The Use of Self-Report Questionnaires

  • Ruud H. J. HornsveldEmail author
  • Floris W. Kraaimaat
  • Henk L. I. Nijman
  • Sabine J. Roza
  • Kevin L. Nunes
  • Emma J. Palmer
Part of the Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression book series (APTVA)


The validity of self-report questionnaires in forensic populations is controversial. This chapter provides an overview of the internal and external factors that may affect the responding on these scales in various forensic populations. Internal factors refer to factors that relate to individual respondent characteristics, while external factors relate to the circumstances in which the questionnaires are completed. Further, the psychometric properties of non-English versions of self-report questionnaires that are commonly used in the forensic field are discussed. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are presented for the use of self-report questionnaires among offenders, followed by a description of new developments.


Self-report questionnaires Validity Internal and external factors Non-English versions 


  1. Adida, M., Clark, L., Pomiettoa, P., Kaladjian, A., Besnier, N., Azorina, J., et al. (2008). Lack of insight may predict impaired decision making in manic patients. Bipolar Disorders, 10, 829–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender & Company.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, P., & Meyer, R. G. (2003). Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and short form C: Forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 483–492. Scholar
  4. Arkowitz, S., & Vess, J. (2003). An evaluation of the Bumby RAPE and MOLEST scales as measures of cognitive distortions with civilly committed sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, M. T., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Sellers, A. H. (2008). Validation of the Novaco Anger Scale in an incarcerated offender population. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 741–754. Scholar
  6. Beech, A., Friendship, C., Erikson, M., & Hanson, R. K. (2002). The relationship between static and dynamic risk factors and reconviction in a sample of U.K. child abusers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, M., Fiszdon, J., Richardson, R., Lysaker, P., & Bryson, G. (2007). Are self-reports valid for schizophrenia patients with poor insight? Relationship of unawareness of illness to psychological self-report instruments. Psychiatry Research, 151, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boer, D. P., Wilson, R. J., Gauthier, C. M., & Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing risk for sexual violence: Guidelines for clinical practice. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 326–342). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  9. Bryant, F. B., & Smith, B. D. (2001). Refining the architecture of aggression: A measurement model for the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 138–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE Scales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campos, J. A. D. B., Zucoloto, M. L., Bonafé, F. S. S., Jordani, P. C., & Maroco, J. (2011). Reliability and validity of self-reported burnout in college students: A cross randomized comparison of paper-and-pencil vs. online administration. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1875–1883. Scholar
  13. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, C. G., Thake, J., & Vilhena, N. (2010). Social desirability biases in self-reported alcohol consumption and harms. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 302–311. Scholar
  15. Diamond, P. M., & Magaletta, P. R. (2006). The short-form Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ-SF): A validation study with federal offenders. Assessment, 13, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond, P. M., Wang, E. W., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2005). Factor structure of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) with mentally ill male prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 546–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas, K. S., & Skeem, J. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment. Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 347–383. Scholar
  18. Drenth, P. J. D., & Sijtsma, K. (2006). Testtheorie. Inleiding in de theorie van de psychologische test en zijn toepassingen [Testtheory. Introduction to the theory of the psychological test and its applications]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.Google Scholar
  19. Fossati, A., Maffei, C., Acquarini, E., & Di Ceglie, A. (2003). Multigroup confirmatory component and factor analyses of the Italian version of the Aggression Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gavaghan, M. P., Arnold, K. D., & Gibbs, J. C. (1983). Moral judgment in delinquents and nondelinquents: Recognition versus production measures. Journal of Psychology, 114, 267–274. Scholar
  21. Genoud, P. A., & Zimmermann, G. (2009). French version of the 12-item Aggression Questionnaire: Preliminary psychometric properties. 11th Congress of the Swiss Psychological Society, Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
