Original Paper

The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory: The Development

and Validation of a Questionnaire of Short-Term and Long-
Term Self-Regulation

Kristin L. Moilanen1

(1 Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 210

) South Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Kristin L. Moila
nen
Email:
klm73@pitt.edu

Received: 19 August 2005 Accepted:

1 December 2005 Published online: 25 July 2006

Abstract

This manuscript presents a study in which the factor

structure and validity of the Adolescent Self-Regulatory
Inventory (ASRI) were examined. The ASRI is a theoretically-
based questionnaire that taps two temporal aspects of self-
regulation (regulation in the short- and long-term). 169
students in the 6th, 8th, and 10th grades of a small,
Midwestern school district completed self-report
questionnaires focused on self-regulation, parenting
behaviors, and psychological adjustment. 80 parents also
participated. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated
that the internal consistency of the long-term and short-term
factors was satisfactory. Requirements for concurrent and
construct validity were met. The ASRI also demonstrated
incremental validity, as the inclusion of the long-term factor
with a comparison questionnaire significantly increased the
proportion of explained variance in adolescent-reported
parental warmth, externalizing, and prosocial behavior. The
ASRI has the potential to move research on self-regulation in
adolescence in a viable new direction.
Keywords Self-regulation - Self
control - Parenting - Internailizing - Externalizing - Academic
achievement - Prosocial behavior

One important protective factor that may help to prevent

youth from engaging in risky behavior or help adolescents
avoid outcomes associated with risky behavior is self-
regulation (Jessor and Jessor, 1977). Self-regulation is the
ability to flexibly activate, monitor, inhibit, persevere and/or
adapt one’s behavior, attention, emotions and cognitive
strategies in response to direction from internal cues,
environmental stimuli and feedback from others, in an
attempt to attain personally-relevant goals (Barkley, 1997;
Demetriou, 2000; Finkenauer et al., 2005; Lengua, 2003;
Novak and Clayton, 2001; Thompson, 1994). One major
shortcoming of most studies in this area involves the
techniques employed to measure self-regulation. In these
studies, researchers have primarily focused on regulation in
the immediate or short-term context, and have been unable
to examine theoretically-vital longer-term components of
self-regulation that develop in the teenage years
(Demetriou, 2000). This gap is addressed in the current
manuscript, the primary goal of which is to examine the
validity of a new measure of long and short-term self-
regulation.

Distinguishing between short- and long-term temporal

frames is crucial because of changes taking place in
adolescence. Theorists posit that adolescents can regulate
their actions and emotions in the immediate or short-term
context in order to attain long-term goals (Demetriou, 2000).
Barkley (1997) suggests that the understanding of time is a
key element of self-regulation: adolescents are able to plan
or prepare for events that are both near and distant in time,
while children are limited to events that are temporally near.
Growth of the prefrontal cortex in adolescence is thought to
be responsible for developments in hindsight and
forethought (Barkley, 1997). These changes in reflective
abilities enable teenagers to evaluate their past actions and
developing plans before hatching new schemes.
Furthermore, teenagers’ orientation toward the future tends
to increase with age, and appears to be complete only in late
adolescence (Nurmi, 1991).

Although theory posits that the span of time over which an

individual self-regulates increases with age, these claims
have remained largely unexamined and have been widely
neglected in adolescent self-regulation research. This may
be due to widespread reliance on relatively few existing
measures of self-regulation, primarily paper-and-pencil
questionnaires. Shorter-term aspects of self-regulation are
typically assessed in existing measures. Short-term self-
regulation is operationalized as impulse, attentional or
emotional control in the “heat of the moment,” or regulation
in the immediate context. For example, children or
adolescents might meet a momentary goal to remember a
phone number by using a strategy such as rehearsal.
Alternately, this can also take the form of squelching
inappropriate behavior or emotions before they are enacted,
such as inhibiting fidgeting. In contrast, long-term self-
regulation involves the control of impulses or direction of
effort over a longer period of time. This duration may last
several weeks, months or years. For example, an adolescent
might save their wages from an after-school job for many
weeks or months in order to buy an expensive digital music
device. Long-term self-regulation may also involve
substantial planning, such as plotting a course of study in
college in order to meet career goals. This aspect of
regulation is not consistently represented in measures of
self-regulation used in adolescence research.

