71 | .93 | 8 | 0.96 | 0.75 | .87 | .95 | .96 |
Empathy | 31 | 2.32 | 0.56 | .96 | 11 | 2.30 | 0.62 | .92 | .96 | .97 |
Excitement Seeking | 18 | 1.43 | 0.73 | .93 | 6 | 1.23 | 0.81 | .87 | .96 | .94 |
Marijuana Use | 17 | 1.55 | 1.15 | .97 | 7 | 1.66 | 1.27 | .96 | .95 | .98 |
Marijuana Problems | 18 | 0.85 | 1.04 | .97 | 7 | 0.88 | 1.09 | .94 | .97 | .98 |
Drug Use | 13 | 1.43 | 1.07 | .95 | 6 | 1.51 | 1.18 | .92 | .97 | .98 |
Drug Problems | 25 | 1.01 | 1.09 | .98 | 11 | 1.05 | 1.15 | .96 | .97 | .99 |
Alcohol Use | 23 | 1.74 | 0.92 | .96 | 9 | 1.88 | 0.98 | .92 | .97 | .97 |
Alcohol Problems | 30 | 0.90 | 0.92 | .97 | 9 | 0.95 | 1.03 | .94 | .97 | .98 |
Note. Wave 3 data are presented because these participants were administered the final complete items set developed across the three waves. M and SD values for item endorsements reflect a 4-point response format, with scores for all items coded such that 0 = low and 3 = high, respectively, on the underlying trait. α = Cronbach’s alpha for constituent items (range = 3-11) of each facet scale. θ = facet scale scores computed using item-response theory based maximum likelihood estimation; Em = facet scale scores computed as mean item endorsement values.