  22. Gray, A. L., & Mills, J. F. (2011). Measuring Socially Desirable Responding within a forensic context: Response style or criminal proclivity. Crime Scene. Psychology Behind Bars and in Front of the Bench, 18, 13–15.Google Scholar
  23. Hanson, K. R., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. Scholar
  24. Hart, S. D., Michie, C., & Cooke, D. J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments. Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(Suppl. 49), s60–s65. Scholar
  25. Hendriks, V. (2011). Meten en meetinstrumenten [Measuring and measurement instruments]. In I. Franken & W. Van den Brink (Eds.), Handboek Verslaving [Handbook addiction] (pp. 245–274). Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.Google Scholar
  26. Holden, R. R. (2007). Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and non-experimental contexts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 184–201. Scholar
  27. Holden, R. R., & Book, A. S. (2012). Faking does distort self-report personality assessment. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 71–84). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2010). Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 446–450. Scholar
  29. Hornsveld, R. H. J., Kraaimaat, F. W., Bouwmeester, S., Polak, M. A., & Zwets, A. J. (2014). Behavior on the ward of personality disordered inpatients and chronically psychotic inpatients during a three-year stay in a Dutch forensic psychiatric hospital. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 25, 684–704. Scholar
  30. Hornsveld, R. H. J., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Zwets, A. J. (2012). The Adapted Version of the Sociomoral Reflection Measure (SRM-AV) in Dutch forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 1–9. Scholar
  31. Hornsveld, R. H. J., Muris, P., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Meesters, C. (2009). The Aggression Questionnaire in Dutch violent forensic psychiatric patients and secondary vocational students. Assessment, 16, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hornsveld, R. H. J., Muris, P. E. H. M., & Kraaimaat, F. W. (2011). The Novaco Anger Scale-Provocation Inventory (1994 version) in Dutch forensic psychiatric patients. Psychological Assessment, 23, 937–944. Scholar
  33. Hornsveld, R. H. J., Timonen, B., Kraaimaat, F. W., Zwets, A. J., & Kanters, T. (2014). The Attitudes toward Women Inventory (AWI) in Dutch violent forensic psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14, 383–397. Scholar
  34. Iftikhar, R., & Malik, F. (2014). Translation and validation of Aggression Questionnaire in a Pakistani children cohort. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 39–45.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, J., Thomas-Peter, B., & Gangstad, B. (2003). An investigation of the factor structure of the Novaco Anger Scale. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, J. P., Thomas-Peter, B. A., & Trout, A. (1999). Normative data for the Novaco Anger Scale from a non-clinical sample and implications for clinical use. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalmus, E., & Beech, A. R. (2005). Forensic assessment of sexual interest: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 193–218. Scholar
  38. Kanters, T., Hornsveld, R. H. J., Nunes, K. L., Zwets, A. J., Buck, N. M. L., Muris, P., & Van Marle, H. J. C. (2016). Aggression and social anxiety are associated with sexual offending against children. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15, 265–273. Scholar
  39. Kelsey, K. R., Rogers, R., & Robinson, E. V. (2015). Self-report measures of psychopathy: What is their role in forensic assessments? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 380–391. Scholar
  40. Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Professional manual for the psychopathic personality inventory-revised (PPI-R). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  42. Lindqvist, J. K., Dåderman, A. M., & Hellström, A. (2003). Swedish adaptations of the Novaco Anger Scale-1998, the Provocation Inventory, and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 773–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindqvist, J. K., Dåderman, A. M., & Hellström, A. (2005). Internal reliability and construct validity of the Novaco Anger Scale-1998-S in a sample of violent prison inmates in Sweden. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loza, W. (1996) Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent recidivism. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  45. Loza, W., & Green, K. (2003). The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire. A self-report measure for predicting recidivism versus clinician-administered measures: A 5-year follow-up study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 781–797. Scholar
  46. Mathie, N. L., & Wakeling, H. C. (2011). Assessing socially desirable responding and its impact on self-report measures among sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 215–237. Scholar
  47. Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (1999). Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA). Unpublished instrument and user’s guide.Google Scholar
  48. Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (2005). An investigation into the relationship between socially desirable responding and offender self-report. Psychological Services, 2, 70–80. Scholar