Although a variety of instruments have been used in

research with teenagers, existing questionnaires tend to be
developmentally-limited in any of the following three ways.
First, items may focus exclusively on regulation in an
immediate or short-term context. For example, the “inhibit”
subscale in adolescent self-report version of the Behavior
Rating Inventory of Executive Function includes items like “I
have problems waiting my turn” and “I interrupt others”
(Gioia et al., 2000). Second, items may not specify a
temporal context or may ambiguous in this regard. For
example, items from the Self-Regulation Scale do not clearly
specify a time frame (e.g., “After an interruption, I don’t
have any problem resuming my concentrated style of
working;” Luszczynska et al., 2004). Finally, individual items
may be collapsed into scales without regard to their
temporal nature. For example, the inhibitory control subscale
of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire includes
items tapping momentary control (e.g., “When I’m excited,
it’s hard for me to wait my turn to talk”) and control over
extended time (e.g., “I could easily change a bad habit if I
wanted to;” Capaldi and Rothbart, 1992). Designing a
measure capable of yielding information outside of a short-
term context is a necessary step toward a full exploration of
the developmental nature of self-regulation in adolescence.

In addition to being couched in a temporal context, self-

regulation is comprised by several systems, which are the
skills that make regulation possible. These systems are
thoroughly described by Barkley’s hybrid model (1997,
2004), which focuses primarily on the regulation of behavior
but can also be applied to other domains of regulation. In
this theory, self-regulatory actions, referred to as “motor
control systems” (also known as “motor
control/fluency/syntax;” Barkley, 1997, 2004), are the
observable outputs of executive function, which occurs in
conjunction with spontaneous behavior inhibition. In other
words, inhibiting an action or reaction for a span of time will
permit children to think about possible actions purposefully
(e.g., in accordance with hindsight, forethought, moral
reasoning) before acting in accordance with their
experiences, beliefs, and goals. Barkley (1997, 2004)
includes 8 motor control systems in this model. These
included monitoring (“sensitivity to response feedback”) and
persevering (“goal-directed persistence”), which for the
purposes of the current study are operationalized
consistently with Barkley’s model (1997, 2004). The six
remaining systems of Barkley’s model were grouped into 3
broad dimensions in order to reduce item redundancy. These
included activating (“executing of goal-directed responses”
and “execution of novel/complex motor sequences”),
adapting (“behavioral flexibility” and “task re-engagement
following disruption”), and inhibiting (“inhibition of task-
irrelevant responses” and “control of behavior by internally-
represented information;” Barkley, 1997, p. 191). By
adolescence, youth should have mastered these components
sufficiently to be able to use each interchangeably and
appropriately for the given context. Thus, these 5 processes
were represented in the self-regulation measure designed
for this study.

This study is also based on the theoretical position that the

multiple domains of self-regulation are interrelated. In the
face of difficulty, children and adolescents use multiple
strategies to simultaneously regulate their affect, behavior,
and attention (Committee on Integrating the Science of Early
Childhood Development, Shonkoff, and Phillips, 2000;
Diamond and Aspinwall, 2003; Kopp, 1982). For example, in
order for an adolescent to comply with parents’ requests to
study for a test instead of going out with friends, the
teenager must be able to calm himself in the face of tension
between his own and his parents’ desires (emotion
regulation), focus his attention on test preparation (attention
regulation), and use physical strategies to avoid temptation,
such as turning off his mobile phone (behavioral regulation).
This perspective better reflects the complexity necessary to
explain self-regulation in adolescence and adulthood. By
adolescence, distinctions between different types of stimuli
being regulated may be largely artificial, as these multiple
aspects of regulation may reflect a basic, underlying ability
manifested in several ways: teenagers and adults should be
capable of regulating their thoughts, feelings, attention and
behavior in a planful, goal-oriented way. Thus, the measure
designed for the current study taps multiple aspects of self-
regulation, including the behavioral, attentional, emotional
and cognitive domains.
Finally, this measure also focuses on the products of self-
regulation, meaning the results of self-regulatory success or
failure (e.g., making mistakes after working too fast;
Humphrey, 1982), versus the strategies or specific
techniques for regulation (e.g., the degree to which a
teenager uses cognitive restructuring in order to manage
emotion: Silk et al., 2003). In summary, this new measure
taps teenagers’ self-regulatory success or failure through the
inclusion of 5 components (i.e., monitoring, activating,
adapting, persevering and inhibiting), 4 domains (emotional,
behavioral, attentional and cognitive), and 2 temporal
contexts (i.e., long and short-term) of self-regulation.

