1. Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire 

Source: Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006)

This 23-item questionnaire is used to measure students’ reactive aggression and proactive aggression. The design of the items comes from the Teacher Rating Scales on Reactive and Proactive Aggression (Brown, Atkins, Osborne, & Milnamow, 1996; Dodge & Coie, 1987) and the conceptual and theoretical literature (Barratt, 1991; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Meloy, 1988; Vitiello et al., 1990). Following the concept of reactive and proactive aggression, in addition to physical and verbal aggression, the questionnaire includes items that measure aggression arising from the interviewees’ internal motivation and external environment. Examples include, "had fights with others to show who was on top", "yelled at others when they had annoyed you". Students rate each item on a 3-point scale from 0 (never) to 2 (always). The total score represents the "Overall Aggression Index". Also, there are two sub-scales: The Reactive Aggression Index and Proactive Aggression Index.

Because this questionnaire is translated from English, the Chinese version was examined in Hong Kong in 2006, with 1,430 Secondary 1 to Secondary 3 participants from four schools in different districts and with different bandings. The α coefficients obtained from this sample were 0.88 for the Overall Aggression Index, 0.82 for the Reactive Aggression Index, and 0.87 for the Proactive Aggression Index. In this study, the α values were 0.88 for the Overall Aggression Index, 0.82 for the Reactive Aggression Index and 0.88 for the Proactive Aggression Index.

2. Child Behaviour Checklist - Youth Self -Report (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Child Behaviour Checklist - Youth Self-Report (CBCL-YSR; Achenbach, 1991)

This 60-item CBCL-YSR checklist is widely used to assess eight types of internal and external behaviour in young people. Schoolchildren are asked to rate themselves on a 3-point scale from 0 (inaccurate) to 2 (accurate). Item scores are summed to create a subscale score for each checklist. Among the eight subscales, Aggressive Behaviour, Anxious/ Depressed Symptom, Attention Problem, and Delinquent Behaviour are used to assess proactive aggressors, and Aggressive Behaviour, Anxious/Depressed and Attention Problem subscales are used to assess aggressive victims. The Aggressive Behaviour subscale measures the aggressiveness of the student, in which the higher the score, the more severe the aggressive behaviour. The Anxious/Depressed Symptom subscale measures the level of anxiety and depression, with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety and depression. The Attention Problem subscale measures the student’s level of concentration, with higher scores indicating greater difficulty with maintaining focus. Finally, the Delinquent Behaviour subscale measures the frequency of the student’s delinquent behaviour, with a higher score indicating a higher frequency of delinquent behaviour.

Research by the Education Bureau has demonstrated the validity and reliability of this checklist. The checklist has maintained its structural validity with different groups (EMB, 2003) and related concurrent validity with the ECBI (Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory) and PSI (Parenting Stress Index – short form) for measuring the behavioural problems of students. The alpha (α) coefficients for the subscales in this study were 0.87 for Aggressive Behaviour, 0.88 for Anxious/Depressed, 0.77 for Attention Problem and 0.74 for Delinquent Behaviour.

3. Peer Victimisation Questionnaire 

Source: Peer Victimisation Questionnaire (PVQ; Lopez, 1997)

The ‘Peer Victimisation Questionnaire’ is widely used to measure the form and severity of student bullying. The questionnaire has three subscales: Verbal Bullying, Physical Bullying and Social Bullying. Students score the items according to how often they have encountered each bullying incident, on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The α coefficient obtained in this study was 0.94.

4. Multidimensional Peer Victimisation Scale

Source: Multidimensional Peer Victimisation Scale (MPVS; Mynard & Joseph, 2000)

Based on past experience, it is crucial to assess the level of victimisation suffered by potential victims to differentiate pure victims from aggressive victims. To do so, the16-item Multidimensional Peer Victimisation Scale (MPVS; Mynard & Joseph, 2000) is used to assess the type and level of victimisation experienced by the student. Given the multidimensional nature of student victimisation, the scale includes four subscales, including "physical victimisation" (e.g. punched me), "verbal victimisation" (e.g. called me names), "social manipulation" (e.g. refused to talk to me), and "attacks on property" (e.g. tried to break something of mine). Students are asked to recall the frequency at which the items associated with each form of victimisation occurred over the past three months on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = three times, 4 = more than three times).

