Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00699-9

Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents

A. I. Corchado1   · R. Martínez‑Arias2

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Adolescence has received particular attention given its unique risk factors, which contribute to the onset and progression of
problem behaviour and its development with varying levels of seriousness. Although much adolescent problem behaviour
is exploratory, a screening tool is required to identify early problem behaviour, to enable the use of preventive strategies to
prevent more serious or persistent behaviour. The problem behaviour frequency scale developed by Farrell et al. (2000) was
adapted and validated for this purpose. Method: A sample of Spanish adolescents was obtained comprising 508 subjects,
made up of two groups: 318 in the study group (62.7%) and 189 in the comparison group (37.3%). The sample was made up
of 62.9% males and 37.1% females, aged between 12 and 18. Various structural models were evaluated and the evidence for
reliability, structural validity, sensitivity and specificity was calculated. A cut-off point was established for diagnosis, and
differences between case and control groups were identified. Result: The bifactor model obtained the best fit, affirming the
hypothesis on unidimensionality of PBFS and supporting the concept of problem behaviour syndrome. Discussion: Results
suggest that PBFS is a reliable and valid instrument for identifying problem behaviour

Keywords  Adolescence · Problem behaviour scale · Problem behaviour syndrome · Bifactor model

Social Work has acquired conceptual approaches and theo-
retical models that have directed the professional interven-
tion of the social worker in order to effectively address the
plurality of social problems and demands that make up this
scope of action (Botija, 2014). The preventive approach in
Social Work has generated a range of opportunities, initia-
tives and challenges in the social intervention process that
have focused on avoiding the emergence of social prob-
lems or needs. In addition, it has provided new keys for the
interpretation of the social context that improves decision-
making and the generation of resources and development of
specific policies. Preventive intervention with adolescents
seeks to modify future conditions through education and
promotion.
* A. I. Corchado
aicorcha@ucm.es
R. Martínez‑Arias
rmnez.arias@psi.ucm.es
1
Faculty of Social Work, Complutense University
of Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas s/n,
Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid 28223, Spain
2
Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
Adolescence is a natural stage of life that occurs between
childhood and adult independence. Its onset at the begin-
ning of puberty is characterized by biological and environ-
mental changes that will continue throughout the period of
adolescence (Blakemore, Burnett & Dahl 2010). There are
profound alterations in hormonal levels during this period,
with the resulting cognitive and physical changes, impulses,
emotional control, motivations, decision-making and social
life (Gil-Fenoy, García-García, Carmona-Samper & Ortega-
Campos, 2018; Prensky, 2001; Steinberg, 2008). In recent
decades, adolescence has changed rapidly, and it has become
a longer stage of life. Puberty now begins at a younger age
and it takes longer to reach mature social roles (Maes &
Lievens, 2003).
Scientific literature recognizes the basic key task of ado-
lescence as the construction of self-identity, distinct from the
adults who have previously acted as the basic reference point
until that time (Erikson, 1968). There is a general concern
from adults with regard to the adolescent identity (Linders,
2016), which is perceived as fragile and vulnerable to the
broader social environment: popular culture and the rise
of information and communication technologies (Prensky,
2001; 2014). This concern comes about because:

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. I. Corchado, R. Martínez‑Arias