Evaluating the validity of the ASRI

Quite a bit is known about how self-regulation in childhood

and adolescence is associated with other constructs,
particularly parenting and adjustment. Such thorough
knowledge facilitates the examination of new measures;
specifically, the validity of the new measure is bolstered if
the relations between the constructs are consistent with
existing research. Thus, seven additional constructs were
included to examine the concurrent and incremental validity
of the ASRI. These included three dimensions of parenting
and four dimensions of adjustment, and the linkages
between these concepts and overall self-regulation are
briefly explicated below.

Parenting

Three parenting behaviors that have been previously linked

to self-regulation were included in the current study,
including parental warmth, psychological control, and
behavioral control. High levels of warmth and behavioral
control are thought to encourage the development of self-
regulatory capacities, while high levels of psychological
control are believed to discourage their development (Barber
and Harmon, 2001; Baumrind, 1991; Brody and Ge, 2001).
Parental warmth hypothetically reduces negative arousal,
which can interfere with individuals’ self-regulatory abilities
(Brody and Ge, 2001). It is through the imposition of external
behavioral control that children internalize parental and
societal values and norms for behavioral control (Olson
et al., 1990). Finally, psychological control impacts self-
regulation through violation of the child’s self-system
(Barber and Harmon, 2001; Baumrind, 1991). Parents who
control their children using psychological manipulations
undermine their attempts at independent regulation, which
deprives children of both the experience of autonomous
regulation and the opportunity to gain understanding of
when self-regulation is necessary. Two recent studies with
other measures of self-regulation have supported these
theoretical assertions. In a sample of Dutch youth ages 10 to
14, Finkenauer and colleagues (2005) revealed that higher
levels of parental acceptance and lower levels of
psychological control were indicative of better self-control. In
a sample of Australian high school-aged youth, Purdie and
colleagues (Purdie et al., 2004) linked parental involvement
to academic and prosocial self-regulation.

Adjustment

High levels of short-term self-regulation have been linked to

well-adjusted behavior in prior cross-sectional and
longitudinal work with children, adolescents and adults
(Barkley, 1997; Eisenberg et al., 1993; Eisenberg et al.,
1995). This hypothesis has been supported widely in the
growing body of studies focused on specific indicators of
adjustment (e.g., Brody and Ge, 2001; Finkenauer et al.,
2005; Tangney et al., 2004). As such, four dimensions of
adjustment were included in the current study, including
externalizing, internalizing, prosocial behavior, and
academic performance. As with parenting, each has been
examined in previous studies featuring different measures of
self-regulation.

Low levels of self-regulation have typically been connected

to higher levels of externalizing and internalizing problem
behavior in childhood and adolescence (Brody and Ge, 2001;
Eisenberg et al., 2005; Finkenauer et al., 2005; Galambos
and Maggs, 1991; Olson et al., 1999; Tangney et al., 2004).
This link has been consistently revealed in studies of
antisocial behavior or delinquency (Vazsonyi et al., 2001),
substance use (Brody and Ge, 2001; Colder and Chassin,
1997; Tangney et al., 2004) and to overall hostility, anger
and aggression (Finkenauer et al., 2004). Depressed children
and adolescents also tend to report lower levels of self-
regulation than non-depressed youths (Finkenauer et al.,
2005; Lengua, 2003).

High levels of self-regulation have also been linked to

positive behavior, including prosocial behavior and academic
achievement. Prosocial behaviors are any voluntary positive
social behaviors intended to benefit another person
(Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998). In one study, children who
were better able to regulate their positive and negative
affect were also more prosocial (Rydell et al., 2003). In
another study, prosocial adolescents were more likely to
report greater feelings of self-efficacy in regulating
participation in risky behavior, managing negative emotions,
and expressing positive emotions (Bandura et al., 2003).
High levels of self-regulation have been associated with
better grades in school and better performance on
standardized tests (Mischel et al., 1989; Tangney et al.,
2004). Across studies, high levels of self-regulation appear to
be associated with higher levels of prosocial behavior and
better school performance.

The current study

The primary goal of the current study was to evaluate a new
measure of self-regulation for adolescents. Two related goals
were addressed. First, the factor structure and reliability of
the ASRI were examined to determine whether short-term
and long-term self-regulation form distinct but correlated
factors. Youth self-reports and parent reports about their
children were compared for consistency in responses across
reporters. Second, the concurrent, construct and incremental
validity of the ASRI were examined by comparing its
performance to another existing measure of self-regulation
and by examining its associations with constructs
theoretically and empirically tied to self-regulation. These
other study constructs included measures of internalizing,
externalizing, prosocial behavior, and academic
performance. It was hypothesized that the ASRI would be
correlated with the comparison self-regulation questionnaire,
and that higher levels of short- and long-term self-regulation
would be linked to lower levels of maladjustment and higher
levels of positive adjustment. Thus, it was hypothesized that
youth with better self-regulation will report better school
grades, higher levels of prosocial behavior and fewer
externalizing and internalizing problems. Three dimensions
of parenting were also included for the same purpose. It was
anticipated that higher levels of both forms of self-regulation
would be associated with higher levels of parental warmth
and firm control and lower levels of psychological control.
Finally, it was hypothesized that the inclusion of the ASRI
long-term factor would predict more variance than the short-
term ASRI factor or the existing measure of self-regulation
alone.

Method
Participants

Study participants were adolescents from a suburban school

district in southern Michigan, which is comprised of
predominantly European American youths (99% of the high
school and 98.7% of the middle school are European
American; National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). It
is likely that relatively few of the participants are in poverty:
8% of students in the middle and high schools qualify for
reduced-cost or free school lunch (the average in the state of
Michigan is 30%; National Center for Education Statistics,
2005).

Adolescent sample (N=169)

Adolescent participants were students in the 6th, 8th or 10th

grade (mean age=13.79 years, S.D.=1.79, range=11–17
years). The resulting sample included youth of both genders
(57% female) who were primarily of European American
descent (89%) and lived with both biological parents (75%).
Few participants (14%) reported ever having been diagnosed
with or ever having taken medication for ADD/ADHD.

Parent subsample (n=80)

The parents of a subset of the adolescent sample also

participated in the study by providing reports on their own
and/or their child’s self-regulation. Most but not all parents
provided both reports; 73 provided reports on their own self-
regulation and 68 reported on their child’s self-regulation.
Additional family demographic information was also
collected from parents. Participating parents tended to be
female (87%), in their mid-40s (mean age=43.18 years,
S.D.=6.29, range=29–59 years), European-American (99%),
married (85%), and have attended college or technical
school or earned a college degree (84%). Most participants
reported their family’s yearly income as $70,000 or higher
(58%). Most families reported having more than one child in
the household (M=3.02 children, S.D.=1.74, range=1–14).

Study and demographic constructs of youth with and without

parent reports were compared to determine if the samples
with and without parent reports differed. As in the full
adolescent sample, youth in the limited sample also tended
to be female (55%), of European American descent (89%),
and from two-biological parent families (80%). Youth with
parent data tended to be younger than youth without parent
data, F (1, 167)=11.32, p < .001. This is unsurprising, given
that youth with parent data were more likely to be in the 6th
or 8th grades, while youth without parent data were more
likely to be in the 10th grade, χ2(2)=17.11, p < .001. Youth
with and without parent data did not differ significantly in
terms of gender, (χ2(1)=.26, p=.64), ethnicity, (χ2(5)=2.66,
p=.75), family structure (2 parents versus all other
arrangements), (χ2(1) =.70, p=.27), or ADHD diagnosis,
(χ2(1)=.40, p=.65). Comparisons were also conducted for the
main study variables (parenting practices, self-regulation,
and adjustment indicators). There were no significant
differences between the full and limited samples on any of
the study constructs.
Table 1 Study variable descriptive statistics
Possible Actual
Variable M SD
range range
Short Term Self-
Regulation
3.1
Youth Self-Report .56 1–5 1.67–4.73
5
3.6
Parent Self-Report a .48 1–5 2.33–4.87
8
Parent Report about 3.0
b .75 1–5 1.60–4.73
Child 5
Long Term Self-
Regulation
3.5
Youth Self-Report .57 1–5 2.00–5.00
8
4.0
Parent Self-Report a .41 1–5 3.07–4.87
3
Parent Report about 3.5
b .75 1–5 1.80–5.00
Child 0
Comparison Self-
Regulation Scale
3.2
Youth Self-Report .57 1–5 2.00–4.87
9
3.8
Parent Self-Report a .53 1–5 2.61–4.71
8
Parent Report about 3.5
b .72 1–5 2.03–4.90
Child 0
2.5
Parental Acceptance .46 1–3 1.00–3.00
1
Parental Psychological 1.6
.42 1–3 1.00–3.00
Control 7
Parental Behavioral 2.1 .39 1–3 1.00–3.00
 Possible Actual
Variable M SD
range range
Control 7
4.1
Prosocial Behavior .62 1–6 2.50–5.83
3
3.6 2.4 1.00–
Academic Performance 1–12
8 9 12.00
1.3
Externalizing .33 1–5 1.00–2.97
6
2.9
Internalizing .82 1–5 1.13–4.87
2
Note. N=169 unless otherwise noted.
a
n=73.
b
n=68.

