CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE SIBLING ABUSE SCALE

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Psychology

_______________

by

Miguel Martin del Campo

Fall 2012
 iii

Copyright © 2012
by
Miguel Martin del Campo
All Rights Reserved
 iv

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family, friends, and mentors whose life-long support
lead to this point in my life. A special thanks to my father, for dedicating his life to his
family, Dr. Emilio Ulloa and Dr. Audrey Hokoda, without whom this thesis would not have
been possible, to Garrett Southmayd whose friend ship is a vital aspect of my life, and to my
loving girlfriend, Monique Trevino, for her endless support.
 v

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Creation and Validation of the Sibling Abuse Scale

by
Miguel Martin del Campo
Master of Arts in Psychology
San Diego State University, 2012

Family abuse is an important and widespread form of abuse. Although many types of
types of family abuse have been the focus of research for decades (e.g., domestic violence,
child abuse, and elder abuse), sibling abuse has been largely ignored in the abuse literature.
Some research that has investigated sibling abuse has found that it can be more widespread
than other forms of family abuse as well as peer abuse. Research has also found that sibling
abuse can have serious negative consequences for both victims and perpetrators. Despite
these findings, sibling abuse has received such little attention in the literature that a reliable
and valid quantitative scale has yet to be created. Previous research in this area has been
conducted using qualitative methods, ad-hoc created surveys with no psychometric testing,
and modified scales originally intended for other forms of abuse. Considering that
researchers have demonstrated that scales must be tailored to the construct(s) of interest, a
scale intended for sibling abuse will yield the most valid results for this phenomenon. An
initial item list was created and evaluated using an established psychometric process. Test
items were distributed to participants and subjected to psychometric evaluation (e.g.,
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, internal-consistency reliability and corrected
inter-item correlations, and convergent validity analyses). Results revealed that a 28-item
scale (14 victimization items and 14 perpetration items) may accurately measure sibling
abuse. The Sibling Abuse Scale (SAS) can help advance research and knowledge of sibling
abuse, its causes, and its consequences.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
Prevalence of Sibling Abuse .................................................................................................1
Consequences of Sibling Abuse ............................................................................................2
Previous Research on Sibling Abuse ....................................................................................2
Definition of Sibling Abuse ..................................................................................................3
Previous Forms of Measurement ..........................................................................................5
Qualitative Methods .......................................................................................................5
Quantitative Methods .....................................................................................................5
Scale Development ...............................................................................................................6
Current Study ........................................................................................................................8
METHOD ..................................................................................................................................9
Item Generation.....................................................................................................................9
Participants ............................................................................................................................9
Materials................................................................................................................................9
Scale Items ...................................................................................................................10
Related Scales ..............................................................................................................11
Procedures ...........................................................................................................................11
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................13
Exploratory Factor Analysis ...............................................................................................13
Confirmatory Factor Analysis .............................................................................................14
Reliability ............................................................................................................................14
Item Difficulty.....................................................................................................................15
Validity................................................................................................................................16
 vii

DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................................17
Current Findings .................................................................................................................17
Contributions of the Current Study .....................................................................................19
Limitations ..........................................................................................................................19
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................20
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX
SIBLING ABUSE SCALE AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES FOR
TEST ITEMS ...............................................................................................................23
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Factor Loadings for the Victimization Scale .............................................................13

Table 2. Factor Loadings for the Perpetration Scale................................................................14
Table 3. Corrected Item-Total Correlations for the Victimization Scale.................................15
Table 4. Corrected Item-Total Correlations for the Perpetration Scale ...................................15
Table 5. SAS Correlations with Related Scales .......................................................................16
 ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the thesis committee, Dr. Emilio Ulloa, Dr. Audrey
Hokoda, and Dr. Gorg Matt for their endless support and guidance during this thesis. I
would also like to acknowledge the team members of the Youth Dating Violence research lab
for their support.
 1

INTRODUCTION

Family violence a widespread form of abuse that can adversely influence many
aspects of an individual’s life (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008). One type of family violence
that has been largely ignored is sibling violence. Due to the lack of research and differing
perspectives on the topic, few definitions of sibling violence have been offered (Krienert &
Walsh, 2011). Those definitions that have been proposed are tailored to their specific studies
and, consequently, a comprehensive and generalizable definition of sibling violence has yet
to be established. An operational definition will be discussed, however, when considering
the overlap between the different definitions, it seems logical that a conceptual definition of
sibling violence should be behavior, which may be physical, emotional, or sexual in nature
that takes family resources, controls, and/or harms one’s sibling, as well as elicits an adverse
emotional response.
In this thesis I will discuss some of the previous research on sibling violence. I will
provide a brief overview of the prevalence and potential consequences. Further, I will
discuss the current state of measuring sibling violence and the need for a scale specific to it.
Finally, I will describe a study developing and validating the Sibling Abuse Scale (SAS).

PREVALENCE OF SIBLING ABUSE

Some research that has been conducted on sibling violence indicates that it is more
widespread and influential than other forms of violence. For example, research has found
that individuals are suffering from sibling abuse victimization more frequently than other
types of abuse, such as by peers (Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2006). Further, in 2005
Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, and Hamby estimated that almost 22.5 million children in the
United States were assaulted by siblings compared to 8.7 million who were assaulted by
peers. It has also been suggested that sibling violence is the most common form of intra-
family abuse (Kiscelica & Morril-Richards, 2007). Moreover, they suggest that “…the
sibling relationship is unique in its longevity and can be one of the most influential
relationships in one’s life” (p. 148). Simonelli, Mullis, Elliott, and Pierce (2002) found that
 2

sibling relationships may be more influential on individuals than parent-child relationships,

especially for abusive behaviors.

CONSEQUENCES OF SIBLING ABUSE

According to Kettrey and Emery (2006), one of the reasons sibling violence has been
so under-researched is that it is considered to be common and benign; it is regarded as
“sibling rivalry” and written off as a normal part of childhood development. However, true
sibling violence, in contrast to normal sibling rivalry, can have strong negative consequences
for both the victims and perpetrators. Research has demonstrated that individuals who
experience sibling violence report higher levels of loneliness and depression than those who
do not (Duncan, 1999). Ammerman and Hersen (1991) found that sibling violence is
associated with conduct disorders as well as psychoneurotic reactions. They also suggest that
the consequences associated with sibling bullying can be as severe as suicide. Furthermore,
Finkelhor et al. (2006) found that victims of chronic sibling violence exhibited increased
trauma symptoms as compared to those who experienced peer violence; and this was
especially true for younger individuals. Experiencing sibling violence can also have negative
consequences for an individual’s future. One study, to date, found that perpetration of
sibling abuse to predicts perpetration of later dating abuse (Noland, Liller, McDermott,
Coulter, & Seraphine, 2004).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON SIBLING ABUSE

However, the majority of the previous research on sibling abuse is not specific to this
phenomenon. Many studies investigate other forms of sibling relationships instead of sibling
abuse specifically. For example, in a study by Derkman, Engels, Kuntsche, Vorst, and
Scholte (2011) bi-directional associations were examined between parental support and
sibling relationships. Further, Furman and Buhrmester (1985) conducted a psychometric
study to create a scale measuring sibling relationships including intimacy and nurturance of
siblings. Graham-Bermann and Cutler (1994) also created a scale of sibling relationships
which includes dysfunctional as well as well-functioning relationships. While studies such
as these include aspects of sibling abuse, their scopes are broader and focus on other aspects
of sibling abuse which may limit the amount of attention the specific construct receives and
 3

may not be entirely represented. Other studies do not include relevant samples that are
generalizable to the general public. Krienert and Walsh (2011) discuss research that has been
conducted on small clinical samples and infrequent use of national samples.
Moreover, studies, such as Bank, Burraston, and Snyder (2004) and Sims, Dodd, and
Tejeda (2008) investigated sibling abuse as part of larger models with consisting of other
forms of abuse. For example, they studied sibling abuse alongside peer bullying, dating
violence, and domestic violence. Although larger contexts and models can be informative, it
is first necessary to understand each construct on its own before it can be successfully
incorporated into broader theories, something that few studies have attempted to do with
sibling abuse. To fully understand the construct of sibling violence it is imperative to
investigate it individually (at least initially) and in its entirety.
Therefore, measuring sibling violence is the logical next step in advancing the
literature.