– Firstly, adolescents develop their own lifestyles in which Problem behaviour arises and progresses in a pattern of
they acquire new tastes (regarding clothing and the music multiple origin. It can be assessed based on frequency and
they listen to, or their choices of new friends), new habits seriousness and shapes the adolescent’s developmental tra-
(spending time with electronic devices), and a reluctance jectory (Corchado, 2012). The higher the quantity of prob-
to inform their parents or guardians of where they are lem behaviours displayed by the adolescent, the greater the
going or what they are doing (Danesi, 2003). concern as to their wellbeing and the higher the risk of mor-
– Secondly, Socio-Cognitive processes, health strategies, bidity or mortality. Farrell, Kung, White & Valois (2000)
and normative and maladaptive patterns are learned dur- designed PBFS to research the structure of adolescent prob-
ing adolescence (Maes & Lievens, 2003). These are all lem behaviour using a self-reporting measurement tool. The
important aspects because they shape the individual’s life results of their study show support for the notion of a general
pathways. syndrome of problem behaviour (Farrell, et al, 2000).
– Thirdly, the challenges that each generation of adoles-
cents faces and the way in which they negotiate this stage
of their lives will have a powerful effect on their future
Aims and Hypothesis
and on the economic and social prospects of their coun-
tries (Sawyer et al., 2012).
The aim of this study is to convert the problem behaviour
– Lastly, there is strong evidence that risk-taking is higher
frequency scale (PBFS) developed by Farrell et al. (2000)
among adolescents than at other stages of life (Arnett,
into a brief tool that is capable of identifying adolescents
1992; 2000; Steinberg, 2008; Duell et al., 2018). This
exhibiting problem behaviour.
risk-taking may contribute to the development of socially
PBFS was selected since, although there are scales that
acceptable and constructive behaviour or to the onset and
evaluate the risks arising from specific behaviours such as
progression of problem behaviour (Duell & Steinberg,
violence, sexual conduct or substance use (Wångby-Lundh,
2018).
Klingstedt, Bergman & Ferrer-Wreder, 2018), scales to
assess problem behaviour as an organized range of inter-
In this context of adult concern for adolescents and the
related behaviours (Jessor, 1991; Donovan & Jessor, 1985)
dangers that they face, and in which adolescents focus their
were not found. The scale conforms to Jessor’s theory of
attention on social stimuli in the full flush of cognitive and
problem behaviour (2014), by which, it is a challenge to
affective development (Steinberg, 2008), some of them will
appropriately identify risk within an adolescent ecology in
develop problem behaviour that is highly predictive of later
which young people learn new patterns of behaviour and
anti-social behaviour (Shaykhi, Ghayour-Minaie & Toum-
simultaneously experience them (Jessor 1991). Detecting
bourou, 2018). Problem behaviour can be understood as the
cases of risk will help to prevent transitions to more serious
outcome of complex interactions between risk and protec-
behaviour or the development of persistent problem behav-
tive factors (Prinzie & Dekovic, 2008; Prinzie, Hoeve &
iors (Bolland, 2003). Choosing this scale has made it pos-
Stams, 2008), which have impacts depending on their influ-
sible to evaluate the structure of problem behaviour through
ence across the individual, family and community ecological
the analysis of competing models.
domains (Zimmerman, 2013; Hawkins, Catalano & Arthur,
The general aim was to validate the PBFS developed by
2002; Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992). Risk factors are
Farrell et al. (2000) among Spanish adolescents who had
prospective predictors of the probability of an individual or
exhibited this kind of problem behaviour. The hypothesis
group being involved in adverse outcomes. Their presence
on unidimensionality of PBFS was tested for this purpose.
contributes to the onset and progression of various forms of
behaviour that, with various levels of risk, tend to coexist
(Jessor, 1991). This coexistence has found repeated support
in literature, in the form of studies linking behaviour (such Method
as drug use) with criminal or violent conduct (Reynolds,
Collado-Rodriguez, MacPherson & Lejuez, 2013; Farrell Participants
et al., 2000; Farrell, Sullivan, Goncy & Le, 2015; Farrell,
Thompson, Mehari, Sullivan & Goncy, 2018; Jessor, 1991, A sample was obtained comprising 508 subjects, made up
2014; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Corchado, 2012). These links of two groups: 318 in the study group (62.7%) and 189 in
have an underlying structure that brings together “a set of the comparison group (37.3%). The sample was made up
behaviors believed to have a common cause or basis” (Eng- of 62.9% males and 37.1% females, with an average age of
lish & English, 1958), which can be explained using a single 16 (SD = 2.86; minimum 12 and maximum 18). The higher
factor that Donovan and Jessor (1985) described as problem percentage of male participants is due to their greater pres-
behaviour syndrome. ence among the population from which the selected groups

13
Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents

were taken, which hinders the classification of results based Procedure

on subject sex (INE, 2017; DGPNSG, 2018).
The study group is made up of minors who showed
risky behaviors and was subdivided into three subgroups
depending on the risk situation and the characteristics of
the individuals:
(1) adolescents placed in care centres as a result of a situ-
ation of neglect, generally due to abuse or negligence suf-
fered in their family environment and tending to generate
problem behaviour (González, Fernández & Secades, 2004),
(n = 189, 37.2%); (2) adolescents subject to court orders in
closed centres (n = 104, 20.5%); and (3) adolescents under-
going treatment for drug abuse in public and private centres
(n = 25, 4.9%).
These subdivisions attempt to study factors that are asso-
ciated with belonging to different risk groups, interpreting
the differences as a reflection of some critical aspect or as
associated factors of risk behaviour. The members of the
comparison group were selected based on similarity to the
other groups, applying a strategy similar to the case–control
design in epidemiological studies. The inclusion criteria in
the comparison group were age, sex and cohabitation with
family of origin (n = 190, 37.4%).
The adolescents of the comparison group did not pre-
sent problems derived from risky behavior. For this pur-
pose, participants with the necessary profile were selected
in secondary schools, training and employment centers in
the same community of origin of the cases (see Table 1). An
informed consent form describing the terms of the research
to the guardians or parents of the minors was available. In
the case of minors under guardianship, consent was granted
by the responsible entity.
Design
A transversal comparative non-experimental study was car-
ried out. This design corresponds to the associative strategy
(Ato, López-García & Benavente, 2013) to explore the com-
parison of the groups of participants that are evaluated at a
given time, examining the differences between them. Com-
parative studies are essentially non-experimental studies.
The individuals in the study group were contacted through
collaboration agreements between Complutense University
of Madrid and each of the institutions with responsibility
for the care and custody of the participants. Those with
responsibility for each entity determined the total number of
subjects selected from each group. The survey was applied
collectively in all cases, with the presence of the researcher.
Group size ranged between 5 and 25 depending on the cen-
tre, except in the group of minors undergoing treatment for
drug use, where the survey was applied individually. The
researcher provided the instructions, answering questions
that arose in relation to the application of the survey. An
informative letter was produced describing the terms of the
research, which included the obtaining of informed consent
from the minors’ parents or guardians. In the case of minors
in care, the responsible entity gave the consent.
Measurement Variables and Instruments
The sociodemographic variables were sex, age and member-
ship of relevant group of interest. The PBFS was initially
developed by Farrell, Kung, White & Valois (2000). PBFS
was constructed with 26 items (see Table 2) divided into
four subscales:
Six items evaluate behaviour in terms of consumption
of gateway drugs: tobacco, fermented and distilled alco-
holic drinks, and marijuana (Wall, et al., 2018). The classic
theory of Kandel (1975) remains valid, although the evolu-
tionary pattern of drug use is not immutable (Mayet, Legl-
eye, Falissard & Chau, 2012). The beginning of drug use is
not constant across all contexts and cultures, and sequential
changes are related more to the age at which use begins
and to a greater degree of exposure to the substance than to
the development of dependence. Cannabis is the most com-
monly used illegal drug in the majority of cases, preceded by
the consumption of alcohol and tobacco (Wall et al., 2018).
The seven items for physical aggression were based
on the National Youth Risk Behaviour Survey developed
by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Kolbe,

Table 1  Distribution of age and n Age Sex

sex in each group (N = 508)
Min Max Average DS Male Female
n Percentages n Percentages

1. Social care 189 12 18 15.4 1.47 101 19.9 88 17.3

2. Court orders 104 14 19 17.4 1.13 93 18.3 11 2.2
3. Drug treatment 25 15 19 17.6 1.32 20 3.9 5 1.0
4. Comparison 189 12 19 15.8 2.08 105 20.7 85 16.7

13
 A. I. Corchado, R. Martínez‑Arias

Table 2  Descriptive statistics Items M SD Asymmetry Kurtosis

(N = 508)
Been drunk 2.40 1.77 1.08 − .24
Smoked cigarettes 3.35 2.29 .16 − 1.84
Drunk beer 2.68 1.92 .75 − 1.01
Drunk wine or wine coolers 2.24 1.74 1.20 .01
Drunk spirits 2.66 1.88 .76 − .94
Used marijuana 2.59 2.09 .80 − 1.15
Skipped school 2.50 1.71 .99 − .33
Damaged property 1.65 1.30 2.25 4.18
Stolen from someone 1.77 1.47 1.99 2.74
Cheated on a test 2.40 1.62 1.09 .05
Shoplifted 2.08 1.60 1.49 .91
Been suspended 1.74 1.15 1.49 1.18
Been in a fight in which someone was hit 1.68 1.24 2.13 3.91
Threatened to hit another child 1.90 1.31 1.77 2.66
Threatened a teacher 1.36 1.03 3.45 11.64
Threatened someone with a weapon 1.46 1.17 2.77 6.86
Shoved or pushed another child 2.33 1.52 1.21 .50
Hit or slapped another child 2.05 1.52 1.50 1.17
Thrown something at someone 2.05 1.46 1.48 1.20
Put someone down 2.68 1.62 .82 − .49
Spread a rumour 1.67 1.28 2.20 4.08
Picked on someone 2.53 1.55 1.02 .037
Excluded someone 1.58 1.22 2.46 5.50
Insulted someone’s family 2.56 1.63 .96 − .228
Given mean looks 1.83 1.45 1.87 2.40
Started a fight between others 1.88 1.48 1.75 1.89

Kann & Collins, 1993). This survey has been conducted
every 2 years since 1991 (Kann et al., 2018).
Seven items were also included in the scale to study
non-physical aggression. Some of these were based on
observations made of school students and in focus groups
studying interpersonal problems (Farrell et  al., 2000),
while others such as “spread a rumour” and “excluded
someone” were inspired by the relational aggression scale
developed by Crick & Grotpeter (1995). This scale is com-
monly used to evaluate behaviour involving exclusion or
manipulation that takes place in the context of peer rela-
tionships (Aizpitarte, Atherton & Robins, 2017).
The final six items refer to behaviour such as school
absenteeism, theft, insults and vandalism, and were based
on the attitude toward deviance scale (Jessor & Jessor,
1977, 2014).
The adolescents were asked to state how frequently
they had engaged in each behaviour during the previous
30 days. The responses were based on a six-point Likert-
type scale: 1 (never), 2 (1–2 times), 3 (3–5 times), 4 (6–9
times), 5 (10–19 times) and 6 (20 or more times).
An inverse or back translation was performed to maintain
conceptual equivalence between the original version, pro-
duced in English, and the Spanish-language version.
Data Analysis
Missing values were imputed with the expectation maximi-
zation (EM) algorithm, introducing adolescents’ sex, age
and type of centre in addition to the variables from the scale.
The factorial structure of the models presented by Farrell
et al. (2000) was reviewed. To examine unidimensionality
of PBFS, a bifactor analysis was carried out that showed
how the problem behaviour manifested via a general factor
that explains a large portion of variance (Rodríguez, Reise
& Haviland, 2016).
The internal consistency of PBFS was determined by cal-
culating the Cronbach’s alpha and ordinal coefficient alpha
(Zumbo, Gadermann & Zeisser, 2007).
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses
were used to establish the cut-off point for the interpreta-
tion of the scores obtained and to evaluate the sensitivity

13
Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents

and specificity of the general factor and of the three specific
factors.
To find the existence of significant differences among the
average scores for each scale item and the problem behav-
iour and comparison groups, a T-test was performed and the
eta-squared (η2) index was calculated to measure effect size.
These analyses were carried out using the following
sofware: the IBM SPSS v.25 programme for the descrip-
tive data analysis, calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, analysis
of the ROC curve and T-test and effect size; MPlus v.7 for
confirmatory factorial analyses and to determine the unidi-
mensionality of PBFS; and the Excel application to calculate
the ordinal coefficient alpha and fit indices for the bifactor
model (Domínguez-Lara, 2012, Domínguez-Lara & Rod-
ríguez, 2017).
Results
Factor Analysis
The factorial structure of the models proposed by Farrell
et al. (2000) was reviewed, with similar results obtained.
Four models were tested (see Table 3). The single-factor
model did not provide adequate fit indices. The three- and
four-factor models produced the same acceptable fit indices.
The change in 𝜒2 between them showed the superiority of
the four-factor model, but the high correlation between the
factors of physical and non-physical aggression (r = 0.95)
showed that all aggression items formed part of the same
underlying construct, and as in the study performed by Far-
rell et al. (2000), the choice of the three-factor model was
affirmed.
The fourth model, made up of three first-order factors
supporting one general second-order factor labelled problem
behaviour, was equivalent to the three-factor model.
Dimensionality of PBFS
To evaluate the unidimensionality of PBFS, a bifactor model
was proposed as an alternative to the unidimensional, cor-
related and second-order representations used by Farrell
et al. (2000). The bifactor model (Fig. 1) is a latent structure
where each element is loaded into a general factor that meas-
ures a single latent trait: problem behaviour. Three orthogo-
nal group factors are also specified, controlling variance due
to these additional factors.
Table 4 shows saturations and ­R2 for each element under
the unidimensional solution.
New indices were obtained deriving from the fit of a
bifactor model, with a general factor and three factors inde-
pendent from one another and from the general factor. These
indices provide a favourable view on the unidimensionality
of PBFS (Table 5). The HH.FG of the problem behaviour
general factor evaluates the reliability of the construct. If
this index reaches values of ≥ 0.70, this shows that the latent
variable is perfectly defined by its indicators and will be sta-
ble across all studies (Rodriguez, Reise & Haviland, 2016).
The high value obtained for the ωH coefficient permits a
global explanation of the scores for the scale (Reise, 2012),
with 86% of total variance explained by a single construct.
The particular risk domains of drug use and violence can
be considered robust factors along with the general factor,
due to the scores attained in the HH.S1 and HH.S3 indices.
Adequate values were obtained for the delinquency factor
(see Table 5).
The chi-squared difference test showed that the bifactor
model is a statistically significant improvement in compari-
son with the second-order model (see Table 3).
Reliability of PBFS
The values show high reliability across all scales in all cases.
Higher values are obtained for the ordinal estimations (see
Table 6).
Sensitivity and Specificity
The estimated value of the under-curve area for PBFS was
86% (ABC = 0.86; p ≤ 0.00), meaning the scale is adequate
to distinguish cases of problem behaviour from those that do
not involve this kind of behaviour (see Fig. 2). The practical
use of the scale requires the choosing of an appropriate cut-
off point that represents the best balance between sensitivity

Table 3  Chi-square test χ2 df RMSEA CFI TIL χ2 diff df p

and general fit measures for
competing models M1 3165* 297 .14 .85 .83
M2 1084.53* 291 .07 .96 .95 8.22 3 1
M3 1092.75* 294 .07 .96 .95
M4 1092.75* 294 .07 .96 .95
M5 720.88* 273 .04 .95 .94 371.87 21 1

p < .001
M1 1-factor model, M2 4-factor model, M3 3-factor model, M4 second-order model, M5 bifactor model

13

Fig. 1  Bifactor model of PBFS
and specificity of each of the scores. The cut-off point offer-
ing the best balance in this respect is that corresponding to
the score 49 (sensitivity = 0.84; specificity = 0.79).
The values for the subscales were:
Drugs: the value of the under-curve area was 79%
(ABC = 0.79; p ≤ 0.00) and the cut-off point corresponded
to the score 13 (sensitivity = 0.87; specificity = 0.71).
Delinquency: 74% (ABC = 0.74; p ≤ 0.00), with the cut-
off point at score 8 (sensitivity = 0.73; specificity = 0.67).
Violence: 78% (ABC = 0.78; p ≤ 0.00), with the cut-off
point at score 22 (sensitivity = 0.77; specificity = 0.67).
Capacity of the PBFS to Distinguish Between Groups
Table 7 shows the results obtained. The most important
items for describing problem behaviour form part of the
two robust factors: drug use (smoked cigarettes, drank beer,
drank spirits and used marijuana); and violence (put some-
one down, picked on someone and insulted someone’s fam-
ily). The T-test shows significant differences across all items
except for ‘excluded someone’, ‘picked on someone’ and
‘cheated on a test’. The scores obtained for the η2 indices
also show a large effect across all items except for ‘excluded
someone’ and ‘cheated on a test’, with a medium effect, and
‘picked on someone’, with a small effect.
13
A. I. Corchado, R. Martínez‑Arias
Discussion
The results have shown that PBFS replicates the factorial
structure found by Farrell et al. (2000), although the advan-
tages of the bifactor model over the second-order model
(Chen, West & Sousa, 2006; Chen, Bai, Lee & Jing, 2015;
Chen & Zhang, 2018) have permitted a direct exploration
of the unidimensionality of the PBFS, examining the extent
to which the elements reflect an objective common trait or
a unitary construct (Reise, Moore & Haviland, 2010; Reise,
Kim, Mansolf & Widaman, 2016), and have provided sup-
port for the notion of problem behaviour syndrome in ado-
lescence (Farrell et al, 2000). PBFS is a brief measure with
adequate reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity indi-
ces and has shown to be appropriate for its use among the
adolescent population, offering highly relevant information
on the evaluated subject and identifying well-differentiated
profiles that distinguish appropriately between subjects with
proven problem behaviour and those who formed part of the
comparison group.
Educating and supporting adolescents with regard to the
difficulties that they may face in completing the tasks inherent
to this stage of development requires the availability of a quick
and simple screening instrument, which can be applied by the
professionals working in the contexts where adolescent life
takes place. PBFS can be easily administered as a self-report-
ing measure at educational centres, school guidance centres,
Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents

Table 4  Standardized factorial Items Problem Drugs Delinquency Violence R2

weights Behaviour

Been drunk .40 .81 .82

Smoked cigarettes .35 .43 .31
Drunk beer .37 .74 .69
Drunk wine or wine coolers .33 .74 .66
Drunk spirits .41 .81 .82
Used marijuana .55 .46 .51
Skipped school .46 .47 .44
Damaged property .66 .40 .60
Stolen from someone .70 .30 .57
Cheated on a test .32 .44 .30
Shoplifted .58 .59 .67
Been suspended .50 .27 .32
Been in a fight in which someone was hit .83 .08 .69
Threatened to hit another child .71 .39 .65
Threatened a teacher .66 .15 .46
Threatened someone with a weapon .84 .01 .71
Shoved or pushed another child .64 .51 .67
Hit or slapped another child .77 .37 .74
Thrown something at someone .73 .34 .65
Put someone down .54 .54 .59
Spread a rumour .50 .43 .44
Picked on someone .32 .57 .43
Excluded someone .48 .49 .46
Insulted someone’s family .56 .52 .58
Given mean looks .80 .23 .71
Started a fight between others .51 .43 .44

(N = 508)

Table 5  Model fit indices CFI χ 2(272) RMSE SRMR ECV PUC ωH ωH.S1 ωH.S2 ωH.S3 HH.FG HH.S1 HH.S2 HH.S3

.93 631.30 .05 .05 65 .78 .86 .58 .31 .23 .96 .87 .59 .75

Table 6  Internal consistency coefficients and healthy lifestyles (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, &
Scale α α ordinal
Hawkins, 2004).
Prevention as a discipline has transformed the treatment
Problem behaviour .94 .98 model that continues to be the most widely used approach in
Drugs .89 .95 the world to deal with behaviour problems (Patel et al., 2007).
Delinquency .83 .94 Evidence-based prevention generates effective and profitable
Violence .94 .98 programming formulas through the development of programs
and the generation (provision) of appropriate resources (Stone,
Becker, Huber & Catalano, 2012).
community and health centres and other social services agen-
cies. In this regard, PBFS is an analytical strategy that exam-
ines adolescent behaviour as a whole (Borodovsky, Krueger,
Agrawal, & Grucza, 2019), and an important resource with
implications for prevention and intervention, as it identifies at-
risk adolescents in a rapid and precise manner and can there-
fore facilitate actions aimed at promoting pro-social behaviour