Procedures

Parents and adolescents were recruited separately for the

current study.

Adolescents were informed of the general focus of the study

through in-class presentations, and were advised that their
parents would receive a packet in the mail. This packet
included cover letters from the researcher and the school
district, a parental consent form, a copy of the youth assent
forms, a short parent questionnaire that included
demographic questions, and questionnaires on their own and
their teen’s self-regulation. Mailing delays necessitated
providing a second recruitment packet to each eligible
student with instructions to give the packet to their parents.
Parents were asked to retain one copy of the consent form
and to return the other copy and completed questionnaires
to the school. Postcards reminding parents to return the
forms and questionnaires were mailed to parents
approximately 1 week following the mailing of the study
packet. Parents also received debriefing forms in this packet.
The debriefing form was folded so that study goals were not
visible until the form was unfolded, and “Do not read until
after completing the study” was printed on the outer side of
the page. Parents were asked not to discuss the project
objectives or their responses with their children until after
study completion. Six hundred ninety recruitment packets
were sent to parents, and one hundred seventy signed
consent forms were returned. Two packets were returned in
the mail. The final sample consisted of one hundred sixty-
nine students (24% response rate).

Teachers initiated the adolescent portion of the study two

weeks after students received the second parent study
packet. This was conducted over several days in
“homeroom.” Each student participant was provided with a
study packet, which included two copies of the assent form,
several questionnaires and an envelope with their name
printed on the outside (no names were included on the
questionnaires). Students returned their study packet to
their teacher, who stored the packets in a secure location
between homeroom periods. Students were instructed to
seal and write “done” on the envelope once all questionnaire
items were complete. Completed packets were returned to
the researcher each day after homeroom. Teachers provided
participants with the study debriefing form.

Measures

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in

Table 1.

Self-regulation

The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI) was used to

measure the self-regulation of teens and their parents.
Seventy-seven items of original design were initially
developed, and several doctoral developmental psychology
students and faculty categorized each item’s temporal
context (i.e., long-term or short-term), domain of self-
regulation (i.e., emotion, attention, behavior, or cognition)
and component (i.e., monitoring, activating, adapting,
persevering, or inhibiting). Any item that was not clearly
categorized as intended was reworded or discarded. Student
and faculty reviewers were also asked for suggestions on
item wording, in order to ensure that each item was as clear
and unambiguous as possible. Several items were revisions
of items from existing measures (e.g., Brown et al., 1999;
Capaldi and Rothbart, 1992; Humphrey, 1982). The resulting
40-item questionnaire was piloted with undergraduate
psychology students under the age of 20, in order to make
the pilot sample more closely resemble the population in
which the questionnaire would be used. Two pilot studies
(N=50 for each study) were conducted in order to generate
data that were used to run exploratory factor analyses and
to check the scale reliabilities. Items that did had low inter-
item correlations others from the same subscale were
eliminated from further consideration. Results provided a
basis for the selection of the final set of 36 items included in
the current study (please see Appendix).

Adolescents completed the ASRI-A, which includes items

about their own self-regulation. Parents completed the ASRI-
AD about their own self-regulation and ASRI-P/C about their
child’s self-regulation. These three questionnaires consist of
the same items, which assess the degree to which
adolescents or adults are able to activate, monitor, maintain,
inhibit and adapt their emotions, thoughts, attention, and
behavior. Respondents rate how true each item is for them,
ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (really true for
me). Following reliability analyses, 13 items remained in the
short-term ASRI (adolescent self-report α=.70; parent self-
report α=.69; parent report about child α=.88), and 14 items
remained in the long-term ASRI (adolescent self-report
α=.82; parent self-report α=.72; parent report about child
α=.91). These subscales do not include the remaining 9 ASRI
items that performed adequately in the pilot studies but had
low item-total correlations in the current study.

Comparison self-regulation questionnaire

An existing 31-item scale of self-regulation from another

study was also included (Novak and Clayton, 2001). This
questionnaire was designed to tap emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral self-regulation in middle and high school-aged
students (Sample item: “I get fidgety after a few minutes if I
am supposed to sit still”). Respondents rate how true each
item is for them, ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5
(really true for me). A scale score was calculated by
averaging participants’ responses to the 31 items. Parents
and teens must have responded to at least 24 items in order
to have a scale score computed (98% of adolescents met
this criterion. 94% of participating parents were eligible for
computation of a self-report scale score, as were 97% of
parents’ reports about their teens). The scale demonstrated
adequate internal consistency in all three versions
(adolescent self-report α=.88; parent self-report α=.91;
parent report about child α=.95).

Parenting

The 30-item version of the Children’s Reports of Parental

Behavior Inventory (CRPBI: Schaefer, 1965; Schludermann
and Schludermann, 1988) was used to measure three
parenting dimensions. Each subscale has previously
demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α
range=.63–.76) and test-retest reliability (range=.79–.89;
Schludermann and Schludermann, 1988). The original CRPBI-
30 includes two sets of 30 questions about mothers and
fathers; to save time, participants were asked to respond to
one set of gender-neutral items for the parent with whom
they spend the most time. Participants responded to each
item on a 3-point response scale, ranging from 1 (Not like
my parent) to 3 (A lot like my parent). Parental acceptance
was based on 10 items designed to measure the degree to
which a parent warmly accepts their child (α=.90; sample
item: “My parent is a person who smiles at me very often”).
Psychological control was comprised of 10 items designed to
measure the degree to which a parent controls or
manipulates the adolescent’s feelings or thoughts (α=.80;
sample item: “My parent is a person who says, if I cared for
him/her, I would not do things that cause him/her to worry”).
Behavioral control was derived from 10 items designed to
measure the degree to which a parent controls the
adolescent’s actions (α=.80; sample item: “My parent is a
person who lets me do anything I like to do”). All three
scales were constructed by averaging the adolescent’s
responses, and participants must have provided answers for
at least 75% of items in order to have a scale score
calculated (97.1% of adolescents met this standard).

Academic performance

Academic performance was measured with a single item

designed to elicit how well the teen had performed over the
past year of school (Center for Human Resource Research,
2002). Adolescents were asked to select the choice that best
described their average report card grades, with response
options ranging from 1 (A) to 12 (E or F). Responses were
recoded so that the higher numeric values corresponded
with better school grades. 97.6% of participants provided a
response to this question.

Prosocial behavior

The measure of prosocial behavior was chosen for its brevity

and focus on actual behavior versus behavior in hypothetical
situations (e.g., Carlo and Randall, 2002). Six items tapping
into volunteering, helping, raising or donating money,
sharing, and doing favors for others (e.g. “Did someone a
favor or lent someone money;” Swisher et al., 1985) were
used to assess frequency of prosocial behaviors. Response
options ranged from 1 (Never) to 6 (Happens almost every
day or more). A scale score was constructed by averaging
responses to the items (α=.61). Participants must have
answered 5 of the 6 items in order to be included in analyses
(98.8% of participants met this criterion).

Internalizing behavior

Two subscales from the distress dimension of the

Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI; Weinberger, 1989)
were combined to measure internalizing problem behavior.
Both subscales have been previously used with children and
adults, and have demonstrated adequate reliability (α=.95
for the distress dimension, which includes two additional
subscales not included here; Weinberger and Schwartz,
1990). Participants responded to the 15 items on a 5-point
response scale, ranging from 1 (False) to 5 (True).
Preliminary analyses indicated that the two subscales were
moderately correlated (r=.61). In order to minimize the
number of study variables, these two subscales were
aggregated into an internalizing scale by averaging the 15
items (α=.89; sample item: “In recent years, there have
been a lot of times when I’ve felt unhappy or down about
things.”). Scale scores were constructed only for participants
who completed at least 75% of the items (95.3% of
participants met this standard).

Externalizing behavior

Externalizing problem behavior was measured with a 33-

item scale developed by Galambos and colleagues
(Galambos et al., 2003), based on measures used previously
by Brown and colleagues (Brown et al., 1986) and Kaplan
(1978). Participants responded to each item with a 5-point
scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost every day), and
must have provided data for at least 75% of items to be
included in analyses (96.5% of respondents met this
criteria). A total externalizing behavior scale score was
constructed by averaging the 24 items (α=.89). Preliminary
analyses indicated that externalizing was the only
moderately kurtotic variable (kurtosis=6.25), and no
corrective transformation was performed.

