Open AccessHungarian validation of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire—Is the short form more adequate?
Author(s) -
Zimonyi Szabolcs,
Kasos Krisztian,
Halmai Zsuzsa,
Csirmaz Luca,
Stadler Helga,
Rózsa Sándor,
Szekely Anna,
Kotyuk Eszter
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
brain and behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 41
ISSN - 2162-3279
DOI - 10.1002/brb3.2043
Subject(s) - psychology , scale (ratio) , confirmatory factor analysis , sample (material) , personality , psychometrics , aggression , social psychology , structural equation modeling , clinical psychology , statistics , geography , chemistry , cartography , mathematics , chromatography
Abstract Objective We aim to provide a publicly available Hungarian version of the BPAQ; compare the BPAQ factors to other personality traits; and compare both the original BPAQ factor structure provided by Buss and Perry ( J. Pers. Soc. Psychol ., 63 , 1992, 452), the revised BPAQ‐SF factor structure by Bryant and Smith ( J. Res. Pers ., 35 , 2001, 138), and the BAQ by Webster et al. ( Aggress. Behav., 40 , 2014, 120). Methods The validation of the Hungarian version of the BPAQ was carried out on a Hungarian university sample ( N = 841). There were three main focuses of data analysis: descriptive statistics, correlations, and confirmatory factor analyses. Results CFA‐related statistics showed an adequate fit for the BPAQ 4 factors; however, contrary to prior validations of BPAQ, we were not able to clearly define the verbal aggression factor. We found that the shorter form of the BPAQ has a better model fit on our sample than the original form, while the model fit of the BAQ was in‐between these. BPAQ scales showed low to moderate relationship with the Barratt Impulsivity Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Conclusion Both the BPAQ and the BPAQ‐SF, also the BAQ provide acceptable model fitting on a Hungarian sample of university students. While most of BPAQ items provided adequate loadings on their hypothesized factors, two items (21 and 27) did not. We argue this is the result of conceptual inaccuracy of the original items.