13
 A. I. Corchado, R. Martínez‑Arias

Table 7  Difference in averages Ítems M SD t fd η2

between groups and effect size
Been drunk PB 3.22 1.95 5.56 229.16 .31
C 2.10 1.50
Smoked cigarettes PB 4.75 1.94 10.02 286.86 .49
C 2.49 2.05
Drank beer PB 3.58 2.00 6.17 247.55 .34
C 2.25 1.71
Drank wine or wine coolers PB 2.74 2.01 3.03 236.23 .17
C 2.10 1.61
Drank liquor PB 3.63 1.91 5.89 257.82 .32
C 2.40 1.72
Used marijuana PB 4.25 2.07 11.09 230.54 .55
C 1.86 1.61
Skipped school PB 3.22 1.96 5.40 211.55 .31
C 2.15 1.35
Damaged property PB 2.21 1.71 5.79 164.00 .35
C 1.28 .76
Stolen from someone PB 2.72 1.97 8.59 147.86 .49
C 1.17 .64
Cheated on a test PB 2.63 1.84 1.77* 232.65 .10
C 2.29 1.44
Shoplifted PB 2.80 1.89 7.37 173.14 .42
C 1.48 .94
Been suspended PB 2.35 1.42 7.16 180.86 .41
C 1.37 .76
Been in a fight in which someone was hit PB 2.33 1.63 8.25 137.45 .48
C 1.13 .35
Threatened to hit another kid PB 2.44 1.46 7.89 164.39 .45
C 1.36 .65
Threatened a Teacher PB 1.69 1.33 5.71 131.08 .36
C 1.02 .14
Threatened someone with a weapon PB 2.14 1.70 7.29 134.15 .44
C 1.04 .29
Shoved or pushed another kid PB 2.74 1.62 5.35 218.24 .30
C 1.85 1.17
Hit or slapped another kid PB 2.68 1.67 7.93 184.26 .44
C 1.40 .93
Thrown something at someone PB 2.42 1.58 5.70 193.47 .33
C 1.54 .95
Put down someone PB 3.18 1.60 5.83 252.45 .32
C 2.17 1.40
Spread a rumour PB 1.92 1.50 3.99 193.28 .28
C 1.33 .90
Picked on someone PB 2.53 1.60 .41* 32 .02
C 2.46 1.46
Excluded someone PB 1.68 1.36 2.07* 218.96 .12
C 1.40 .98
Insulted someone’s family PB 3.19 1.73 6.11 226.60 .34
C 2.10 1.31
Gave mean looks PB 2.54 1.69 8.36 163.53 .47
C 1.22 .74
Started a fight between others PB 2.15 1.56 4.21 14.05 .24
C 1.49 1.09

PB Problem behaviour group, C Comparison group

p < .001 *p > .05

13
Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents
Fig. 2  ROC curve. Sensibility and specificity de PBFS
Implications for Social Work Practice
and Policy
Social Work must propose an approach that includes more
prevention and early intervention strategies, incorporating a
preventive and sustainable effect into protection systems that
strengthens adolescents’ ability to react to life risks (Jones
& Truell, 2012).
Guaranteeing access to social resources and progress
and improvement in the adolescents’ assets (Fergus & Zim-
merman, 2005) will reduce the personal, family and social
costs that would otherwise arise. By avoiding the negative
aspects of risk-related pathways, one can promote the proper
development of the adolescent into a healthy adult, improve
relationships with the significant people in their environ-
ment (family members, peers and teachers) (Díaz-Aguado,
Martínez-Arias & Ordóñez, 2013), and safeguard their right
to protection and prevention as responsible members of the
society in which they participate and are therefore holders of
rights and duties (Spanish Law 26/2015, July 28).
Early life intervention may be warranted for favorable
lifelong health (Akasaki, Ploubidis, Dodgeon, & Bonell,
2019). Social Work must carry out more research in the
prevention field in order to respond to the need to improve
the procedures and tools to detect risk behaviour in the ado-
lescent population, but this should not be an excuse for the
development of social policies and prevention.
Limitations
It would be useful for future research to verify the use-
fulness of PBFS in evaluating the effectiveness of inter-
ventions aimed at reducing problem behaviour. Further
work will be necessary to evaluate the extent to which
the results can be generalized for other samples of ado-
lescents, via studies that have an improved procedure for
obtaining samples and extend it to other regions in Spain.
PBFS will become more effective insofar as it becomes
adapted to adolescent culture, including elements relating
to information technologies (Farrell, Thompson, Mehari,
Sullivan & Goncy, 2018).
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to validate and adapt the PBFS
developed by Farrell et al. (2000) for a sample of Spanish
adolescents, in order to produce a screening instrument
capable of identifying those adolescents with problem
behaviour. PBFS complies with the necessary attributes
that will allow the generation of confidence to ensure that
the scores obtained from the domains of the scale it evalu-
ates are reliable. PBFS will provide valuable information
on the situation of minors at risk. Greater knowledge and
detection of risk behaviors will make it possible to gener-
ate resources and procedures for the provision of services
appropriate to the specific characteristics of this popula-
tion that facilitate their promotion and development.
Funding  This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Aizpitarte, A., Atherton, O. E., & Robins, R. W. (2017). The co-
development of relational aggression and disruptive behav-
ior symptoms from late childhood through adolescence.
Clinical Psychological Science, 5(5), 866–873. https​: //doi.
org/10.1177/21677​02617​70823​1.
Akasaki, M., Ploubidis, G. B., Dodgeon, B., & Bonell, C. P. (2019).
The clustering of risk behaviours in adolescence and health con-
sequences in middle age. Journal of Adolescence, 77, 188–197.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.adole​scenc​e.2019.11.003.
13

Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmen-
tal perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339–373. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90013​-R.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist,
55, 469–480. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de
clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales
de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 29(3), 1038–1059. https​://
doi.org/10.6018/anale​sps.29.3.17851​1.
Blakemore, S. J., Burnett, S., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). The role of puberty
in the developing adolescent brain. Human brain mapping, 31(6),
926–933. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21052​.
Bolland, J. M. (2003). Hopelessness and risk behaviour among adoles-
cents living in high-poverty inner-city neighbourhoods. Journal
of adolescence, 26(2), 145–158. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0140​
-1971(02)00136​-7.
Borodovsky, J. T., Krueger, R. F., Agrawal, A., & Grucza, R. A. (2019).
A decline in propensity toward risk behaviors among U.S. adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(6), 745–751. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jadoh​ealth​.2019.07.001.
Botija Yagüe, M. M. (2014). Eclecticismo en la intervención con ado-
lescentes en conflicto con la ley. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social,
27(1), 34–46. https ​ : //doi.org/10.5209/rev_CUTS.2014.v27.
n1.40178​.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawk-
ins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States:
Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development
programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00027​
16203​26010​2.
Chen, F. F. and Zhang, Z. (2018). Bifactor Models in Psychometric
Test Development. In P. Irwing, T. Booth and D. J. Hughes (Eds)
The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing: A Multidiscipli-
nary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development. Vol 1,
(pp 374–373). NJ. John Wiley Blackwell.
Chen, F. F., Bai, L., Lee, J. M., & Jing, Y. (2015). Culture and the
Structure of Affect: A Bifactor Modeling Approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 17(5), 1801–1824. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1090​2-015-9671-3.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of
bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225. https​://doi.org/10.1207/
s1532​7906m​br410​2_5.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66,
710–722.
Corchado, A.I. (2012). Conductas de riesgo en la adolescencia (Doc-
toral dissertation, Complutense University of Madrid).
Danesi, M. (2003). My son is an alien: A cultural portrait of today’s
youth. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas
(DGPNSG), (2018). Encuesta estatal sobre uso de drogas
(ESTUDES) 2016/2017. Madrid: Secretaría de Estado de Servi-
cios Sociales e Igualdad. Retrieved from https​://www.pnsd.msssi​
.gob.es/
Díaz-Aguado, M.J., Martínez-Arias, R., & Ordóñez, A. (2013).
Prevenir la drogodependencia en adolescentes y mejo-
rar la convivencia desde una perspectiva escolar ecológica.
Revista de Educación, nº extraordinario, 338–362. https​://doi.
org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2013-EXT-251
Dominguez-Lara, S. (2012). Propuesta para el cálculo del Alfa Ordinal
y Theta de Armor. Revista de Investigación en Psicología, 15(1),
213–217.
Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem
behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of
13
A. I. Corchado, R. Martínez‑Arias
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 890–904. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.6.890.
Duell, N., & Steinberg, L. (2018). Positive Risk Taking in Adoles-
cence. Child Development Perspectives. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
cdep.12310​.
Duell, N., Steinberg, L., Icenogle, G., Chein, J., Chaudhary, N., Di
Giunta, L., … & Pastorelli, C. (2018). Age patterns in risk tak-
ing across the world. Journal of youth and adolescence, 47(5),
1052–1072. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1096​4-017-0752.
English, H. B., & English, A. C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary
of psychological and psychoanalytical terms: A guide to usage.
London: Longman.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W. W.Norton
Company.
Farrell, A. D., Kung, E. M., White, K. S., & Valois, R. F. (2000). The
structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent
behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of clinical Child
Psychology, 29(2), 282–292. https:​ //doi.org/10.1207/S1537​4424j​
ccp29​02_13.
Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., Goncy, E. A., & Le, A.-T. (2015).
Assessment of adolescents’ victimization, aggression, and prob-
lem behaviors: Evaluation of the Problem Behavior Frequency
Scale. Psychological Assessment. https​://doi.org/10.1037/pas00​
00225​.
Farrell, A. D., Thompson, E. L., Mehari, K. R., Sullivan, T. N.,
& Goncy, E. A. (2018). Assessment of in-person and cyber
aggression and victimization, substance use, and delinquent
behavior during early adolescence. Assessment. https​: //doi.
org/10.1177/10731​91118​79208​9.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent Resilience: A
framework for understanding healthy development in the face of
risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419.
Gil-Fenoy, M. J., García-García, J., Carmona-Samper, E., & Ortega-
Campos, E. (2018). Conducta antisocial y funciones ejecutivas de
jóvenes infractores. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 23(1), 70–76. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.psico​d.2017.09.001.
González, A., Fernández, J. R., & Secades, R. (2004). Guía para la
detección e intervención temprana con menores en riesgo. Gijón:
Colegio de Psicólogos del Principado de Asturias.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting
science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors,
27, 951–976.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protec-
tive factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence
and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.
Psychological Bulleting, 112, 64–105.
INE. (2017). INEbase. Seguridad y Justicia Estadística de condena-
dos: Menores. Madrid. Retrieved from: https​://www.ine.es/dyngs​
/INEba​se/es/opera​cion.htm?c=Estad​istic​a_C&cid=12547​36176​
795&menu=ultiD​atos&idp=12547​35573​206
Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: a psychosocial frame-
work for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health,
12, 597–605. https​://doi.org/10.1016/1054-139X(91)90007​-K.
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S.L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial
development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic.
https​://lib.ugent​.be/catal​og/rug01​:00000​2543
Jessor, R. (2014). Problem Behavior Theory: A half century of research
on adolescent behavior and development. In R. M. Lerner, A. C.
Petersen, R. K. Silbereisen, & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), The devel-
opmental science of adolescence: History through autobiography
(pp. 239–256). New York: Psychology Press.
Jones, D. N., & Truell, R. (2012). The global agenda for social work
and social development: A place to link together and be effective
in a globalized world. International Social Work, 55(4), 454–472.
Kandel, D. B. (1975). Stages of adolescent involvement in drug use.
Science, 190, 912–914. https​://doi.org/10.1126/scien​ce.11883​74.
Screening of Problem Behavior Syndrome in Adolescents
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K.
H., Queen, B., … & Ethier, K. A. (2018). Youth Risk Behav-
ior Surveillance - United States, 2017. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 67(8), 1–114. https:​ //doi.
org/10.15585​/mmwr.ss670​8a1.
Kolbe, L. D., Kann, L., & Collins, J. L. (1993). Overview of the
youth risk behavior surveillance system. Public Health Reports,
108(Suppl. 1), 2–10.
Linders, A. (2016). Deconstructing Adolescence. In A. L. Cherry, V.
Baltag, & M. E. Dillon (Eds.), International handbook on adoles-
cent health and development. The Public Health Response. Cham:
Springer.
Maes, L., & Lievens, J. (2003). Can the school make a difference? A
multilevel analysis of adolescent risk and health behaviour. Social
Science & Medicine, 56(3), 517–529. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
S0277​-9536(02)00052​-7.
Mayet, A., Legleye, S., Falissard, B., & Chau, N. (2012). Cannabis use
stages as predictors of subsequent initiation with other illicit drugs
among French adolescents: Use of a multi-state model. Addic-
tive behaviors, 37(2), 160–166. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbe​
h.2011.09.012.
Patel, V., Araya, R., Chatterjee, S., Chisholm, D., Cohen, A., De Silva,
M., … & Van Ommeren, M. (2007). Treatment and prevention
of mental disorders in low-income and middle-income countries.
The Lancet, 370(9591), 991–1005. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0140​
-6736(07)61240​-9
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game bases learning. New York:
McGrawHill.
Prinzie, P., Hoeve, M. & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2008). Family processes par-
ent and child personality characteristics. In R. Loeber. H. M. Koot.
N. W. Slot. P. H. Van der Laan. & M. Hoeve (eds.) Tomorrow’s
criminals: The development of child delinquency and effective
interventions (pp. 91–102). Hampshire. England: Ashgate.
Prinzie, P., & Dekoviç, M. (2008). Continuity and change of child-
hood personality characteristics through the lens of teachers.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 82–88. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.002.
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor mod-
els and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimen-
sional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 92(6), 544–559. https​: //doi.org/10.1080/00223​
891.2010.49647​7.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/00273​171.2012.71555​5.
Reise, S. P., Kim, D. S., Mansolf, M., & Widaman, K. F. (2016). Is
the bifactor model a better model or is it just better at modeling
implausible responses? Application of iteratively reweighted least
squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Multivariate behav-
ioral research, 51(6), 818–838.
Reynolds, E. K., Collado-Rodriguez, A., MacPherson, L., & Lejuez,
C. (2013). Impulsivity, disinhibition, and risk taking in addiction.
Principles of Addiction (pp. 203–212). https​://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-39833​6-7.00021​-8
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating
bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices.
Psychological methods, 21(2), 137. https:​ //doi.org/10.1177/21677​
02616​65706​9.
Sawyer, S. M., Afifi, R. A., Bearinger, L. H., Blakemore, S. J., Dick, B.,
Ezeh, A. C., & Patton, G. C. (2012). Adolescence: A foundation
for future health. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1630–1640. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140​-6736(12)60072​-5.
Shaykhi, F., Ghayour-Minaie, M., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2018).
Impact of the Resilient Families intervention on adolescent anti-
social behavior: 14-month follow-up within a randomized trial.
Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 484–491. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.child​youth​.2018.08.021.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adoles-
cent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.
Stone, A. L., Becker, L. G., Huber, A. M., & Catalano, R. F. (2012).
Review of risk and protective factors of substance use and prob-
lem use in emerging adulthood. Addictive behaviors, 37(7), 747–
775. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbe​h.2012.02.014.
Thiel-Stern, S. (2014). From the dance hall to Facebooksst: Teen girls,
mass media, and moral panic in the United States, 1905–2010.
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2013). Resiliency theory A strengths-based
approach to research and practice for adolescent health. Health
Education & Behavior. https:​ //doi.org/10.1177/109019​ 81134​ 9378​
2.
Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal
versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales.
Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. https​://doi.
org/10.22237​/jmasm​/11779​92180​.
Wall, M., Cheslack-Postava, K., Hu, M. C., Feng, T., Griesler, P.,
& Kandel, D. B. (2018). Nonmedical prescription opioids and
pathways of drug involvement in the US: Generational differ-
ences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 182, 103–111. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.druga​lcdep​.2017.10.013.
Wångby-Lundh, M., Klingstedt, M. L., Bergman, L. B., & Ferrer-
Wreder, L. (2018). Swedish adolescent girls in special residential
treatment: A person-oriented approach to the identification of
problem syndromes. Nordic Psychology, 70(1), 17–46. https​://
doi.org/10.1080/19012​276.2017.13236​63.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13