5. Anger Self-Report (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Anger Self-Report (ASR; Zelin, 1972)

The Anger Self-Report (ASR) questionnaire uses a Likert-type scale to yield separate scores for the awareness, expression and condemnation of anger, trust and individual guilt.

6. State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Spielberger, 1991)

The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) questionnaire is designed to measure the experience, expression and control of an individual’s anger. The STAXI assessment presents scores on six scales: Trait Anger, State Anger, Anger Expression-Out, Anger Expression-In, Anger Control-Out and Anger Control-In.

"State-Anger" and "Trait-Anger" measure the different dimensions of the anger experience. "State-Anger" assesses an individual’s level of anger at a particular time. "Trait-Anger" is further divided into two subscales: Anger Temperament and Anger Reaction. "Anger Temperament" measures the extent of an individual’s anger when not stimulated, and "Anger Reaction" assesses the extent of an individual’s anger when stimulated. Because State Anger is not particularly relevant to this study, only Trait-Anger is used. The frequency of each item is assessed on a 4-point scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost every day).

The STAXI contains three subscales that measure the expression of an individual’s anger, Anger-out, Anger-in, and Anger Control. "Anger-out" assesses the tendency of an individual to vent anger on others or non-living things. "Anger-in" measures the frequency at which an individual suppresses anger, and "Anger Control" assesses an individual’s effort to control anger. The STAXI evaluates each question on a 4-point scale from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost every day). The "Anger Expression" index is obtained by summing the scores for all three subscales, with higher scores indicating a greater tendency to deal with anger by suppressing it and/or venting.

The α coefficients of the subscales obtained in this study were 0.77 for "Trait-Anger", 0.71 for "Anger Temperament", 0.66 for "Anger Reaction", 0.71 for "Anger-in", 0.63 for "Anger-out" and 0.86 for "Anger Control".

7. Aggression Questionnaire (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)

The Aggression Questionnaire (AGQ) is designed to measure different dimensions of aggression in an individual. Two subscales of AGQ – Physical Aggression and Verbal Aggression are used in this study (Buss & Durkee, 1957). Participants rank certain statements along a 5-point continuum from "extremely uncharacteristic of me" to "extremely characteristic of me", in which the higher the summed score, the higher the level of aggression. The α coefficients obtained in this study were 0.78 and 0.46 for the subscales "Physical Aggression" and "Verbal Aggression", respectively.

8. Relational Aggression Measure (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Relational Aggression Measure (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)

In this study, the Relational Aggression Measure questionnaire was modified from the original peer-reported version to a self-reported version. All of the items in the questionnaire are the same as the original design. For example, "When I join group activities, I would intentionally avoid someone wanting to be in the same group as me". Participants are required to self-report on different statements on a 5-point scale from 1 for "Very Inappropriate" to 5 for "Very Appropriate". The total score of the "Relational Aggression Index" is obtained by summing the scores of the items. The α value of the questionnaire obtained in this study was 0.65.

9. Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief 

Source: Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief (SPQ-B; Raine, 1991; Raine & Benishay, 1995)

Several studies have demonstrated the relationship between bullying/victimisation and various personality disorders, including schizotypal personality (characterised by odd behaviour and thinking and a need for social isolation). The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) is a 22-item questionnaire with yes-no options designed to assess schizotypal personality patterns and screen out schizotypal personality among at-risk aggressors. The SPQ consists of three categories: Cognitive-Perceptual Deficits (Ideas of Reference, Magical Thinking, Unusual Perceptual Experiences, Paranoid Ideation), Interpersonal Deficits (Social Anxiety, No Close Friends, Blunted Affect, Paranoid Ideation), and Disorganisation (Odd Behaviour, Odd Speech).

10. Brief Grit Scale

Source: Brief Grit Scale (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009)

Because proactive aggressors use aggressive behaviours to obtain goals, a questionnaire assessing individual goal attainment is included. The Brief GRIT scale is designed to examine the perseverance and passion tied to an individual’s long-term goals. It is an eight-item questionnaire (e.g. I am diligent/I finish whatever I begin). Participants respond to questions based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not like me at all, 2 = Not much like me, 3 = Somewhat like me, 4 = Mostly like me and 5 = Very much like me).

