Development of a short form of the driving anger expression inventory

2014 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda N. Stephens ◽  
Mark J.M. Sullman
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Eugenia Gras ◽  
Sílvia Font-Mayolas ◽  
Josefina Patiño ◽  
Alícia Baltasar ◽  
Montserrat Planes ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda N. Stephens ◽  
Mark J. M. Sullman

2002 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 717-737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry L. Deffenbacher ◽  
Rebekah S. Lynch ◽  
Eugene R. Oetting ◽  
Randall C. Swaim

2001 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry L. Deffenbacher ◽  
David M. Deffenbacher ◽  
Rebekah S. Lynch ◽  
Eugene R. Oetting

This study provided evidence of reliability and validity for the four scales of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. Alpha reliabilities for scales ranged from .84 to .89. Measures of aggressive anger expression while driving (Verbal Aggressive Expression, Personal Physical Aggressive Expression, and Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scales) correlated positively with each other and negatively with the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale. Scores on the three aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with trait anger and measures of driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior, whereas scores on the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale correlated negatively with these variables. Reports of aggressive and risky behavior correlated most strongly with the Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scale. Forms of anger expression were minimally or uncorrelated with rated trait anxiety and reports of moving violations, close calls, and accidents. Findings replicated earlier findings and provided further evidence for the reliability and validity of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-65
Author(s):  
Ana N. Tibubos ◽  
Karin Schermelleh-Engel ◽  
Sonja Rohrmann

Abstract. The purpose of the present study was to develop a short form of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) based on the German STAXI-2. Item selection was performed based on exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using descriptive statistical parameters and content-related considerations on calibration samples ( N1 = 215, N2 = 310). The factorial structure of the final extracted scales was validated via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) ( N3 = 216, N4 = 310). Overall, results present an economic and reliable questionnaire with a total length of 24 items: State Anger short scales Feeling Angry, Verbal Anger Impulse, and Physical Anger Impulse (3 items each), that can be aggregated to a total State Anger score, as well as Trait Anger short scales Angry Reaction (3 items), Anger Expression-In, Anger Expression-Out, and Anger Control (4 items each). The structure of State Anger is identical to the German long version with improved internal consistency in the short form. Regarding the Trait scales, critique on the STAXI-2 has been taken into account resulting in the elimination of the subscale Trait Temperament due to redundancy with Trait Anger Expression-Out and for economic reasons. Other than that, the structure has remained the same. In addition, strict measurement invariance was established based on multi-group CFA for both the State and the Trait scales across gender and age groups, which has not been investigated for STAXI-2 versions to date.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document