DEFINITION OF SIBLING ABUSE

To define sibling abuse, it is important to understand what sibling abuse is not. For
example, it has been suggested that sibling abuse may or may not be uni-directional. Often,
one sibling, particularly an older and/or male sibling, will be an aggressor bullying the other
sibling (Menesini, Camodeca, & Nocentini, 2010); though up to 77% of children have
reported being both the perpetrators and victims of abuse (Hardy, Beers, Burgess, & Taylor,
2010). This indicates that the majority of violence between siblings is mutual and
investigating it strictly as a unidirectional construct risks ignoring important information
which can help understanding of the phenomenon.
Although it has been suggested that sibling violence should be intentional and
deliberate acts of abuse (Kiscelica & Morril-Richards, 2007; Menesini et al., 2010), this is
not necessarily a prerequisite for an operational definition. It is reasonable to expect that
individuals may exhibit behaviors that elicit adverse negative reactions from their siblings
without an explicit intention. That is, someone can take an action in an insensitive manner
that affects their sibling in an emotionally harmful manner without intending it; they can
genuinely be unaware that they have hurt their sibling (Hardy et al., 2010). However, even
though the abuse was not intentional it can still be interpreted as abusive by the victim and be
 4

as impactful as an intentionally abusive behavior. Thus, a comprehensive definition should

not include intent.
Sibling abuse is not composed fleeting and trivial behaviors. Eriksen and Jensen
(2009) describe trivial sibling violence, or sibling rivalry, as “conflict over something the
other also wants, and a lack of balanced comparisons among siblings” (p. 185). Whereas
sibling assault “involves repeated patterns of physical aggression with the intent to harm,
humiliate, and defeat” (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009, p. 185). Other researchers have indicated
that distinguishing conflict from abuse may be a marked emotional response.
The adverse emotional response, an integral component of a definition for sibling
abuse, is elicited from the victim. The importance of this component has been discussed by
other researchers such as Kiscelica and Morril-Richards (2007). Relative to other forms of
abuse (e.g. domestic violence), society tolerates a small degree of conflict between siblings
known as sibling rivalry (see Krienert & Walsh, 2011). Therefore, the mere occurrence of an
“abusive” act is insufficient to state that sibling abuse has occurred. To differentiate sibling
rivalry from sibling abuse, among other criteria, it is imperative to establish that the victim
experienced an adverse emotional impact. This can be characterized by internalizing a
negative emotion such as shame, guilt, sadness, anxiety, or frustration. It is also important to
recognize involves a temporal component (i.e. continued acts of abuse over time).
Researchers have expressed that other forms of interpersonal violence, such as peer bullying,
is a pattern which is continuous over-time (e.g. Ericksen & Jensen, 2009; Lyznicki,
McCaffree, & Robinowitz, 2004). Considering the longevity of sibling relationships, it is
reasonable to expect that sibling abuse may also be comprised of a pattern of repeated
actions.
Sibling abuse may also involve other individuals beyond the siblings involved.
Kiscelica and Morril-Richards (2007) describe the concept of the triangles in the family
where two or more individuals may “team up” against another individual. This phenomenon
can also be more likely in families where abuse is standard in interactions. These families
are normally characterized as “dysfunctional families” and may promote abusive behaviors
between siblings by creating an environment tolerant of abuse.
 5

PREVIOUS FORMS OF MEASUREMENT

Despite the prevalence and seriousness of sibling violence, it has only recently been
gaining recognition in the literature. In fact, serious investigation of sibling violence has
been so scant that an established and widely used scale for measuring sibling violence does
not yet exist. This has prompted sibling violence researchers (as well as sibling researchers
in general) to look for alternative approaches with which to collect data about sibling
violence. The two most common techniques are: (1) using a qualitative approach or (2)
modifying existing violence scales.

Qualitative Methods
Some qualitative methods which have been used include conducting interviews,
asking participants to create lists of qualities that describe aspects of their relationships, or
recording reactions to hypothetical scenarios (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Hardy et al.,
2010). Although these techniques can yield useful and informative data, they are subject to
inherent limitations (Luna-Reyes & Anderson, 2003). For example, they are costly, time
consuming and labor intensive. Also, due to subjectivity of the data, qualitative analyses
tend to have control and bias issues. Further, coding and interpretation of data can be
subjective which can hinder understanding of the results. Alternatively, many researchers
attempt to investigate sibling violence using quantitative measures.

Quantitative Methods
Often, these researchers start with existing scales of abusive and violent behavior and
modify them for sibling violence. For example, during an investigation of peer and sibling
bullying, Menesini et al. (2010) implemented a modified version of a bullying questionnaire
for which they changed the questions to be directed towards siblings rather than peers. Most
commonly researchers modify the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), a widespread
measure of intimate relationship violence. While it is understandable as to why established
measures of violence in other relationships would be used, it was noted above that the
dynamics and characteristics of sibling relationships are unique from other relationships.
Scales such as the CTS focus on behaviors that have been tailored to domestic relationships
and have not been validated in sibling relationships. Items such as I accused my partner of
 6

being a lousy lover are not applicable to sibling relationships because being a “lover” entails
a number of emotional and physical ties that are unique to intimate relationships and do not
apply to sibling relationships. Similarly, although measuring sexual abuse is important for
both sibling and dating relationships, it may have different implications in each type of
relationship. Also, these scales do not include items which may be pertinent to certain
characteristics of sibling relationships. For example, some forms of emotional abuse in
sibling relationships can include using or damaging relationships with other members of the
family such as one sibling lying to parents about another sibling’s behavior to elicit negative
consequences. Further, dating violence scales which include items regarding jealous
behaviors typically ask about jealousy of other peers and controlling the partner’s movements
and actions. This makes sense for dating relationships, however jealousy in sibling
relationships typically arises out of competition over limited family resources such as
physical space and parental attention (Kiscelica & Morril-Richards, 2007).
Some researchers also create surveys of sibling violence specifically for individual
studies. One example is a study by Duncan (1999) who measured sibling abuse by creating
additional items to a bullying measure without providing any psychometric properties of
these items. Although the items may have Face Validity, they appear to ask about sibling
abuse on the surface, there is no evidence of reliability or construct validity. This tactic is
rarely based on a psychometric approach and bears little evidence of acceptable reliability,
content relevance, content representativeness, or construct validity. In fact, none of the
strategies discussed utilize a psychometrically thoughtful process.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT
To guide development of the scale, I followed an eight step process described by
DeVellis (2003):
1. Defining the construct
2. Generating initial items
3. Formatting the measure
4. Expert review of items
5. Validation items
6. Administration of items
 7

7. Evaluation of items
8. Optimization of length.
That is, scale construction should begin with a clear understanding of what one is attempting
to measure. Missing this step could result in a scale which is not suited to measure the
construct of interest, or measure a similar, yet different construct. After the construct is
clearly defined and understood, items can be generated which are optimally suited to their
purpose. DeVellis (2003) recommends creating a large initial item pool, about four times the
number expected on the final scale. This initial list should also include a number of
redundant questions, items that are very similar and may only differ by a few words. It is
possible that avoiding redundancy would result in the exclusion of items which would have
been good candidates for use on the final scale.
As potential items are being generated, the format of the scale should also be
considered. There are many established formats for answering survey items such as the
Likert scale (e.g, Strongly disagree to Strongly agree), the visual analog scale (e.g, marking a
point on a line between two opposing answers), and binary options (e.g, answering questions
with either a yes or a no). It is important that a format is chosen that affords both accurate
data with ample variability while minimizing the burden placed on the test taker. Once the
initial scale has been created it should be reviewed by experts in the field. This step can
serve several functions. Experts can judge the relevance of the items and help determine
whether they ask about the construct of interest. Experts can also help determine if the items
cover all aspects of the construct of interest and, if not, suggest items that would make the
scale more comprehensive.
Apart from including strictly construct-related items, validation items can also be
useful on a scale. These can be items to help rule out problems common in survey based
testing, such as items designed to test for social desirability. This is a widespread criticism of
self-report studies and having evidence that survey scores are not correlated with measures of
social desirability can greatly strengthen a study. Furthermore, including related measures
during data collection can help test convergent validity and add evidence that the scale
measures the construct of interest. The next step is to administer all items to a sample of the
target population. It is important that a large sample be used due to the nature of the analyses
involved. The patterns of co-variation and inter-item relationships are based solely on the
 8

data collected and a small sample could yield results that are not generalizable to the
population. These results are yielded during the item evaluation step in which several
analyses are performed including factor analysis, internal-consistency reliability, inter-item
correlations, and inter-scale correlations. These analyses are crucial for demonstrating that
the items measure the same construct, that is the construct of interest. After poor items have
been eliminated and items that contribute to the scale’s reliability and validity have been
determined, the final step is to optimize the length of the scale. This can be done by
dropping items that are redundant with other items, or items that contribute the least to the
scale. It is important to reduce overall scale length to reduce the burden on the participants,
though not eliminate so many items as to hinder the scale.

CURRENT STUDY
The purpose of the current study is to develop a reliable and valid scale measuring
sibling violence. We propose testing an initial item pool based on past sibling relationship
research and findings. Data will be gathered from middle and high school students and
psychometric analyses will be conducted to establish the constructs measured and internal
consistency reliability. Existing violence measures will also be utilized to establish construct
validity.
 9

METHOD

ITEM GENERATION
An initial list of items was generated based on a previous review of the literature.
These items were generated using the guidelines of the operational definition discussed
above. The items reflected the current knowledge of sibling relationships and the dynamics
of the abuse therein. This initial list was submitted to individuals knowledgeable in the field;
including violence researchers, relationship researchers, scholars in family and sibling
relationships, and experts in scale creation. They were asked to indicate whether the items
were appropriate for inclusion on the scale being created, if any items were ambiguous or
easily mis-interpreted, and if they believe all relevant domains are represented. This process
insured that the test scale includes all the material it should, as well as rules out initial “bad”
items.

PARTICIPANTS
Data were collected from 157 adolescents (aged between 14 – 17 years) in a high
school from San Diego County. Participants were 131 female students and 22 male students.
Pairs of siblings were not tested, rather, only one sibling was asked to answer the questions
about their relationship. Testing sibling pairs was beyond the scope of this study since the
purpose was to generate a scale and not to make immediate inferences about sibling
relationship qualities. The sample was also ethnically diverse: 14.5% Asian, 4.3% African
American, 68.9 Latino, 2.9% White, and 9.4% Other. This is similar to the school’s total
ethnic diversity: 12.7% Asian, 12.30% African American, 71.40% Latino, 2.9% White, and
0.7% Other.

MATERIALS
To create the measure, test items were created.
 10

Scale Items
An initial test scale regarding the frequency of behaviors within the last year was
generated from which the final scale was derived. Items were generated using a framework
consisting of four domains: antagonism, quarreling, companionship, and jealousy. The first
three domains were established in Furman and Burhmester’s (1985) investigation of the
qualities of sibling relationships. Antagonism entails abusive behaviors by one sibling to
another (e.g. bullying) and occurs in 91% of sibling relationships. Quarreling is bi-lateral
conflict between two or more siblings and occurs in 79% of sibling relationships. These
subscales will be comprised of items which ask about physically, emotionally, and sexually
abusive behaviors. Companionship entails engagement in activities which are mutually
pleasant for siblings; this quality is included because it will serve as a basis for forming
questions about positive behaviors which will be the reverse-coded items discussed below.
While jealousy was not explicitly included in this study, in this context it occurs when one
sibling insists on taking limited family resources from the other (i.e. parent attention, house
or room space, etc) and is included because jealousy of one’s sibling can lead to perpetration
of behaviors which can cause emotional harm. The important distinction between sibling
rivalry and true sibling abuse is a negative emotional impact. While everyday sibling rivalry
is typically minor and fleeting, true abusive actions are those which cause lasting emotional
consequences which can lead to many other negative effects.
Across subscales there were 52 items regarding victimization of sibling abuse (i, e,
asking if the participant sibling committed the behavior). Each item had a perpetration
counterpart (i.e., the same question but asking if the participant perpetrated the behavior) for
a total of 104 items. Convention dictates that the initial item pool should be about four times
larger than the expected final scale (DeVellis, 2003). Therefore, this item pool will allow for
a final scale of roughly 26 items. This is a desirable length scale to be used in future studies
because it can contain the necessary subscales, yet brief enough that adolescents do not lose
interest in completing it. Convention also dictates that, for factor analysis, a sample should
consist of at least three times as many participants as there are items in the initial item pool
(DeVellis, 2003). Consequently, with 104 items, a sample of at least 312 participants was
required. However, due to logistical constraints only 157 participants were tested.
 11

Related Scales
The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe et al.
2001) is a 34 item scale measuring violent behaviors in adolescent dating relationships within
the past year. Each item is divided into two parts, one regarding perpetration and one
regarding victimization of each behavior. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from Never (1) to Always (5). The CADRI is comprised of a number of sub-scales including
physical abuse, verbal/emotional abuse, and sexual abuse, as well as jealousy, positive
conflict resolution, and threatening behavior. For the purposes of the current study,
perpetration and victimization items were aggregated based on the authors’ published
guidelines. A sample item is: “I insulted my dating partner.” Higher scores indicate more
frequent abusive behaviors. This scale should correlate positively with items from the SAS
because they both measure violent behaviors.
The internalized Shame Scale (Cook, 1987) is a 35-item scale measuring the extent of
shame an individual feels. A sample item is “I feel intensely inadequate and full of self-
doubt”. High scores on this scale indicate higher levels of internalized shame. Items are
rated on a five point Likert scale ranging from Never (0) to Often (4). This scale should
correlate positively with the SAS because individuals who perpetrate and/or are victimized
by more frequent abusive behaviors may experience more shame.
The Brief Symptoms Inventory 18 (BSI-18, Derogatis, 2000) is an 18-item scale
measuring adverse mental symptoms such as depression and anxiety. Items are rated on a
five-point Likert scale ranging from Not at All (0) to Extremely (4). Higher scores indicate
more frequent symptoms of mental anxiety. A sample item is “How often are you suddenly
scared for no reason”. This scale should correlate positively with the SAS because
involvement in violent situations has been linked to negative mental outcomes.

PROCEDURES
Initially, permission was acquired from a local school to conduct the study on their
campus. Physical education (PE) teachers were asked to introduce and explain the study to
students according to researcher instructions. Students were informed about the nature of the
study, the purposes and goals of the survey, potential benefits from the research being carried
out, and a raffle to win an Apple iPod Touch as an incentive upon completion of the survey.
 12

The teachers then administered parental consent forms and student assent forms for the
students to take home and return if they wished to participate.
After 1 week researchers returned to administer the survey. Students with signed
parental consent forms were escorted to another classroom provided by the school. Once
surveys were handed out the following instructions were read aloud:
You are being asked to complete a survey about conflict between siblings. You can
stop taking the survey at any time and you do not have to answer every single question if you
don’t want to. However we do ask that you complete all questions as truthfully and honestly
as possible. All of your answers are anonymous and cannot be traced back to you. Thank
you for your participation and please begin.
Students then completed the surveys under supervised conditions. Supervising the
students ensured that they did not talk amongst each other, share answers, or engage in any
other activities, which could threaten the validity or confidentiality of the study.
 13

RESULTS

Analysis of test items began by reviewing the amount of variance in individual items.
Several items contained little or no variance indicating that they are not exhibited in typical
abusive encounters. Thus, these items were removed from the analysis and not subjected to
further psychometric testing.

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

An initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principle axis
extraction and varimax rotation. This analysis was conducted twice, once for items regarding
victimization of abusive behaviors and a second time for items regarding perpetration of
abusive behaviors. The results of each factor analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2. For
victimization items, the principle axis extraction revealed that a 1-factor solution best
explained the variance among the items, eigenvalue = 5.75, and explained 31.92 percent of
the variance. Similar results were found for perpetration items which also suggests a 1-
factor solution best explained the variance among the items, eigenvalue = 5.37, and explained
29.81 percent of the variance. To be retained in the analysis, items were required to have a
minimum loading of .400. This process resulted in 28 items being retained in the scale (14
victimization items and 14 perpetration items).

Table 1. Factor Loadings for the Victimization Scale

Your sibling said things to make you feel worthless .659
Your sibling punched you hard enough to leave a bruise .648
Your sibling spent so much time on the family computer that you couldn’t do something .633
important
Your sibling threw something harmful at you .617
Your sibling broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for you .571
Your sibling made you feel like you can’t do anything right .558
Your sibling took someone else’s attention when you needed it .557
Your sibling stole your money .543
Your sibling told your parents you did something harmful to him/her, even though you didn’t .509
Your sibling destroyed something important that belonged to you .501
Your sibling kept you from getting enough sleep .582
Your sibling belittled/made fun of you in front of other people .464
Your sibling got you in serious trouble for something you didn’t do .421
Your sibling took credit for something you did .405
 14

Table 2. Factor Loadings for the Perpetration Scale

You threw something harmful at your sibling .660
You took someone else’s attention when your sibling needed it .618
You stole your sibling’s money .614
You broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for your sibling .606
You got your sibling in serious trouble for something they didn’t do .577
You said things to make your sibling feel worthless .539
You belittled/made fun of your sibling in front of other people .532
You told your parents your sibling did something harmful to you, even though they didn’t .528
You made your sibling feel like they can’t do anything right .500
You punched your sibling hard enough to leave a bruise .473
You spent so much tie on the family computer that your sibling couldn’t do something important .467
You destroyed something important that belonged to you .455
You kept your sibling from getting enough sleep .411
You took credit for something that your sibling did .400

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test two one-factor models (victimization
and perpetration of sibling abuse). Each latent variable was indicated by 14 observed
variables. Neither model fit well statistically or descriptively: for victimization of sibling
abuse, χ2 (77, N = 157) = 201.46, p < .001, CFI = .775, RMSEA = .102, and for perpetration
of sibling abuse χ2 (77, N = 157) = 202.87, p < .001, CFI = .775, RMSEA = .102. Since
these results do not indicate good model fit, individual parameter estimates were not
examined.

RELIABILITY
Internal consistency reliability was also examined among the remaining items. To
establish the reliability of each scale Chronnbach’s alphas and corrected item-total
correlations were calculated. Cronbach’s alphas were relatively high, considering the
purposes of this scale, for both the victimization and perpetration scales (α’s = .85 and .84
respectively). These values also fall within the range of the 95% confidence interval (.81 -
.88 and .79 - .88 respectively). Further, corrected item-total correlations indicate that the
items have moderate to strong relationships with their respective scales. Item correlations
ranged from .39 - .59 for the victimization scale and from .35 - .61 for the perpetration scale.
Correlations for each variable can be found in Tables 3 and 4. These results suggest that both
scales of the SAS have strong reliability and that the items are strongly related and measure
the same construct.
 15

Table 3. Corrected Item-Total Correlations for the Victimization Scale

Your sibling said things to make you feel worthless .589
Your sibling punched you hard enough to leave a bruise .578
Your sibling spent so much time on the family computer that you couldn’t do something .596
important
Your sibling threw something harmful at you .566
Your sibling broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for you .521
Your sibling made you feel like you can’t do anything right .461
Your sibling took someone else’s attention when you needed it .486
Your sibling stole your money .532
Your sibling told your parents you did something harmful to him/her, even though you didn’t .452
Your sibling destroyed something important that belonged to you .471
Your sibling kept you from getting enough sleep .474
Your sibling belittled /made fun of you in front of other people .442
Your sibling got you in serious trouble for something you didn’t do .395
Your sibling took credit for something you did .386

Table 4. Corrected Item-Total Correlations for the Perpetration Scale

You said things to make your sibling feel worthless .518
You punched your sibling hard enough to leave a bruise .422
You spent so much time on the family computer that your sibling couldn’t do something important .434
You threw something harmful at your sibling .589
You broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for your sibling .515
You made your sibling feel like they can’t do anything right .463
You took someone else’s attention when your sibling needed it .512
You stole your sibling’s money .605
You told your parents your sibling did something harmful to you even though they didn’t .512
You destroyed something important that belonged to your sibling .412
You kept your sibling from getting enough sleep .399
You belittled/made fun of your sibling in front of other people .506
You got your sibling in serious trouble for something they didn’t do .491
You took credit for something that your sibling did .350

ITEM DIFFICULTY
Another measure of the appropriateness of test items is their “item difficulty”. This
indicates the level to which participants endorsed each response option for each item. This
process also provides insight into how well each item discriminates between those at high
risk and those at low risk for each abusive behavior. Items with no or minimal variance were
removed from psychometric analyses. As a consequence, some entire sub-scales and
categories of behaviors were removed (e.g. sexual abuse). Results for each test item are
detailed in the Appendix.
 16

VALIDITY
To test the validity of the SAS, both the victimization and perpetration scales were
correlated with theoretically similar scales (e.g. the CADRI, the Internalized Shame Scale,
and the BSI-18); all correlation values can be found in Table 5. For the CADRI, correlations
between the total victimization and total perpetration scales and the corresponding SAS
scales were small and not significant. However, correlations between the SAS and both the
Internalized Shame Scale and the BSI-18 were moderate in size (r’s range between .24 and
.41).

Table 5. SAS Correlations with Related Scales

sibvict Sibperp Victtotal Perptotal Shame BSI
sibvict 1 .703** .106 .069 .410** .344**
Sibperp 1 .075 .082 .258** .242**
Victtotal 1 .800** .284** .333**
Perptotal 1 .181* .296**
Shame 1 .755**
BSI 1
Note: * indicates significance at the .05 level
** indicates significance at the .01 level
 17

DISCUSSION

The current study was designed to create and validate a new scale measuring sibling
abuse: the Sibling Abuse Scale (SAS). While “sibling rivalry” has long been thought of as a
normal and benign form of family behavior, researchers are beginning to understand that
these interactions can escalate into truly abusive behaviors (Finkelhor et al., 2006).
Literature also shows that abusive interactions can lead to serious negative consequences
(Ammerman & Hersen, 1991). Thus, it is important to investigate and learn about this
phenomenon to aid in its prevention. To this end, it is also important to have a
psychometrically validated scale with which to measure it. However, this factor structure
does not correspond with the expected sub-scales of antagonism, quarreling, companionship,
and jealousy. This may be due to the fact that the article by Furman and Burhmester (1985),
from which the sub-scales were derived, investigated “normal” sibling relationships and not
explicitly abusive relationships; which may be fundamentally different constructs.

CURRENT FINDINGS
Psychometric analyses have resulted in a 28-item measure with two 14-item scales.
One scale inquires about victimization of abusive behaviors (e.g. “Your sibling stole your
money”), while the second scale inquires about perpetration of abusive behaviors (e.g. “You
threw something harmful at your sibling”). Further, all items on the victimization scale have
a corresponding item on the perpetration scale. For example, the victimization item “Your
sibling kept you from getting enough sleep” has a corresponding perpetration item “You kept
your sibling from getting enough sleep”. This method of measuring both victimization and
perpetration simultaneously allows researchers to investigate co-combative relationships as
well as the effects of total abuse experienced. However, both scales were evaluated
independently to ensure each scale can be used by itself to fit future research needs.
Psychometric analyses revealed that the SAS is a reliable and valid measure. The
exploratory factor analysis resulted in a set of items that had relatively high frequencies and
loaded well onto their respective scales. These results indicate that the final items retained in
the scale do, in fact, occur in sibling relationships. Although the confirmatory factor analysis
 18

(CFA) did not yield ideal model fit values, this could be due mostly to the fact that this study
did not reach its target sample size. CFA requires large sample sizes to result in proper
results (Byrne, 2006) a sample of 150 participants may not be large enough for the analysis
to have sufficient power. Further, the direction of the fit indices was in the proper direction
and could have reached acceptable values, had the analysis had enough power.
Additional tests indicated that the SAS has strong internal consistency reliability.
Both scales yielded relatively high Chronbach’s alphas, a measure of how consistent the
items are with each other. These alphas are appropriate for this type of scale because it is not
intended to make “high-stakes” decisions, but to indicate the existence and frequency of
specific behaviors. Corrected inter-scale correlations also yielded moderate to high values.
This analysis provides the range of values where we can be 95% confident that the true
reliability value falls. The reported reliability values for both victimization and perpetration
fall within the respective 95% confidence intervals. These results indicate that the items are
highly stable and likely measure the same construct.
Convergent validity analyses were also conducted. Correlations were conducted
between each scale of the SAS (victimization and perpetration) and the corresponding scales
of the CADRI, which yielded small and non-significant results. While this initially seems to
hinder the SAS considering that both scales measure abusive behavior, this finding can add
legitimacy to its existence. The lack of a correlation between a scale measuring sibling abuse
and a scale measuring dating abuse indicates that they measure distinctly different constructs.
In other words, sibling abuse is fundamentally different than dating violence, perpetrated
using different behaviors, and in many cases, committed by different people. Also, previous
literature reporting a link between both sibling and dating abuse (see Noland et al., 2004)
used the CTS to measure both sibling and dating violence. Therefore, it is possible that any
associations may be an artifact of using the same scale for both constructs. This strengthens
the previous argument that scales designed to measure dating abuse cannot adequately
measure sibling violence, and attempting to do so can result in erroneous results and
misinformation. Finally, correlations with scales measuring mental distress (i,e, shame,
depression and anxiety) correlated positively and moderately with the SAS. Since we have
already established that experiencing sibling abuse is associated with mental distress, it is
reasonable to conclude that these results suggest the SAS measures the construct of interest
 19

as it is consistent with previous findings and theory. Taken together, these findings indicate
that the SAS has the potential to be a reliable, valid, and psychometrically validated measure
of sibling abuse.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study adds to the literature by providing a scale with which to measure
sibling abuse. Previous quantitative research examining sibling violence has relied on scales
designed to measure other, distinctly different phenomenon or untested scales with unknown
psychometric properties or validity. By using a scale, which has been submitted to the rigors
of psychometric testing, researchers may be more confident in their results of future studies
investigating sibling abuse. It is imperative to investigate all types of abusive relationships in
order to gain a more complete understanding of interpersonal violence and abuse as a whole.
Researchers can use the SAS to investigate sibling abuse directly or can incorporate it into
larger and broader models to determine its relationships with other phenomena.

LIMITATIONS
Certain limitations should be kept in mind when considering the results of this study.
The sample used was relatively small and mostly Latino. Although the sample does consist
of the target population (i,e, adolescents), researchers should use caution when generalizing
the results to all adolescents and other populations. Further, the SAS (as well as all scales
used in the current study) are self-report measures. As such, they are dependent on
participant interpretation of items and willingness to provide honest answers. Participants
also self-selected into the sample, meaning that the most high-risk adolescents may have
decided not to participate. It is also uncertain whether the PE teachers adequately described
the study in a manner that emphasized the anonymous nature of the study. Indeed, this is a
limitation of all research utilizing self-report measures and all precautions were taken to
ensure participant privacy and to maximize honest answers. Also, it is impossible to conduct
research on violent and abusive behavior using traditional experimental methods due to
ethical concerns and guidelines. Another limitation of the current study is that not all test
items fit the guidelines for sibling abuse described above. One of the steps outlined by
DeVellis (2003) is to be inclusive when creating test items. That is, to include as many types
 20

of questions and variations of questions, as possible. In an effort to be inclusive some items

which do not fit the definitional guidelines were included in the pool of test items and,
ultimately, the final scale. Finally, the SAS only measures the frequency of abusive
behaviors, not the motivation behind them or context in which they occur. However, because
this is a relatively new area of research, researchers must first establish the facts regarding
the behaviors themselves before uncovering the deeper motivations.

CONCLUSION
Regardless of the above limitations, the SAS may provide researchers with a
psychometrically tested measure to collect valuable and informative data. Using this scale
the truths and facts surrounding the most widespread form of interpersonal violence could be
revealed. The SAS can also be used to inform prevention/intervention and regional agencies
as to how prevalent and widespread sibling abuse is in areas of interest. Such information
can aid in the allocation of material and human resources for the improvement of society as a
whole. All in all, the SAS may allow for valid research of sibling abuse.
 21

REFERENCES

Ammerman, R. T., & Hersen, M. (1991). Case studies in family violence. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Bank, L., Burraston, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as
predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and
interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(1), 99-125.
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, D. R. (1987). Measuring shame: The internalized shame scale. Alcoholism Treatment
Quarterly, 4(2) 197-215.
Derkman, M. S., Engels, R. E., Kuntsche, E., van der Vorst, H., & Scholte, R. J. (2011).
Bidirectional associations between sibling relationships and parental support during
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 490-501.
Derogatis, L. (2000). Brief symptom inventory (BSI) 18: Administration, scoring, and
procedures manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and extra-
familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8),871-886.
Eriksen, S., & Jensen, V. (2009). A push or a punch: Distinguishing the severity of sibling
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 183-208.
Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-
analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 13, 131-140.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby S. L. (2005). The victimization of children
and youth: A comprehensive national survey. Journal of Child Maltreatment, 10(1),
5-25.
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2006). Kid’s stuff: The nature and impact of peer
sibling and sibling violence on younger and older children. Child Abuse & Neglect,
30, 1401-1421.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the qualities of sibling
relationships. Journal of Child Development, 56, 448-461.
Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Cutler, S. E. (1994). The brother-sister questionnaire:
Psychometric assessment and discrimination of well-functioning from dysfunctional
relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 224-238.
 22

Hardy, M., Beers, B., Burgess, C., & Taylor, A. (2010). Personal experience and perceived
acceptability of sibling aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 65-71.
Kettrey, H. H., & Emery, B. C. (2006). The discourse of sibling violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 21, 407-416.
Kiscelica, M. S., & Morril-Richards, M. (2007). Sibling maltreatment: The forgotten abuse.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 148-160.
Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2011). My brother’s keeper: A contemporary examination of
reported sibling violence using national level data, 2000–2005. Journal of Family
Violence, 26(5), 331-342.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Andersen, D. L. (2003). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for
system dynamics: Methods and models. System Dynamics Review, 19(4), 271-296.
Lyznicki, J. M., McCaffree, M. A., & Robinowitz, C. B. (2004). Childhood bullying:
Implications for physicians. American Family Physician, 70(9), 1723-1728.
Menesini, E., Camodeca, M., & Nocentini, A. (2010). Bullying among siblings: The role of
personality and relational variables. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
28, 921-939.
Noland, V. J., Liller, K. D., McDermott, R. J., Coulter, M. L., & Seraphine, A. E. (2004). Is
adolescent sibling violence a precursor to college dating violence. American Journal
of Health Behavior, 28, S13-S23.
Sims. E., Dodd, V., & Tejeda, M. (2008). The relationship between severity of violence in
the home and dating violence. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4(4), 166-173.
Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliott, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002). Abuse by siblings and
subsequent experiences with violence within the dating relationship. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 103-121.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics scales
(CTS). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75-88.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L.
(2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships
inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277-239.
 23

APPENDIX

SIBLING ABUSE SCALE AND PERCENTAGE OF

RESPONSES FOR TEST ITEMS
 24

Sibling Abuse Scale

Directions:

FREQUENTLY
SOMETIMES
Please complete the following questions about your relationship with a sibling
that is closest to you in age. A “sibling” can be anyone who shares one or both

SELDOM
NEVER

OFTEN
parents with you. Please answer as honestly as possible.

1. Your sibling said things to make you feel worthless

You said things to make your sibling feel worthless.
2. Your sibling punched you hard enough to leave a bruise
You punched your sibling hard enough to leave a bruise.
3. Your sibling spent so much time on the family computer that you couldn’t do
something important.
You spent so much time on the family computer that your sibling couldn’t do
something important.
4. Your sibling threw something harmful at you.
You threw something harmful at your sibling.
5. Your sibling broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for you.
You broke something that had a lot of sentimental value for your sibling.
6. Your sibling made you feel like you can’t do anything right.
You made your sibling feel like they can’t do anything right.
7. Your sibling took someone else’s attention when you needed it.
You took someone else’s attention when your sibling needed it.
8. Your sibling stole your money.
You stole your sibling’s money.
9. Your sibling told your parents you did something harmful to him/her, even
though you didn’t.
You told your parents your sibling did something harmful to you, even though
they didn’t.
10. Your sibling destroyed something important that belonged to you.
You destroyed something important that belonged to you.
11. Your sibling kept you from getting enough sleep.
You kept your sibling from getting enough sleep.
12. Your sibling belittled/made fun of you in front of other people.
You belittled/made fun of your sibling in front of other people.
13. Your sibling got you in trouble for something you didn’t do.
You got your sibling in serious trouble for something they didn’t do
14. Your sibling took credit for something you did.
You took credit for something that your sibling did.
 25

Percentage of Responses for Test Items

Sibling Abuse Scale Items Never Seldom Sometimes Frequently Often
1. Your sibling choked you. 93.00 5.70 1.30 0.00 0.00
You choked your sibling. 94.90 4.50 .60 0.00 0.00
2. Your sibling slammed you against a wall. 88.50 7.60 1.90 .60 1.30
You slammed your sibling against a wall 89.10 9.00 1.30 0.00 .60
3. **Your sibling threw something harmful at you. 66.00 18.60 12.80 1.90 .60
**You threw something harmful at your 76.10 14.20 7.70 .60 1.30
sibling.
4. Your sibling spread lies about you. 73.20 20.40 4.50 .60 1.30
You spread lies about your sibling. 82.10 13.50 3.20 .60 .60
5. Your sibling told your friends lies about you. 81.50 13.40 4.50 .60 0.00
You told your sibling’s friends lies about 90.40 8.30 .60 .60 0.00
him/her.
6. Your sibling stole something private of yours. 70.50 17.90 7.70 3.20 .60
You stole something private of your sibling. 86.50 8.40 3.20 1.90 0.00
7. Your sibling didn’t hit you. 11.80 4.60 22.90 21.60 39.20
You didn’t hit your sibling. 11.30 4.60 20.50 21.90 41.70
8. Your sibling didn’t physically hurt you. 15.50 3.90 9.00 12.90 58.70
You didn’t physically hurt your sibling. 14.90 3.90 6.50 11.70 63.00
9. Your sibling didn’t call you hurtful names. 13.60 7.10 17.50 15.60 46.10
You didn’t call your siblings hurtful. 11.10 3.90 13.10 17.00 54.90
10. Your sibling didn’t touch you sexually. 21.30 .70 .70 1.30 76.00
You didn’t touch your sibling sexually. 22.10 .70 .70 0.00 76.50
11. Your sibling doesn’t try to control you. 14.60 1.30 15.90 14.60 53.60
You didn’t try to control your sibling. 12.00 2.00 13.30 19.30 53.30
12. Your sibling injured your pet. 95.50 3.20 .60 .60 0.00
You injured your sibling’s pet. 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
13. Your sibling took your food, keeping you 79.50 16.00 3.20 1.30 0.00
hungry.
You took your sibling’s food, keeping them 81.90 13.50 3.20 1.30 0.00
hungry.
14. **Your sibling punched you hard enough to 61.60 21.00 10.20 5.70 1.90
leave a bruise.
**You punched your sibling hard enough to 71.20 17.90 8.30 1.90 .60
leave a bruise.
15. Your sibling punched you hard enough to leave 76.90 14.10 6.40 2.60 0.00
a bruise with no reason.
You punched your sibling hard enough to leave 85.20 8.40 4.50 .60 1.30
a bruise with no reason.
16. Your sibling made you eat dirt. 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
You made your sibling eat dirt. 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17. Your sibling touched you sexually without your 96.80 1.90 0.00 1.30 0.00
permission.
You touched your sibling sexually without 98.10 .60 1.30 0.00 0.00
permission.
18. Your sibling took your parents’ attention when 45.50 28.20 17.30 2.60 6.40
you needed it.
You took your parent’s attention when your 63.60 24.00 10.40 1.30 .60
sibling needed it.
19. **Your sibling took someone else’s attention 59.90 21.70 13.40 3.80 1.30
when you needed it.
**You took someone else’s attention when 70.50 17.90 8.30 1.90 1.30
your siblings needed it.
 26

20. Your sibling threatened you with a knife. 95.50 3.20 1.30 0.00 0.00

You threatened your sibling with a knife. 97.40 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00
21. **Your sibling told your parents you did 68.60 18.60 9.00 3.20 .60
something harmful to him/her, even though you
didn’t.
**You told your parents your sibling did 82.10 14.70 3.20 0.00 0.00
something harmful to you, even though they
didn’t.
22. Your sibling threatened you with a gun. 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
You threatened your sibling with a gun. 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23. Your sibling hid weapons or drugs in your 92.90 6.40 0.00 0.00 .60
room.
You hid weapons or drugs in your sibling’s 96.80 1.90 .60 0.00 .60
bedroom.
24. Your sibling killed your pet. 96.20 3.20 0.00 0.00 .60
You killed your sibling’s pet. 96.20 3.80 0.00 0.00 0.00
25. Your sibling made you do something illegal. 91.60 4.50 1.300 .60 1.90
You made your sibling do something illegal. 96.80 1.90 1.30 0.00 0.00
26. Your sibling made a serious threat to injure you. 93.60 4.50 1.30 .60 0.00
You made a serious threat to injure your 96.80 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
sibling.
27. Your sibling made a serious threat to kill you. 96.20 2.50 1.30 0.00 0.00
You made a serious threat to kill your sibling. 98.70 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
28. **Your sibling threatened to get you in serious 76.90 12.20 8.30 .60 1.90
trouble if you didn’t do something you didn’t
want to do.
**You threatened to get your sibling in serious 80.00 13.50 4.50 1.30 .60
trouble if he/she didn’t do something he/she
didn’t want to do.
29. Your sibling suffocated you. 89.10 9.60 .60 .60 0.00
You suffocated your sibling. 91.00 4.50 2.60 1.30 .60
30. Your sibling smothered you with a pillow. 94.90 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00
You smothered your sibling with a pillow. 95.50 2.60 1.90 0.00 0.00
31. Your sibling sat on your face with a pillow. 93.00 3.80 1.90 0.00 1.30
You sat on your sibling’s face with a pillow. 96.80 2.60 .60 0.00 0.00
32. ** Your sibling said things to make you feel 55.20 22.70 13.00 4.50 4.50
worthless.
** You said things to make your sibling feel 66.70 22.90 6.50 1.30 2.60
worthless.
33. Your sibling touched you sexually, and 98.70 .60 0.00 0.00 .60
threatened to seriously hurt you if you told
anyone.
You touched your sibling sexually and 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
threatened to seriously hurt them if they told
anyone.
34. Your sibling suggested sexual activities that 96.80 1.90 .60 0.00 .60
made you uncomfortable.
You suggested sexual activities that made your 98.10 1.30 0.00 0.00 .60
sibling uncomfortable.
35. Your sibling did something illegal and told 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
everyone it was you.
You did something illegal and told everyone it 98.70 .60 0.00 0.00 .60
was your sibling.
36. Your sibling stabbed you. 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
 27

You stabbed your sibling. 98.70 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

37. Your sibling cut you. 89.80 8.30 1.90 0.00 0.00
You cut your sibling. 94.20 5.20 .60 0.00 0.00
38. **Your sibling took credit for something great 62.40 21.70 12.70 1.30 1.90
that you did.
**You took credit for something great that 76.10 20.00 2.60 0.00 1.30
your sibling did.
39. Your sibling told teachers at school that you 96.20 3.20 .60 0.00 0.00
were bullying other students, but you didn’t.
You told your sibling’s teachers at school that 98.10 1.30 .60 0.00 0.00
they were bullying other students, but they
didn’t.
40. Your sibling stole your girlfriend/boyfriend. 96.20 1.30 1.90 .60 0.00
You stole your sibling’s girlfriend/boyfriend. 98.10 1.30 .60 0.00 0.00
41. Your sibling tried to steal your 91.70 3.80 2.50 1.30 .60
girlfriend/boyfriend.
You tried to steal your sibling’s 98.10 .60 .60 0.00 .60
girlfriend/boyfriend.
42. Your sibling had sex with your 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
girlfriend/boyfriend.
You had sex with your sibling’s 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
girlfriend/boyfriend.
43. Your sibling told your girlfriend/boyfriend lies 94.90 4.50 .60 0.00 0.00
that made him/her break up with you.
You told your sibling’s girlfriend/boyfriend lies 94.80 2.60 .60 .60 .60
that made them break up with him/her.
44. **Your sibling destroyed something important 66.90 22.90 7.60 .60 1.90
that belonged to you.
** You destroyed something important that 84.00 14.10 1.30 0.00 .60
belonged to your sibling.
45. Your sibling vandalized someone else’s 94.90 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
property, and said you did it.
You vandalized someone else’s property, and 97.40 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
said your sibling did it.
46. Your sibling hit you with a bat. 98.70 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
You hit your sibling with a bat. 97.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
47. Your sibling hit you with a pipe. 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
You hit your sibling with a pipe. 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
48. Your sibling made you try drugs. 94.30 2.50 1.30 1.30 .60
You made your sibling try drugs. 95.50 1.30 1.30 .60 1.30
49. Your sibling destroyed your neighbor’s 94.20 3.20 1.90 0.00 .60
property, and said it was you.
You destroyed your neighbor’s property, and 94.80 1.90 1.90 .60 .60
said it was your sibling.
50. Your sibling tried to take your clothes/bathing 96.20 3.20 .60 0.00 0.00
suit off in public.
You tried to take your sibling’s clothes/bathing 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
suit off in public.
51. Your sibling spread rumors about your sexual 94.90 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
activity.
You spread rumors about your sibling’s sexual 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
activity.
52. Your sibling didn’t spread lies about you. 14.90 4.50 9.70 13.60 57.10
You didn’t spread lies about your sibling. 15.10 3.30 7.90 9.90 63.80
53. Your sibling didn’t steal your money. 12.40 3.30 11.10 15.00 58.20
 28

You didn’t steal your sibling’s money. 16.00 2.70 7.30 13.30 60.70
54. Your sibling didn’t convince you that they hate 12.40 2.00 8.50 11.10 66.00
you.
You didn’t convince your sibling that you hate 12.60 3.30 5.30 7.90 70.90
them.
55. Your sibling hit you until you bled. 96.80 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
You hit your sibling until you bled. 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
56. Your sibling hit you with something and you 95.50 3.20 .60 0.00 .60
had to go to a doctor.
You hit your sibling with something hard and 98.10 1.30 0.00 0.00 .60
he/she had to go to a doctor.
57. Your sibling tried to walk in on you in the 93.60 4.50 1.30 0.00 .60
shower.
You tried to walk in on your sibling in the 95.50 2.60 1.30 0.00 .60
shower.
58. Your sibling tried to take naked pictures of you. 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
You tried to take naked pictures of your 98.70 .60 0.00 0.00 .60
sibling.
59. Your sibling showed naked pictures of you to 98.10 1.30 .60 0.00 0.00
other people.
You showed naked pictures of your sibling to 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
other people.
60. Your sibling did something so bad to you that 96.80 2.60 0.00 0.00 .60
you had to call the police.
You did something to your sibling so bad that 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
they had to call the police.
61. Your sibling called the police after you did 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
something that wasn’t that bad.
You called the police after your sibling did 98.10 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
something that wasn’t that bad.
62. Your sibling slammed your head against a wall. 93.60 2.50 2.50 .60 .60
You slammed your sibling’s head against a 95.50 3.80 0.00 0.00 .60
wall.
63. Your sibling told your teachers at school that 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
you were breaking the law, even though you
weren’t.
You told your teachers at school that your 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
sibling was breaking the law, even though they
weren’t.
64. **Your sibling spent so much time on the 69.60 22.40 11.50 3.20 3.20
family computer that you couldn’t do something
important.
**You spent so much time on the family 69.00 19.40 6.50 3.90 1.30
computer that your sibling couldn’t do
something important.
65. **Your sibling kept you from getting enough 54.20 25.30 15.00 6.50 .70
sleep.
**You kept your sibling from getting enough 74.00 20.80 2.60 1.90 .60
sleep.
66. Your sibling tried to make you do something 98.70 0.00 .60 0.00 .60
sexual with his/her friends.
You tried to make your sibling do something 99.40 .60 0.00 0.00 0.00
sexual with his/her friends.
67. Your sibling didn’t humiliate you in public. 13.00 1.90 9.10 22.70 53.20
You didn’t humiliate your sibling in public. 12.30 3.90 9.10 20.10 54.50
 29