  49. Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (2006). Impression management and self-report among violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 178–192. Scholar
  50. Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Forth, A. E. (1998). Novaco Anger Scale: Reliability and validity within an adult criminal sample. Assessment, 5, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mills, J. F., Loza, W., & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive validity despite social desirability: Evidence for the robustness of self-report among offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mosher, D. L., & Sirken, M. (1984). Measuring a Macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nakano, K. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the Japanese adaptation of the Aggression Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nijman, H., Bjørkly, S., Palmstierna, T., & Almvik, R. (2006). Assessing aggression of psychiatric patients: Methods of measurement and its prevalence. In D. Richter & R. Whittington (Eds.), Violence in mental health settings. Causes, consequences, management (pp. 11–23). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Novaco, R. W. (1994). Anger as a risk factor for violence among the mentally disordered. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder (pp. 21–59). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Novaco, R. W. (2003). The Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory: Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  57. Olver, M. E., Kingston, D. A., Nicholaichuk, T. P., & Wong, S. C. P. (2014). A psychometric examination of treatment change in a multisite sample of treated Canadian federal sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 544–559. Scholar
  58. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-7). Toronto/Buffalo: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  60. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–60). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Pettersen, C., Nunes, K. L., & Cortoni, F. (2016). Does the factor structure of the Aggression Questionnaire hold for sexual offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 811–829. Scholar
  62. Pettersen, C., Nunes, K. L., & Cortoni, F. (2018). The factor structure of the Aggression Questionnaire with violent offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  63. Reyna, C., Ivacevich, M. G. L., Sanchez, A., & Brussino, S. (2011). The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire: Construct validity and gender invariance among Argentinean adolescents. International Journal of Psychological Research, 4, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Salbach-Andrae, H., Klinkowski, N., Lenz, K., & Lehmkuhl, U. (2009). Agreement between youth-reported and parent-reported psychopathology in a referred sample. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18, 136–143. Scholar
  65. Santisteban, C., Alvarado, J. M., & Recio, P. (2007). Evaluation of a Spanish version of the Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire: Some personal and situational factors related to the aggression scores of young subjects. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1453–1465. Scholar
  66. Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Dekovic, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C. (2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 697–713. Scholar
  67. Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C., & Erikson, M. (2003). Distinguishing between and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seton (Eds.), Understanding and managing sexually coercive behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 223–235.Google Scholar
  68. Van den Berg, J. W., Smid, W. J., Schepers, K., Wever, E. C., Van Beek, D. J., Janssen, E., et al. (2018). The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30, 179–191. Scholar
  69. Van Vugt, E., Gibbs, J., Stams, G. J., Bijleveld, C., Hendriks, J., & Van der Laan, P. (2011). Moral development and recidivism: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1234–1250. Scholar
  70. Von Collani, G., & Werner, R. (2005). Self-related and motivational constructs as determinants of aggression. An analysis and validation of a German version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1631–1643. Scholar
  71. Walters, G. D. (2006). Risk-appraisal versus self-report in the prediction of criminal justice outcomes: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 279–304. Scholar
  72. Webster, S. D., Mann, R. E., Thornton, D., & Wakeling, H. C. (2006). Further validation of the short self-esteem scale with sexual offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams, T. Y., Boyd, J. C., Cascardi, M. A., & Poythress, N. (1996). Factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Psychological Assessment, 8, 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruud H. J. Hornsveld
    • 1
    Email author
  • Floris W. Kraaimaat
    • 2
  • Henk L. I. Nijman
    • 3
  • Sabine J. Roza
    • 1
  • Kevin L. Nunes
    • 4
  • Emma J. Palmer
    • 5
  1. 1.Erasmus University Medical CenterRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Radboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  5. 5.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations