Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
DOI 10.1007/s10578-013-0368-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Peer Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Questionnaire
(Parb-Q): Measurement Invariance Across Italian
and Brazilian Children, Gender and Age
Juliane Callegaro Borsa • Bruno Figueiredo Damásio •
Denise Ruschel Bandeira • Paola Gremigni
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract This study examines measurement invariance,
reliability and scores differences of the Peer Aggressive
and Reactive Behaviors Questionnaire (PARB-Q) across
Italian and Brazilian children, gender and age. Participants
were 587 Italian and 727 Brazilian children, aged
7–13 years from 12 elementary schools. The PARB-Q is a
brief self-report instrument composed by two scales that
assess aggressive behavior and reactions to peer aggres-
sion. Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses indicated
full measurement invariance of the PARB-Q across groups
based on country, gender and age, providing support for
the unidimensionality of the first scale (direct peer
aggression, PA) and a 3-factor model of the second scale
(reactive aggression, RA; seeking teacher support, STS;
internalizing reaction, IR). Reliability indices were good
for all factors. Italian children reported a higher frequency
of PA and a lower frequency of IR than the Brazilian
children. Boys scored higher than girls on PA and RA,
while girls scored higher than boys on STS and IR.
Younger children reported a lower frequency of PA and a
higher frequency of STS than older children. Results
provide support for structure validity and reliability of the
PARB-Q in two countries and information on differences
related to gender, age and culture in peer relationships in
elementary school.
J. C. Borsa
B. F. Damásio
D. R. Bandeira
Institute of Psychology, Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
P. Gremigni (&)
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna,
Viale Berti Pichat, 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy
e-mail: paola.gremigni2@unibo.it
Keywords Aggressive behavior
Reactions to aggression

Children
Measurement invariance
Cross-cultural
comparisons
Introduction
In recent years, aggression in schools has become a central
issue of concern in many countries around the world,
because of high prevalence indices and immediate and long-
term negative consequences for all involved [1]. In parallel,
the way that children react to aggression is becoming an
important focus of research, because researchers are inter-
ested in identifying effective strategies to reduce the impact
of aggression on the victims [2]. However, research on
aggressive behavior and research on reactions to victim-
ization have been poorly integrated with each other. We
believed that studying together these aspects can provide a
more complete picture of peer relationships.
Collecting data in different cultures to compare results is
vital to many practices in applied psychological research.
For this reason aggression in schools has been studied and
compared between a variety of different countries around the
world [3]. Nevertheless, in general, the differences on the
prevalence of aggressive behavior that may be found
between countries can be attributed not only to the cultural
characteristics of each country, but also to methodological
differences in data collection [4]. Currently, there is a need of
psychometrically sound instruments to be cross-culturally
used, aiming to better comprehend the phenomenon we are
studying. It requires that the measurement instruments are
cross-cultural valid, namaly that test scores from different
countries measure the same construct of interest on the same
metric [5]. This is related to the concept of cross-group
123

measurement invariance (MI) that is important as a pre-
requisite for meaningful cross-group comparison [6].
Aggressive Behavior
Aggressive behavior is defined as a physical or verbal
behavior aiming to cause physical or psychological harm to
a person or a group of people [7]. Aggression will be
viewed here as a form of social behavior involving direct
interactions between children [8]. Although aggressive
behavior can occur in different contexts, the school is the
predominant setting in which it occurs [9].
Aggression is a heterogeneous phenomenon that encom-
passes a wide variety of behaviors and definitions; there-
fore, attempts have been made to subtype it into more
homogeneous categories. Connor [10] underlines that most
aggression subtypes are empirically derived from statistical
techniques, and that, as such, aggressive behavior classifi-
cation is evidence-based as opposed to theory based. Into
this framework, we tried to distinguish between aggression
displaced or acted-out by a child upon a peer and reaction
to aggression inflicted to a child by a peer, focusing on
elementary school children in community settings who are
not clinically referred.
Acted-out aggression is intended here as an unprovoked,
deliberate attack to a peer. Like proactive aggression, it is
based on a social learning model with aggression resulting
from learned behaviors [7]. On the other hand, reaction to
aggression implies the child’s experience of being attacked
by a peer and may include different actions. In both cases,
we focused on direct forms of aggression such as physical
aggression (e.g., hitting, kicking or punching other kids,
and destroying others’ property) and overt verbal aggres-
sion (e.g., yelling at others or name calling). Although
several studies focused on both forms of direct and indirect
aggression [11], in this study we preferred to focus only on
direct aggression, because indirect/relational aggression
appears later in childhood than either physical or verbal
aggression, and does not peak until around age 11 [12]. On
the other hand, large-scale longitudinal studies show that
for around 10 % of children the early high level of physical
aggression, which has its peak between 2 and 4 years, is
maintained until 11 years or older [13].
A reason for studying aggressive behavior in children is
that it can negatively impact socialization among peers, since
physical/verbal aggression is associated with low social
preference, rejection [14–16], and high involvement in cli-
ques with aggressive peers [17]. It also predicts maladjust-
ment and disorders in childhood, adolescence and early
adulthood, including difficulties in academic achievement,
delinquency, and drug use [18–21].
On the other hand, children who are constantly exposed to
acts of aggression by peers show a sequela of negative
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
consequences that affect both mental health and school
performance. They include psychosomatic symptoms, anx-
iety, depression, low levels of self-esteem, social with-
drawal, loneliness, peer social problems, conduct problems,
poor school adjustment, and high rates of absenteeism from
school [22–26].
Reactions to Peers’ Aggression
Children who are attacked by peers may use a variety of
different strategies in response to aggression and to defend
themselves [25, 27–29]. The classification of these strate-
gies, like that of aggressive behavior, is empirically derived
more than theory based. This has produced a variety of
classifications, which sometimes include the same strategies
in different categories. For example, youth responses to
scenarios depicting aggressive provocation by a peer have
been recently classified in three statistically derived cate-
gories: aggression, avoidance, and assertion [30]. Aggres-
sion includes physical, verbal and relational aggression;
avoidance includes behaviors such as going to an adult rather
than confronting the aggressor directly; and assertion
includes asking someone to stop doing something. In
response to physical provocations, such as being shoved or
having a property damaged, youth was found to react
assertively, fighting back or telling an adult more than with
other strategies [31]. Nevertheless, assertive and aggressive
behaviors in practice are difficult to be clearly distinguished
[32]. Responding aggressively can be included in the broader
category of reactive aggression to a provocation that is based
on the anger-frustration theory [7]. Counter-aggression has
been recently reported as the most common strategy used
against bullying in USA school samples [2], while telling an
adult at school was less used. Counter-aggression, telling an
adult and withdrawal were observed as those used more than
any other strategy by children in response to peer victim-
ization in British primary school samples [29]. In this clas-
sification, telling an adult was viewed as a strategy based on
seeking social support rather than on avoidance. Other fac-
tor-analytically derived strategies were: seeking social sup-
port, self-reliance/problem-solving, and distancing that were
regarded as approach strategies; and internalizing and
externalizing that were regarded as avoidance strategies
[33]. Internalizing included responses such as crying,
whining, pouting, and sulking, while externalizing included
aggressive reactions such as taking it out on others, yelling,
throwing or hitting something.
Different strategies adopted by children to react to
peers’ aggression may have an impact on various out-
comes. Studies on reactive aggression have linked this type
of aggression to overt displays of anger under stress, hostile
attribution, deficits in social problem solving, rejection and
victimization by peers [34–38]. Over time, negative peer
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
group experiences may contribute to the development of
loneliness and social anxiety [39].
Seeking teacher support is instead associated with both
positive and negative outcomes. It has been found to protect
against internalizing difficulties [40, 41], but also to
decrease emotional adjustement [42]. Finally, children who
react to victimization with internalizing behavior were
found to be prone to sadness, anxiety, fear, shame, depres-
sion, and low attentional regulation [43, 44].
The Current Investigation
Prior research shows that there is wide geographical varia-
tion in the percentage of children reporting of aggression,
with aggressive acts involving 9–54 % of 11 years old
children from 35 nations [3]. Cultural reasons may be at the
origin of such variation, as aggressive behavior may be more
culturally sanctioned in some countries than in others. For
example, while in Western countries children’s proactive
aggression is more tolerated than reactive aggression [45], in
Chinese populations both forms of aggression are not tol-
erated as viewed as challenging of social harmony [46].
Italy is a suitable cultural context for exploring aggressive
behavior since physical aggression, in particular, occurs
frequently in Italian childhood [47]. Moreover, physical
bullying is more prevalent in Italy than in other European
and Western countries (e.g., Norway, England, Spain, or
Japan) with almost 40 % of Italian primary school children
reporting being bullied and 20 % reporting bullying others
at least sometimes; rates approximately twice as high as
among English children [48].
Among Brazilian children, 26.5 % of fifth graders in
primary schools in metropolitan areas reported to have
suffered threats by peers [49]. Amongst the fifth graders the
violence manifested mainly through physical threats, whilst
among eighth graders verbal aggression emerged most
[49]. Internalizing and aggressive behavior were the pre-
dominant behavior problems among students from first to
fourth grade of elementary schools in Porto Alegre with a
prevalence of 18 and 16 %, respectively [50].
We decided to study the phenomena of aggression and
reaction to aggression among peers by comparing the
behaviors of Italian and Brazilian children, since Italy and
Brazil are geographically distant, diverse in ethnical and
racial composition, but culturally similar for several aspects.
For example, they have languages of Latin origin, a similar
religious background, and comparable educational systems.
Both societies are also characterised by a mixture of diverse
values and traditions, such as group-oriented attitudes
toward family members, neighbors and peers, and concern
for individual autonomy [51]. Therefore, we can expect
somewhat similar behavior among children of the two
countries, although it is reasonable to expect also a greater
aggressiveness of Italian children compared to those in
Brazil, based on the data of prevalence reported in the lit-
erature [48, 49].
A reason for Brazilian researchers to be involved in this
cross-cultural study was also the fact that, in the Brazilian
context, research on peer aggressive behavior is recent and
has not received adequate attention [52]. Currently, most
studies performed with Brazilian children address generic
violence or bullying behavior [53, 54], yet reaction to peer
aggression has not been extensively studied. To our
knowledge there has been just one recently published study
[55] that describes an empirical categorization of strategies
reported by a small sample of 16 children aged 9–10 years
in response to victimization in schools. Seeking social
support was the most popular strategy reported by the
interviewed children, followed by various forms of with-
drawal and active coping, while counter-aggression was the
least popular response, with no gender differences.
To conduct reliable comparisons between the two coun-
tries involved in this study there was the need to use mea-
surement tools that are valid cross-culturally, namely that
measure the same constructs in the same way in both cul-
tures [5].
Although there are several instruments that evaluate
child aggression and reactions to victimization [56], most
of them have some limitations. The vast majority of tools
are excessively long and complex to be filled in autono-
mously by primary school children. Moreover, most tools
reflects the division between the two strands of research on
aggression and the strategies adopted in response to peer
victimization, respectively [56].
The peer aggressive and reactive behaviors questionnaire
(PARB-Q) has been recently developed in Italy to assess
both aggressive behavior and reactions to peer aggression in
elementary school [57]. It is a brief and easy to administer
self-report instrument that has shown good psychometric
characteristics in the Italian context [57]. Thus, it appears to
be a promising measure to be used also in other countries,
but first it should prove cross-cultural MI.
MI examines ‘‘the extent to which items or subtests have
equal meaning across groups of examinees’’ [58]. As such,
the concept of MI applies not only to cross-country com-
parisons but to any group of respondents, such as those
based on gender and age. In this way it provides a contri-
bution to the construct validity of an instrument. It is well
known that gender differences in physical/verbal aggres-
sion were substantial [59], and gender differences were
also found in the strategies adopted to cope with peers’
aggression [60, 61]. Although there is no strong evidence
for specific age influences on aggression [62], some studies
showed younger children to react with more physical and
verbal aggression compared to older ones [60, 61, 63].
Nevertheless, gender and age differences in aggression
123

have mostly been based on studies utilizing a mean dif-
ference method. From a measurement perspective, this
method is problematic unless an aggression measure pos-
sesses comparable validity across gender and age.
This study aimed to provide evidence of the construct
comparability of the PARB-Q across Brazilian and Italian
children and across groups of respondents based on gender
and age. Reliability of the PARB-Q as internal consistency
was also tested within any of the country samples.
The second aim of the present study was to compare
children’s aggressive behavior and reactions to peer
aggression across country, gender and age.
This study may provide some information on whether
children aggression and reaction to victimization are asso-
ciated with age and gender in a similar fashion across dif-
ferent cultures. Investigation of this issue would help us
understand the role of context in the development of
aggression and design appropriate school interventions for
children from different backgrounds who experience psy-
chological distress as a results of their aggressive behaviors
or of being victimized by peers.
Materials and Methods
Participants
Participants comprised 1,314 children in grades two
through five, aged 7–13 years with a mean age of
9.39 years (SD = 1.22 years) and a male-to-female ratio
of 1.03:1 overall. Participants were from five public
schools in Italy (n = 587) and seven public and private
schools in Brazil (n = 727). Schools were in low to med-
ium class metropolitan areas in Bologna, in the north-east
of Italy, and Porto Alegre, in the state of Rio Grande do
Sul, in Southern Brazil. The majority of the children in the
samples lived with both parents. The first graders were
excluded because, in both countries, they are generally not
yet fully able to read and complete a self-report measure.
Significant country-group differences were found in
mean age [F (1,1312) = 273.54, p \ .0005], the Brazilian
children (mean = 9.82 years, SD = 1.14) being older than
the Italians (mean = 8.79 years, SD = 1.24). Children
were divided in two age groups: 682 (51.9 %) aged
7–9 years and 632 (48.1 %) aged 10–13 years. Significant
differences were found on age distribution by country
[Chi2(1) = 139.46, p \ .0005], with 37.7 % of Brazilian
children aged 7–9 years versus 62.7 % of the Italians, and
70 % of the Brazilians aged 10–13 years versus 30 % of the
Italians.
No significant differences were found on gender distri-
bution [Chi2(1) = 1.294, p = .26], though a noteworthy
proportion of Italian children (17 %) did not report their
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
gender. Brazilian children were 378 males (52 %) and 349
female (48 %), and Italian children were 236 males
(48.7 %) and 249 females (51.3 %). No gender differences
were found on mean age [F(1,1214) = 2.09, p = .15].
Measures
The peer aggressive and reactive behavior questionnaire
(PARBQ) [57] is a self-report instrument consisting of two
separate scales, the 8-item peer aggression scale (PA) and
the 12-item reaction to peer aggression scale (RPA), which
aim to investigate direct aggressive behavior and reactions
to peer aggression of children in school, respectively.
Despite all the items are answered on a 4-point Likert scale,
the formulation of questions and answers varies for the two
scales. Items in the PA scale are preceded by the following
request: ‘‘usually, how many times it happens that you …’’,
and the response may vary from 1—‘‘it doesn’t ever happen
to me’’ to 4—‘‘it happens to me all the days’’. Items in the
RPA scale are preceded by the following request: ‘‘usually,
when a classmate takes one of the actions described below
what do you do?’’, and the response may vary from 1—‘‘I
never do so’’ to 4—‘‘I do so all the times’’.
The PARBQ has been developed in Italy as a brief self-
report tool to be used in school [57]. The dimensions to be
measured were selected not only on the basis of the liter-
ature, but mainly based on the results of a focus group with
primary school teachers. In particular, teachers required a
brief and easy to administer tool to detect certain behaviors
that they recurrently observe in everyday school life. In
addition, teachers were interested to learn the point of view
of children and their self-assessment of the recurrence of
these behaviors. In the original study [57], the two scales of
the PARB-Q were analyzed separately due to the different
wording of questions and answers used to measure two
different types of behavior (i.e., aggressive behavior and
reactions to be attacked by peers).
The PA scale evaluates direct aggressive behavior
toward peers and consists of five items measuring physical
(e.g., ‘‘how often do you kick or hit your classmates?’’) and
verbal aggression (e.g., ‘‘how often do you say bad things
to your classmates?’’), plus three control items that were
not considered for scoring.
The RPA scale consists of 12 items aimed to investigate
three reactions to peer aggression that are commonly
reported by children. The first reaction, named Reactive
Aggression (RA), includes aggressive responses directed to
the aggressor or to objects belonging to the aggressor (e.g.,
‘‘when a classmate hits or pushes you, you yell at him/
her’’). The second behavior, Seeking Teacher Support
(STS), consists of items that refer to telling the teacher
what has happened to obtain help (e.g., ‘‘when your
classmate yells at you, you tell the teacher’’). The last
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
behavior, Internalizing Reaction (IR), aims to evaluate to
what extent a child presents a passive and internalized
response to peer aggression (e.g., ‘‘when your classmate
tells you bad things, you do cry or sulk’’). Among various
potential strategies adopted by children in response to
aggression by peers, we selected those that were most
commonly observed by teachers in school and also repor-
ted in the literature [2]. Moreover, both the internalized
(IR) and the externalized (RA) responses were chosen for
their association with negative outcomes [39, 44], while
searching the teacher’s help has been selected for its
potentially, albeit contradictory, positive effects [41, 42].
The PARB-Q presented adequate psychometric properties
for both the hypothesized one-factor PA scale and the 3-factor
RPA scale. Goodness-of-fit indices of confirmatory factor
analyses provided support to accept the predicted models.
Those indices were as follows: s-bv2/df = .32; SRMR =
.01; RMSEA = .001 (95 % CI = .00-.03); CFI = .99;
TLI = .99 for PA, and s-bv2/df = 1.99; SRMR = .05;
RMSEA = .06 (95 % CI = .05-.08); CFI = .93; TLI =
.92 for RPA. Internal consistency was good for both scales and
all factors, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .75 and
.86. Test–retest reliability over a 6-week period was accept-
able, with all ICC values above .80.
Criterion validity was evaluated in the original Italian
study [57], by means of correlation with the aggressive
behavior scale of the Childhood Social Adjustment Capacity
Indicators (CSACI, child self-report form) [64] and the skill
alternatives to aggression subscale of the Teacher Skill-
streaming Checklist (TSC) [65]. Results showed significant
positive correlations between PA, RA, IR and CSACI, sig-
nificant negative correlations between PA, IR and TSC, and
significant positive correlation between STS and TSC, as
expected.
The Brazilian version of PARB-Q used in the present
study was obtained by translating it carefully from Italian
to Portuguese by the members of our international research
team. The questionnaire was then back translated to ensure
comparability with the Italian version.
Procedures
The PARB-Q was administered to both Italian and Bra-
zilian children using similar procedures. Data collection
was performed by means of a collective administration of
the questionnaire in classroom. Instructions for completing
the questionnaire were read aloud, to assure children’s
comprehension. Completion took about 15 min. All par-
ticipants were informed that the questionnaire was not a
school assignment, that there were no right or wrong
answers and no time limit, and that every child had to
respond on its own and sincerely all questions.
The research project was approved by the Federal Uni-
versity of Rio Grande do Sul and University of Bologna
Ethics Committees. Elementary schools in the metropolitan
areas of Porto Alegre and Bologna were contacted and data
collection was held at those schools that first agreed to par-
ticipate in the survey after approval by their school boards.
Parents were informed about the study and signed a consent
form. All children agreed to complete the questionnaire, and
there was a negligible number of unanswered items.
Data Analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 18.0,
except the MGCFAs that were conducted with EQS 6.1
[66]. All data were checked for univariate and multivariate
normality.
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) framework
provided a means to test the factor structure of the PARB-Q
as an important contribution to construct-validation.
Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) is an
extremely powerful procedure for detecting a range of
cross-group differences in a measurement model [67]. To
cross-validate the PARB-Q in the Brazilian and Italian
contexts, we conducted a set of MGCFAs in the baseline
models for each scale. The MGCFAs tested across-group MI
based on country, age, and gender. Groups were formed,
respectively, by 717 Brazilians and 587 Italians; 682
younger (aged 7–9 years) and 632 older children (aged
10–13 years); and 600 females and 614 males. Four differ-
ent parameters were evaluated: Model 1 (unconstrained
model/configural invariance) assessed whether the structure
of the scale (the number of factors and the items per factor)
was plausible for both the Italian and Brazilian groups. If this
model does not hold, then the structure of the instrument
cannot be considered equal for the groups. Model 2 (equal
factor loadings/metric invariance) analyzed if factor load-
ings of the items were equal across groups. Model 3 (equal
intercepts/scalar invariance) investigated whether the initial
level of the latent variable was equal among the different
groups. Finally, Model 4 (equal factor covariance/structural
invariance) assessed to what extent the latent variance and
covariance of the latent variable(s) were equal across groups
[68]. The assessment levels of the models were ordered
hierarchically. Each constrained model was nested within a
less restricted one [67]. The goodness-of-fit of the uncon-
strained model was evaluated using the Chi square/degree-
of-freedom ratio (v2/df), the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR), the comparative fit index (CFI), the
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). These indexes were chosen
because we sought to include fit indexes from several cate-
gories such as absolute fit (v2/df; SRMR), parsimonious fit
123

(RMSEA), and comparative fit (CFI, TLI) indexes. Absolute
fit indexes assesses model fit by evaluating the discrepancy
between the implied model covariance’s and the observed
sample covariance. The parsimonious fit, RMSEA, is an
error of approximation index, which assesses the extent to
which a model fits reasonably well in the population. The
RMSEA index presents two advantages: (1) the 90 % con-
fidence interval indicates the precision of the RMSEA point
estimate; and (2) RMSEA compensates for the effect of
model complexity by conveying discrepancy in fit (d) per
each df in the model [69]. Lastly, the comparative fit indexes
CFI and TLI evaluates the adequacy of the model by com-
paring the predicted model with a baseline model, which is a
null or independence model in which the covariances among
all input indicators are fixed to zero. These fit indexes imply
a different evaluative logic, in which the presented model is
compared to the worst possible model [66]. Besides the fact
that absolute, parsimonious and comparative fit indexes are
complementary in their information, all these indexes were
chosen because of their positive performances on Monte-
Carlo simulation studies [for a review, see 66].
The v2/df may be less than 2 or 3; the SRMR should be
close to 0; the CFI and TLI must be higher than .90 or .95 or
close to it, and RMSEA values less than .05 indicate a good
fit, whereas those between .05 and .08 indicate a reasonable
fit [66]. Measurement invariance of the constrained models
was evaluated using the CFI difference test (DCFI) [24].
Significant differences observed between the goodness-
of-fit indices of the models (DCFI [ .01) indicate that MI
could not be achieved in the evaluated parameter.
Reliability as internal consistency was assessed for each
factor of the PARB-Q in both the Italian and Brazilian
samples using Cronbach’s alpha. A limit of .70 was
acceptable, while a good degree requires .80 [69].
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted for all the PARB-Q dimensions using country,
gender, and age-group as fixed factors.
Results
Measurement Invariance of the PARB-Q
As it can be seen in Table 1, the unconstrained models
presented excellent goodness-of-fit indexes, suggesting
acceptability for the factor structure of both the PA and
RPA scales for all investigated groups. With support for the
configural invariance, the second model (equal factor
loadings/metric invariance) was conducted to evaluate to
what extent the items were answered similarly (unbiased)
for Brazilian and Italian children, younger and older chil-
dren, and male and females. The results of this model
showed that there were no response biases on any item
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
between groups. Scalar invariance (Model 3) was tested to
further emphasize the evaluation of MI. The CFI difference
test showed that the intercepts were the same for the
evaluated groups. At this point, all group comparisons
could be safely conducted, since metric and scalar invari-
ance were achieved [66, 67]. The last model (Model 4,
structural invariance), in turn, demonstrated that the sub-
jects presented the same level of the latent trait for almost
all subgroups, except for gender in the PA scale
(DCFI = .045). This result suggests that, in this study
sample, the levels of explained variance of the PA scale
were different for boys and girls. It is important to note that
the structural invariance is not a measurement problem, but
is related to the population heterogeneity [66]. For the RPA
scale, Model 4 demonstrated that the level of latent trait
was equal among all groups, and that the patterns of cor-
relations among factors were also invariant. Given that
configural, metric, scalar and structural invariances were
held, mean difference tests can be reliably conducted.
Reliability of the PARB-Q
In the Brazilian sample, Cronbach’s alpha reliability was
.81 for PA, and .85, .81 and .77 for RA, STS, and IR,
respectively. In the Italian sample, alpha reliability was .81
for PA, and .86, .84 and .82 for RA, STS, and IR,
respectively. Alpha coefficients were above the expected
limit of .70 for all scales and factors among both samples.
Cross-Group Comparisons
The results of MANOVA showed that all the interactions
between the fixed factors were not statistically significant,
indicating that the effects of country, gender and age were
independent of each other. The three main effects were all
significant at a level of p \ .0005. Results of univariate
analyses (Table 2) showed that in the PA scale Italian
children scored significantly higher than the Brazilians,
boys sored significantly higher than girls, and older chil-
dren scored significantly higher than the youngest. In RA
there were no country or age differences, whereas boys
scored significantly higher than girls. In STS there were no
country differences, while girls scored significantly higher
than boys, and younger children scored significantly higher
than the oldest. In IR Italian children scored significantly
higher than the Brazilians, and girls sored significantly
higher than boys, with no age differences.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to assess measure-
ment invariance (MI) of the PARB-Q across groups based
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Table 1 Results of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis for the PARB-Q (PA and RPA scales) across country, age, and gender
Group Goodness-of-fit indices
v2/df SRMR RMSEA (90 % IC) TLI CFI DCFI

Country Brazil vs. Italy PA measurement invariance

Model 1: Equal number of factors 2.074 0.012 .029 [.010–.046] 0.989 0.995 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 2.389 0.019 .033 [.018–.047] 0.986 0.99 0.005
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.41 0.02 .033 [.020–.045] 0.986 0.987 0.003
Model 4: Equal latent variance 2.259 0.02 .031 [.017–.045] 0.987 0.99 0.003
RPA measurement invariance
Model 1: Equal number of factors 2.876 0.039 .038 [.033–.043] 0.959 0.968 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 2.759 0.04 .037 [.032–.042] 0.961 0.968 0
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.81 0.04 .037 [.032–.042] 0.96 0.964 0.004
Model 4: Equal latent covariance 2.753 0.048 .037 [.032–.041] 0.962 0.966 0.002
Age 7–9 years vs. 10–13 years PA measurement invariance
Model 1: Equal number of factors 1.866 0.011 .026 [.004–.044] 0.991 0.996 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 1.676 0.014 .023 [.000–.038] 0.993 0.995 0.001
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.15 0.016 .030 [.017–.042] 0.988 0.989 0.006
Model 4: Equal latent variance 1.583 0.016 .032 [.020–.044] 0.986 0.986 0.003
RPA measurement invariance
Model 1: Equal number of factors 2.709 0.035 .036 [.031–.041] 0.962 0.971 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 2.608 0.036 .035 [.030–.040] 0.964 0.97 0.001
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.554 0.036 .034 [.030–.039] 0.966 0.969 0.001
Model 4: Equal latent covariance 2.802 0.039 .037 [.033–.042] 0.958 0.961 0.008
Gender male vs. female PA measurement invariance
Model 1: Equal number of factors 0.91 0.01 .000 [.000–.029] 1.001 1 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 1.46 0.02 .020 [.000–.037] 0.994 0.996 0.004
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.017 0.017 .029 [.015–.043] 0.988 0.989 0.007
Model 4: Equal latent variance 5.56 0.039 .061 [.050–.063] 0.952 0.944 0.045
RPA measurement invariance
Model 1: Equal number of factors 2.591 0.036 .036 [.031–.042] 0.96 0.969 –
Model 2: Equal factor loadings 2.585 0.038 .036 [.031–.041] 0.96 0.966 0.003
Model 3: Equal intercepts 2.844 0.037 .039 [.034–.044] 0.953 0.957 0.009
Model 4: Equal latent covariance 3.016 0.051 .041 [.036–.046] 0.949 0.951 0.006
2
PA peer aggression scale, RPA reactions to peer aggression scale, v /df Chi square to degrees of freedom ratio, SRMR standardized root mean
square residual, RMSEA root mean square of error of approximation, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, CFI comparative fit index

on country, gender and age. MI was achieved for both
scales of the PARB-Q, with excellent goodness-of-fit
indexes across groups. Other tools measuring aggression
have demonstrated at least partial MI by gender in Western
[70] as well as Eastern countries [71]; while for some other
tools MI across gender was not supported [72]. To our
knowledge, MI of aggression tools across age groups has
been implicitly invoked but not explicitly tested.
Alpha values of the PARB-Q indicated acceptable to
good values of reliability of all dimensions. These findings
suggest that the PARB-Q is a psychometrically sound
measure to be used when evaluating aggression and reac-
tions to peer aggression in males and females children,
aged 7–13 years, in both the Italian and Brazilian contexts.
Across-group comparisons indicated that boys reported
higher scores on direct aggression and aggressive reaction
than girls. This result is consistent with well-known find-
ings that direct physical/verbal aggression tends to be more
common in boys than girls, from early in life to adulthood
[45, 73–76]. For example, in Brazil [77], the percentage of
aggression was twice larger among boys (17.5 %) than in
girls (8.9 %). Gender difference has also been found to
hold across cultures, such as Italian, Spanish and English
[78] or Italian, Brazilian, Canadian and Chinese [79].
Overt aggression and reactive aggression also varied
with age, such that older children exhibited higher levels of
these forms of aggression in comparison to younger chil-
dren. It was in accordance to findings of a recent study [80]

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

0.05

0.06
0.01
0.02
where older children (aged 12 years) exhibited higher

g2
levels of proactive-overt aggression in comparison to
younger children (aged 9 years).

7.33*
63.51*

74.64*

20.51*

PA peer aggression scale, RPA reactions to peers aggression, RA reactive aggression, STS seeking teacher support, IR internalizing reaction, SD standard deviation, g2 effect size
In the present study Italian children had higher scores in
aggression than the Brazilians, although there were no
F

country differences on reactive aggression. Italian children

were found to score higher in aggression than the Brazil-
Mean (SD)

7.31 (2.60)

8.72 (3.50)
8.74 (2.74)
5.89 (2.36)
(n = 600)

ians in a previous study [79], where gender differences

were also larger among Italian than Brazilian children.
Girls

Results of this study showed that boys and girls differed

also in other types of reaction to peer aggression. Indepen-
dent of country, seeking teacher support was more fre-
8.60 (3.18)

10.78 (4.61)
8.27 (2.93)
5.31 (2.38)
Mean (SD)
(n = 614)

quently reported by girls than boys, in agreement with other

findings from the literature [81, 82]. Seeking support may
Boys

prove to be an effective means for dealing with situations of

victimization. However, its effectiveness is different
The total sample used in this analysis includes 1,214 participants due to the lack of information on the gender of 100 Italian children

according to gender. The practice of seeking teacher support

0.001

0.001
0.01

0.03

can be evaluated as effective for girls, but not for boys. As

g2

indicated by previous studies, boys seeking teacher support

tend to have high incidences of future victimization as well
12.99*

31.92*
1.05

1.54

as loneliness and rejection experiences [83, 84].

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and results of univariate ANOVA for the PARB-Q across country, age and gender

A cross-cultural study with Italian and English children

F

found results similar to those of the present study, with

girls being more confident than boys in seeking teachers’
Mean (SD)

8.16 (3.00)

9.96 (4.33)
7.96 (2.81)
5.60 (2.37)
(n = 565)

help in both countries [85]. Thus, this seems to be a

strategy typically feminine, suggesting that the impact of
Old

social and cultural context on this behavior may not be a

straightforward issue.
Mean (SD)

7.70 (2.93)

9.41 (4.12)
8.98 (2.79)
5.50 (2.42)

The practice of seeking teacher support also varied with

(n = 649)

age, being more frequently reported by older than younger

Young

children. This result is consistent with findings from the

literature showing that this strategy decreases in older
children, probably because of their achieved greater
0.001
0.001
0.02

0.01

autonomy in managing relationships with peers [60, 86].

g2

The internalizing reaction was also more common among

girls than boys, in accordance with the literature where girls
22.38*

15.26*

were found to be more likely than boys to respond to a

0.85
0.01

provocation with helplessness or internalizing behavior [60,

F

61, 81, 82]. These results might be due to the fact that girls
are traditionally expected to behave in a more passive and
Mean (SD)

8.24 (2.89)

9.49 (3.81)
8.73 (2.68)
5.29 (2.22)
(n = 487)

controlled manner than boys in social situations [87] and

this may affect also their reaction to aggression. The inter-
Italy

nalized strategy was also more reported by younger than

older children, in accordance with results from the literature
[60, 61]. Smith et al. [61] hypothesized that a change of
Mean (SD)

7.78 (3.02)

9.94 (4.47)
8.35 (2.94)
5.80 (2.47)
(n = 727)

strategies with age may occur as a result of learning from

Brazil

experience to cope with peer harassment.

Finally, significant country differences were found in
internalized behavior in response to aggression, where
PARB-Q-RPA
PARB-Q-PA

Brazilian children had higher scores than the Italians. We

* p \ .01

can try to read this result together with that concerning the
STS

higher scores in direct aggression reported by Italian

RA

IR

children over the Brazilians. These findings might be partly

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
understood as a consequence of the cultural endorsement of
social assertiveness [88] that might have recently affected
Italy more than Brazil. As social assertiveness and com-
petitiveness are increasingly required, especially in
Northern Italy, children’s shy-sensitive behavior may
decline, whereas aggressive behavior may increase. This
may occurs because the former is increasingly perceived as
negative, indicative of emotional fragility, and therefore
rejected, while the latter is seen as potentially related to
social assertiveness, and, as such it is not totally rejected.
On the other hand, in Brazil, given emphasis on group
affiliation and interpersonal harmony [79], aggression may
be more strongly discouraged than in Italy, whereas shy-
sensitive behavior, perceived as associated with self-
restraint, may be less discouraged.
Similarities and differences were found between the
Brazilian and Italian samples. Further studies investigating
more in-depth those aspects could increase understanding of
cross-cultural differences in children’s relations with peers.
The major limitation of this study was the lack of access
to socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, as some of
those variables have been found to predict different levels of
aggressive behavior among children [89]. Future research
that investigate other context variables will enable more
in-depth assessment and interpretation of the phenomena
under study. Another limitation of this study was the lack of
other criterion variables that could have add evidence to the
cross-cultural validity, particularly criterion validity of the
PARB-Q. This was mainly due to the lack of other validated
tools in either Italy and Brazil to be used as criteria.
Findings of this study provide support for the structure
validity and reliability of the PARB-Q to assess both child
aggression and reaction to aggression in two countries.
This brief and easy to use questionnaire may be used for
understanding the predictors and the trajectory of peer
relationships in elementary school. It may also be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aiming to reduce
aggressive interactions and improve children’s social
functioning by focusing on the skills required to manage
aggressive situations.
Summary
Aggressive behavior is a common problem in childhood.
When persistent, it can have a negative impact on social,
emotional and psychological adjustment of all children
involved. It is important to develop and adapt psychological
measures that can reliably evaluate child aggressive behav-
ior as well as reactions to peer aggression to be used across
different countries. This study aimed to evaluate the reli-
ability and structural validity, based on measurement
invariance (MI), of the peer aggressive and reactive
behaviors questionnaire (PARB-Q) across Italy and Brazil,
across gender and age (children aged 7–9 years versus
10–13 years). The second objective was to compare the
scores of aggressive and reactive behaviors across country,
gender and age. The PARB-Q is a brief self-report instru-
ment developed in Italy to assess both aggressive behavior
and reactions to peer aggression. Multigroup confirmatory
factor analyses indicated full MI based on country, gender
and age for the one-dimensional peer aggression (PA) scale
and for the three-factor model of the reaction to peer
aggression (RPA) scale. RPA factors were: reactive
aggression (RA), seeking teacher support (STS), and inter-
nalizing reaction (IR). Cronbach’s alpha indicated good
reliability for all scales and factors. Comparisons across
groups confirmed findings of previous research on the higher
prevalence of aggression among boys than girls and among
older than younger children. STS and IR were more pre-
valent among girls than boys and among younger than older
children, as was found in the literature. Independent of the
influence of gender and age, Italian children reported higher
levels of PA and lower level of IR than Brazilian children that
were regarded as potentially related to cultural differences
between countries. Results provide support for the structural
validity and reliability of the PARB-Q in the Italian and
Brazilian contexts and added information on influences of
culture, gender and age on peer relationships in school.
References
1. Nansel TR, Craig W, Overpeck MD, Saluja G, Ruan WJ, The
Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Bullying Analyses
Working Group (2004) Cross-national consistency in the rela-
tionship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjust-
ment. Arch Pediat Adol Med 158:730–736
2. Black S, Weinles D, Washington E (2010) Victim strategies to
stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv Justice 8:138–147
3. Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A, Smith R, Settertobulte W,
Samdal O et al. (2004) Young people’s health in context. Health
Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international
report from the 2001/2002 survey. WHO Regional Office for
Europe, Copenhagen
4. Taverna L, Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Axia G (2011) Adaptive
behaviors in young children: a unique cultural comparison in
Italy. J Cross Cult Psychol 42:445–465
5. Wu AD, Li Z, Zumbo BD (2007) Decoding the meaning of
factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis: a demonstration with TIMSS data.
PARE 12: retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n3.pdf
6. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables.
Wiley, Oxford
7. Coie JD, Dodge KA (1998) Aggression and antisocial behavior.
In: Damon W, Eisenberg N (eds) Handbook of child psychology:
social, emotional, and personality development. Wiley, Toronto,
pp 779–862
8. Baron RA, Richardson DR (2004) Human aggression, 2nd edn.
Plenum Press, New York
123

9. Thomas DE, Bierman KL, The Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group (2006) The impact of classroom aggression on
the development of aggressive behavior problems in children.
Dev Psychopathol 18:471–487
10. Connor DF (2004) Aggression and antisocial behavior in children
and adolescent: rearearch and treatment. Guilfor, New York, p 10
11. Björkqvist K (2001) Different names, same issue. Social Dev
10:272–275
12. Björkqvist K, Österman K, Kaukiainen A (1992) The development
of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females.
In: Björkqvist K, Niemelä P (eds) Of mice and women. Aspects of
female aggression. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 51–64
13. Archer J, Côté S (2005) Sex differences in aggressive behavior: a
developmental and evolutionary perspective. In: Tremblay R,
Hartup WW, Archer J (eds) Developmental origins of aggression.
Guilford, New York, pp 425–443
14. LaFontana K, Cillessen A (2002) Children’s perceptions of
popular and unpopular peers: a multimethod assessment. Dev
Psychol 38:635–647
15. Graham S, Juvonen J (2002) Ethnicity, peer harassment, and
adjustment in middle school: an exploratory study. J Early
Adolesc 22:173–199
16. Lee BR, Thompson R (2009) Examining externalizing behavior
trajectories of youth in group homes: Is there evidence for peer
contagion? J Abnorm Child Psychol 37:31–44
17. Bagwell CL, Coie JD, Terry RA, Lochman JE (2000) Peer clique
participation and social status in preadolescence. Merrill Palmer
Q 46:280–305
18. Barke ED, Vitaro F, Lacourse E, Fontaine NMG, Carbonneau R,
Tremblay RE (2010) Testing the developmental distinctiveness of
male proactive and reactive aggression with a nested longitudinal
experimental intervention. Aggress Behav 36:127–140
19. Emond A, Ormel J, Veenstra R, Oldehinkel AJ (2007) Preschool
behavioral and social-cognitive problems as predictors of (pre)ado-
lescent disruptive behavior. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 38:221–236
20. Farrell AD, Sullivan TN, Esposito LE, Meyer AL, Valois RF
(2005) A latent growth curve analysis of the structure of aggression,
drug use, and delinquent behaviors and their interrelations over
time in urban and rural adolescents. J Res Adolesc 15:179–204
21. Pepler DJ, Craig WM (2005) Aggressive girls on troubled tra-
jectories: a developmental perspective. In: Pepler DJ, Madsen
KC, Webster C, Levene KS (eds) The development and treatment
of girlhood aggression. Lawrence Earlbaum, Mahwah, pp 3–28
22. Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S (2010) Bullying victimization
in youths and mental health problems: ‘much ado about nothing’?
Psychol Med 40:717–729
23. Hanish LD, Guerra NG (2002) A longitudinal analysis of patterns
of adjustment following peer victimization. Dev Psychopathol
14:69–91
24. Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW (1996) Peer victimization: cause or
consequences of school maladjustment? Child Dev 67:1305–1317
25. Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW (1997) Victimized children’s
responses to peers’ aggression: behaviors associated with reduced
versus continued victimization. Dev Psychopathol 9:59–73
26. Ladd GW, Kochenderfer-Ladd B (2002) Identifying victims
of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: analysis of
cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational
adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of
identified victims. Psychol Assess 14:74–96
27. Fields L, Prinz RJ (1997) Coping and adjustment during child-
hood and adolescence. Clin Psychol Rev 17:937–976
28. Losoya S, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA (1998) Developmental issues
in the study of coping. Int J Behav Dev 22:287–313
29. Tapper K, Boulton MJ (2005) Victim and peer group responses to
different forms of aggression among primary school children.
Aggress Behav 31:238–253
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
30. Dirks MA, Treat TA, Weersing VR (2011) The latent structure of
youth responses to peer provocation. J Psychopathol Behav
Assess 33:58–68
31. Dirks MA, Treat TA, Weersing VR (2007) The situation speci-
ficity of youth responses to peer provocation. J Clin Child Ado-
lesc Psychol 36:621–628
32. Ostrov JM, Pilat MM, Crick NR (2006) Assertion strategies and
aggression during early childhood: a short-term longitudinal
study. Early Child Res Q 21:403–416
33. Causey DL, Dubow EF (1992) Development of a self-report
coping measure for elementary school children. J Clin Child
Psychol 21:47–59
34. Hubbard JA, Dodge KA, Cillessen AHN, Coie JD, Schwartz D
(2001) The dyadic nature of social information processing in boys’
reactive and proactive aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:268–280
35. Hubbard JA, Smithmyer CM, Ramsden SR, Parker EH, Flanagan
KD, Dearing KF et al (2002) Observational, physiological, and
self-report measures of children’s anger: relations to reactive
versus proactive aggression. Child Dev 73:1101–1118
36. Poulin F, Boivin M (2000) Proactive and reactive aggression:
evidence of a two-factor model. Psychol Assess 12:115–122
37. Poulin F, Boivin M (2000) The role of proactive and reactive
aggression in the formation and development of friendships in
boys. Dev Psychol 36:1–8
38. Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD, Hubbard JA, Cillessen AH,
Lemerise EA et al (1998) Social cognitive and behavioral cor-
relates of aggression and victimization in boys’ play groups.
J Abnorm Child Psychol 26:431–440
39. Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L, Lynam D,
Reynolds C et al (2006) The reactive–proactive aggression
questionnaire: differential correlates of reactive and proactive
aggression in adolescent boys. Aggress Behav 32:159–171
40. Davidson LM, Demaray MK (2007) Social support as a moder-
ator between victimization and internalizing–externalizing dis-
tress from bullying. School Psychol Rev 36:383–405
41. Schmidt ME, Bagwell CL (2007) The protective role of friend-
ships in overtly and relationally victimized boys and girls. Merrill
Palmer Q 53:439–460
42. Visconti KJ, Troop-Gordon W (2010) Prospective relations
between children’s responses to peer victimization and their
socioemotional adjustment. J Appl Dev Psychol 31:261–272
43. Eisenberg N, Shepard SA, Fabes RA, Murphy BC, Guthrie IK
(1998) Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and
coping: contemporaneous, longitudinal, and across context rela-
tions. Child Dev 69:767–790
44. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Shepard SA,
Reiser M et al (2001) The relations of regulation and emotionality
to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior.
Child Dev 72:1112–1134
45. Card NA, Little TD (2006) Proactive and reactive aggression in
childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis of differential rela-
tions with psychosocial adjustment. Int J Behav Dev 30:466–480
46. Xu Y, Zhang Z (2008) Distinguishing proactive and reactive
aggression in Chinese children. J Abnorm Child Psychol
36:539–552
47. Fonzi A, Genta ML, Menesini E, Bacchini D, Bonino S, Costa-
bile A (1999) The Latin countries: Italy. In: Catalano R, Junger-
Tas J, Morita Y, Olweus D, Slee P, Smith PK (eds) The nature of
school bullying: a cross-national perspective. Routledge, London,
pp 140–156
48. Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, Costabile A, Smith PK (1996)
Bullies and victims in schools in central and southern Italy. Eur J
Psychol Educ 11:97–110
49. Francisco MV, Libório RMC (2009) Um estudo sobre bullying
entre escolares do ensino fundamental. Psicol Reflex Crit
22:200–207
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
50. Borsa CJ, Nunes MLT (2011) Prevalência de problemas de
comportamento em uma amostra de crianças em idade escolar da
cidade de Porto Alegre. Aletheia 34:32–46
51. Oyserman D, Coon HM, Kemmelmeier M (2002) Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical
assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol Bul 128:3–72
52. Gonçalves LAO, Sposito MP (2002) Public initiatives of scholar
violence reduction in Brazil. Cad Pesq 115:101–138
53. Frizzo MN, Bisol LW, Lara DR (2012) Bullying victimization is
associated with dysfunctional emotional traits and affective
temperaments J Affect Disord doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.046
54. Lopes Neto AA, Saavedra LH (2003) Diga não para o Bullying.
Abrapia, Rio de Janeiro
55. de Lima Braga L, Lisboa C (2010) Estratégias de coping para
lidar com o processo de bullying: um estudo qualitativo. Inter-
Am J Psychol 44:321–331
56. Borsa JC, Bandeira DR (2011) The use of psychological mea-
sures of child aggressive behavior: analysis of Brazilian scientific
production. Aval Psi 12:193–203
57. Gremigni P, Damásio BF, Borsa JC (2013) Development and
validation of a questionnaire to evaluate overt aggression and
reactions to peer aggression. Psicol Reflex Crit 26: in press
58. French BF, Finch WH (2006) Confirmatory factor analytic pro-
cedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Struct
Equ Modeling 13:378–402
59. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD (2008) Direct and
indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-
analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and
relations to maladjustment. Child Dev 79:1467–8624
60. Kristensen SM, Smith PK (2003) The use of coping strategies by
Danish children classed as bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not
involved, in 82 responses to different (hypothetical) types of
bullying. Scand J Psyc 44:479–488
61. Smith P, Shu S, Madsen K (2001) Characteristics of victims of
school bullying: developmental changes in coping strategies and
skills. In: Juvonen J, Graham S (eds) Peer harassment in school:
the plight of the vulnerable and victimized. Guilford, New York,
pp 332–351
62. Hyde JS (2005) The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol
60:581–592
63. Zakriski AL, Wright JC, Underwood MK (2005) Gender simi-
larities and differences in children’s social behavior: finding
personality in contextualized patterns of adaptation. J Pers Soc
Psychol 88:844–855
64. Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Barbaranelli C, Vallone R (1992) In-
dicatori della capacità di adattamento sociale in età evolutiva.
Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze
65. McGinnis E, Goldstein AP (1997) Skillstreaming the elementary
school child: new strategies and perspectives for teaching pro-
social skills, 2nd edn. Research Press, Champaign
66. Bentler PM, Wu E (2005) EQS 6.1 for windows user’s guide.
Multivariate Software Inc, Encino
67. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling
9:233–255
68. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied
research. Guilford, New York
69. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill,
New York
70. Bryant FB, Smith BD (2001) Refining the architecture of
aggression: a measurement model for the Buss-Perry aggression
questionnaire. J Res Person 35:138–167
71. Ang RP (2007) Factor structure of the 12-item aggression ques-
tionnaire: further evidence from Asian adolescent samples.
J Adolesc 30:671–685
72. Sangwon K, Seock-Ho K, Kamphaus RW (2010) Is aggression
the same for boys and girls? assessing measurement invariance
with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory.
School Psychol Q 25:45–61
73. Kistner J, Counts-Allan C, Dunkel S, Drew CH, David-Ferdon C,
Lopez C (2010) Sex differences in relational and overt aggression
in the late elementary school years. Aggress Behav 36:282–291
74. Lim SH, Ang RP (2009) Relationship between boys’ normative
beliefs about aggression and their physical, verbal, and indirect
aggressive behaviors. Adolesc 44:635–650
75. Archer J (2004) Sex differences in aggression in real-world set-
tings: a meta-analytic review. Rev Gen Psychol 8:291–322
76. Archer J (2009) Does sexual selection explain human sex dif-
ferences in aggression? Behav Brain Sci 32:249–311
77. Malta DC, de Souza ER, da Silva MMA, Silva CDS, de Andre-
azzi MAR, Crespo C et al (2010) Vivência de violência entre
escolares brasileiros: resultados da Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde
do Escolar. Cienc Saude Colet 15:3065–3076
78. Monks CP, Palermiti A, Ortega R, Costabile A (2011) A cross-
national comparison of aggressors, victims and defenders in pre-
schools in England, Spain and Italy. Span J Psychol 14:133–144
79. Chen X, De Oliveira AM, Coco AL, Zappulla C, Kaspar V,
Schneider B et al (2004) Loneliness and social adaptation in Bra-
zilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: a multi-national
comparative study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 45:1373–1384
80. Preddy TM, Fite PJ (2012) The impact of aggression subtypes
and friendship quality on child symptoms of depression. Child
Indic Res. doi:10.1007/s12187-012-9143-9
81. Craig W, Pepler D, Blais J (2007) Responding to bullying: what
works? School Psychol 28:465–477
82. Hunter SC, Boyle JM (2004) Appraisal and coping strategy use in
victims of school bullying. Br J Educ Psychol 74:83–107
83. Houbre B, Tarquinio C, Lanfranchi JB (2010) Expression of self-
concept and adjustment against repeated aggressions: the case of
a longitudinal study on school bullying. Eur J Psychol Educ
25:105–123
84. Shelley D, Craig WM (2010) Attributions and coping styles in
reducing victimization. Can J School Psychol 25:84–100
85. Menesini E, Eslea M, Smith PK, Genta ML, Giannetti E, Fonzi A et al
(1997) Cross-national comparison of children’s attitudes towards
bully/victim problems in school. Aggress Behav 23:245–257
86. Kochenderfer-Ladd B (2004) Peer victimization: the role of emo-
tions in adaptive and maladaptive coping. Soc Dev 13:329–349
87. Ruble DN, Martin CL (1998) Gender development. In: Damon W
(ed) Handbook of child psychology. Wiley, New York,
pp 933–1016
88. Larson RW (1999) The uses of loneliness in adolescence. In:
Rotenberg KJ, Hymel S (eds) Loneliness in childhood and ado-
lescence. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 244–262
89. Nicole S, Caprara GV (2005) Assessing aggressive behavior in
children. Eur J Psychol Assess 21:255–264
123