11. Children's Hope Scale

Source: Children's Hope Scale (CHS; Snyder et al., 1997)

The Children’s Hope Scale, a six-item scale, is designed to measure the agency and pathway aspects of hope. It has demonstrated reliability and concurrent validity. The ‘agency’ items are: "I think I am doing pretty well", "I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future" and "I am doing just as well as other kids my age". The "pathway" items are, "When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it", "I can think of ways to get the things in life that are most important to me" and "Even when others want to quit, I know that I can find ways to solve the problem". Responses are reported on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for "none of the time" to 6 for "all of the time".

12. Cognitive-Affective-Somatic Empathy Scale (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Cognitive-Affective-Somatic Empathy Scale (CASES; Chen, Fung, & Raine, 2019)

Past studies have suggested a close link between empathy (or the lack of it) and the occurrence of aggressive behaviour. To assess the level of empathy among at-risk aggressors, the Cognitive-Affective-Somatic Empathy Scale (CASES) was used. It is a 60-item questionnaire designed to comprehensively evaluate various levels and directions of empathy, including "Somatic/Motor – Positive" (e.g. seeing parents and their children smiling makes me smile too.), "Somatic/Motor – Negative" (e.g. I flinch when I see someone being hit.), "Emotional – Positive" (e.g. I get a warm feeling inside of me when I see someone helping a poor person or a small child), "Emotional – Negative" (e.g. seeing a thin, starving child upsets me), "Cognitive – Positive" (e.g. when someone is in a good mood I can tell by how they look and behave) and "Cognitive – Negative" (e.g. it must be scary at times to be a soldier in a war.). Participants are instructed to report on each item using a 3-point scale (0 = rarely, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often).

13. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980)

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is a 28-item behavioural self-report, which has been translated into Chinese and thoroughly validated in Hong Kong. It measures four covert intrapersonal processes with empathetic outcomes in interpersonal relationships: (a) Automatic Cognitive Processes, such as perception, matching, labelling of emotions and identification; (b) Perspective-taking or Role-taking, the cognitive attempt to understand another person’s point of view; (c) Empathetic Concern, an affective reaction congruent with the observed emotion of another person; and (d) Personal Distress, defined as affective reactions in response to the experience of others. Evidence of its reliability and validity among the Hong Kong population of schoolchildren was supported by Siu and Shek (2005).

14. Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement

Source: Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement (MMD; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastroelli, 1996)

The Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement (MMD) questionnaire is a 32-item questionnaire assessing children’s morality-related beliefs that are associated with aggressive and bullying behaviours. There are eight subscales included in the measurement, including Moral Justification ("It is alright to fight to protect your friends"), Euphemistic Language ("Slapping and shoving someone is just a way of joking"), Advantageous Comparison ("Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating people up"), Displacement of Responsibility ("If kids are living under bad conditions they cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively"), Diffusion of Responsibility ("A kid in a gang should not be blamed for the trouble the gang causes"), Distorting Consequences: ("It is okay to tell small lies because they don’t really do any harm"), Attribution of Blame ("If kids fight and misbehave in school it is their teacher’s fault") and Dehumanisation ("Some people deserve to be treated like animals"). Students are required to complete the questions using a 3-point scale (scored 1-3 based on their extent of agreeing with each item).

15. School Psychosocial Climate Scale (No appendix due to copyright)

Source: School Psychosocial Climate Scale (Gottfredson, 1984)

The School Psychosocial Climate Scale assesses how a student describes his or her school environment. Three modified student self-reporting subscales were adopted in this study: Safety, Fairness of Rules and Clarity of Rules. "Safety" measures how safe students perceive their schools to be by evaluating how often each item occurs to them on a four-point scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always). A higher score indicates a student feeling less safe in school.

"Fairness of Rules" assesses the school’s level of fairness, and "Clarity of Rules" measures the level of clarity of the school rules. Participants rate each item on a 5-point scale from 1 for very inappropriate to 5 for very appropriate. A higher score indicates a student’s feeling that the school is much fairer, and he/she is clearer on the rules of his or her school. The α coefficients of the subscales obtained in this study were 0.83 for "Safety", 0.83 for "Fairness of Rules" and 0.47 for "Clarity of Rules".