68. Your sibling didn’t harm your pet. 13.90 3.30 3.30 4.60 74.80
You didn’t harm your sibling’s pet. 14.60 2.0 0.00 2.00 81.50
69. Your sibling didn’t tell your parents lies about 13.20 6.60 14.50 18.40 47.40
you.
You didn’t lie to your parents about your 13.90 3.30 11.30 18.50 53.00
sibling.
70. Your sibling didn’t threaten you with a 25.70 .70 2.00 1.30 70.40
weapon.
You didn’t threaten your sibling with a 25.00 .70 1.30 .70 72.40
weapon.
71. Your sibling made you try alcohol. 89.70 6.50 3.20 0.00 .60
You made your sibling try alcohol. 96.10 2.60 .60 .60 0.00
72. Your sibling made you get drunk when you 97.40 1.90 0.00 .60 0.00
didn’t want to.
You made your sibling get drunk when they 94.80 1.90 1.90 0.00 1.30
didn’t want to.
73. **Your sibling stole your money. 59.90 19.10 16.60 1.90 2.50
**You stole your sibling’s money. 71.40 17.50 7.80 1.30 1.90
74. Your sibling took money that your parents gave 73.10 18.60 5.80 1.30 1.30
to both of you, and spent it on something only
for him/her.
You took money that your parents gave to 81.40 15.40 1.90 0.00 1.30
both of you, and spent it on something only
for you.
75. Your sibling spread personal secrets that you 84.00 9.00 5.80 0.00 1.30
told him/her.
You spread personal secrets that your sibling 92.30 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00
told you.
76. Your sibling made you eat expired food. 96.20 2.60 1.30 0.00 0.00
You made your sibling eat expired food. 94.90 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
77. Your sibling stole money/objects your parents 73.10 16.70 7.70 .60 1.90
gave to both of you.
You stole money/objects your parents gave to 73.40 19.50 5.80 0.00 1.30
both of you.
78. Your sibling hit you so hard it broke a bone. 98.10 .60 0.00 1.30 0.00
You hit your sibling so hard it broke a bone. 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
79. Your sibling hit you with something hard 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
enough that it broke a bone.
You hit your sibling with something hard 98.10 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00
enough that it broke a bone.
80. Your sibling stole things that have a lot of 76.10 18.70 4.50 0.00 .60
sentimental value for you.
You stole things from your sibling that have a 89.00 9.0 1.30 0.00 .60
lot of sentimental value for them.
81. **Your sibling broke something that had a lot 64.70 23.70 9.00 1.30 1.30
of sentimental value for you.
**You broke something that had a lot of 82.70 12.80 4.50 0.00 0.00
sentimental value for your sibling.
82. Your sibling blackmailed you into doing of 82.20 10.80 3.20 1.30 2.50
his/her chores or work.
You blackmailed your sibling into doing your 86.50 9.60 1.30 .60 1.90
chores or work.
83. **Your sibling made you feel like you can’t do 62.60 21.90 10.30 2.60 2.60
anything right.
**You made your sibling feel like they can’t do 72.40 21.20 4.50 1.90 0.00
 30

anything right.
84. Your sibling publicly humiliated you. 77.30 14.90 6.50 .60 .60
You publicly humiliated your sibling. 82.60 14.20 3.20 0.00 0.00
85. Your sibling said something that made you feel 80.60 11.00 4.50 2.60 1.30
scared to be at home.
You said something that made your sibling feel 83.40 8.90 4.50 .60 2.50
scared to be at home.
86. Your sibling caused you to feel like your 62.60 22.60 9.70 3.20 1.90
parents don’t care about you.
You caused your sibling to feel like your 79.20 13.60 4.50 1.30 .60
parent’s don’t care about them.
87. Your sibling ate your portion of a meal you 49.40 20.10 19.50 7.80 2.60
were supposed to share.
You ate your sibling’s portion of a meal you 53.90 25.30 15.60 3.20 1.90
were supposed to share.
88. Your sibling pulled a weapon on you. 94.20 3.80 .60 .60 .60
You pulled a weapon on your sibling. 94.80 2.60 0.00 1.30 1.30
89. Your sibling got you in serious trouble for 40.80 22.90 27.40 4.50 4.50
something you didn’t do.*
You got your sibling in serious trouble for 47.80 29.30 17.80 1.90 3.20
something they didn’t do.*
90. Your sibling placed something dangerous in 96.80 2.50 0.00 0.00 .60
your bedroom.
You placed something dangerous in your 96.80 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
sibling’s room.
91. Your sibling purposefully kept you from getting 72.60 19.10 6.40 1.30 .60
your homework/responsibilities done.
You purposefully kept your sibling from getting 85.30 9.60 3.80 0.00 1.30
his/her homework/responsibilities done.
92. Your sibling sat on your stomach so that you 77.70 15.90 5.10 .60 .60
couldn’t breathe.
You sat on your sibling’s stomach so that 87.10 9.00 2.60 1.30 0.00
he/she couldn’t breathe.
93. Your sibling made you feel afraid to be around 82.80 10.80 6.40 0.00 0.00
them.
You made your sibling feel afraid to be around 89.00 7.70 1.90 0.00 1.30
you.
94. Your sibling kicked you out of rooms that 68.20 15.30 8.90 3.20 4.5
everyone shares, like a living room or kitchen.
You kicked your sibling out of rooms that 73.10 17.30 4.50 1.30 3.80
everyone shares, like a living room or kitchen.
95. Your sibling stole something personal that 72.00 14.60 11.50 0.00 1.90
belonged to you.
You stole something personal that belonged to 86.50 9.00 3.80 0.00 .60
your sibling.
96. Your sibling hurt your pet so badly you had to 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
take it to the vet.
You hurt your sibling’s pet so badly it had to be 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
taken to the vet.
97. Your sibling made you buy drugs/alcohol for 97.50 .60 1.30 0.00 .60
them.
You made your sibling buy drugs/alcohol for 95.50 1.90 1.30 .60 .60
you.
98. Your sibling made you steal something that 96.80 1.90 1.30 0.00 0.00
belongs to your parents because they want it.
 31

You made your sibling steal something that 96.20 3.20 .60 0.00 0.00
belonged to your parents because you wanted
it.
99. Your sibling teamed up with another sibling to 92.80 8.90 6.40 .60 1.30
harm you.
You teamed up with another sibling to harm 89.10 9.00 .60 .60 .60
him/her
100. **Your sibling belittled/made fun of you in 60.30 23.70 11.50 1.90 2.60
front of other people.
**You belittled/made fun of your sibling in 64.50 25.80 7.10 .60 1.90
front of other people
101. Your siblings made you feel like an outcast 78.80 12.20 5.10 2.60 1.30
from the family.
You made your siblings feel like an outcast 91.00 7.10 1.30 .60 0.00
from the family.
102. Your sibling exposed you sexually in front of 96.80 2.60 .60 0.00 0.00
other people.
You exposed your sibling sexually in front of 98.70 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00
other people.
103. Your sibling threatened to hurt you if you did 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
not have sex with him/her.
You threatened to hurt your sibling if he/she 96.80 1.30 1.30 0.00 .60
did not have sex with you