Results
Confirmatory factor analyses

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in order to

evaluate the ASRI. Model fit was evaluated through several
fit indices. The minimal requirements for good model fit were
a non-significant X 2-fit statistic, a X 2-fit/df ratio of less than
3, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) greater than .90, a Root
Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ranging
from .05 to .10, and a Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual (SRMR) close to 0 (Klein, 1998). Items were
considered to “load” on the factor if their coefficient was
greater than .3 or .4.

Single factor model

A single factor model was evaluated using confirmatory

factor analysis. All items from the long-term and short-term
scales were constrained to load on one factor. This model’s
fit was less than adequate, X 2 fit (324)=557.53, p < .001, X
2
fit/df ratio=1.72, CFI=.74, RMSEA=.07, SRMR=.08. All but
five items loaded on the single factor. The five exceptions
were items 6, 8, 12, 15, and 21 (please see Appendix for
item text).

Two factor model

A two factor solution in which the long-term and short-term

self-regulation factors were allowed to correlate was also
evaluated. The adolescent self-report self-regulation model
fit slightly better than the single-factor model, X 2 fit
(323)=542.35, p < .001, X 2 fit/df ratio=1.68, CFI=.76,
RMSEA=.06, SRMR=.08. The long-term and short-term
factors were strongly correlated (r=.83). All long-term items
except for two (items 12 and 15; see Appendix) loaded on
the long-term factor. All short-term items except for three
(items 2, 6, and 8) loaded on the short-term factor. The
model modification indices indicated that the model fit could
be improved by allowing items 18 and 21 to load on the
long-term factor, and by permitting items 15, 23, and 26 to
load on the short-term factor. The model fit could also be
improved by allowing several items to correlate.

Revised two-factor model

These suggestions to improve the model were incorporated

in a revised two-factor model. In this model, items 18 and 26
were revealed as Heywood cases (Heywood, 1931) when
allowed to load on both factors. Thus, a third model in which
items 15, 21, and 23 were permitted to load on both factors
was evaluated (Figure 1). Items 12 and 15 persisted in not
loading on the long-term factor, and items 2, 6, and 8 did not
load on the short-term factor. However, these changes
collectively improved model fit: X 2 fit (314)=423.32, p < .
001, X 2 fit/df ratio=1.35, CFI=.88, RMSEA=.05, SRMR=.07.

Fig. 1. Final two-factor confirmatory factor analysis model

The ASRI scale scores were adjusted to reflect this better-

fitting model. Specifically, items 15, 21 and 23 were included
on both scale scores. Items that did not load on their
specified scales were not removed from the averaged
indices. Thus, 15 items were present in both the long-term
and short-term ASRI scores. This slightly improved the
coefficients of the short-term scales (adolescent self-report
α=.75; parent self-report α=.76; parent report about child
α=.90), while the coefficients of the long-term scales did not
substantially change (adolescent self-report α=.80; parent
self-report α=.73; parent report about child α=.91). These
revised scale scores were used for all of the following
analyses, and the descriptive statistics are included in
Table 1.

Construct validity
The construct validity of the ASRI was evaluated through an
examination of the correlations between the ASRI scales and
the comparison measure of self-regulation (Novak and
Clayton, 2001). Correlations for all reporters are presented in
Table 2. For all three reports (adolescent self-report, parent
self-report, and parent report about their child), both ASRI
factors were positively and strongly correlated with the
comparison measure (r range=.68–.92). ASRI factors were
also correlated with each other (r range=.74–.91). Parent
reports about their children were moderately correlated with
youths’ self-reports (r range=.35–.47) on both the ASRI and
the comparison measure. The majority of parent and child
self-reports were not correlated; however, parents’ self-
reported comparison measure scores were modestly
correlated with their reports on their children’s long-term
self-regulation and comparison measure scores (r
range=.24–.25).
Table 2. Correlations between forms of the ASRI and the
comparison self-regulation scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Adolescent Self-
Report
Short-Term
1
(ASRI)
.
Long-Term
2 74*
(ASRI) *

. .
Comparison
3 74 68*
*
Scale * *
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Parent Report
about Child
. . .
Short-Term
4 35 44 44*
* *
(ASRI) * * *

. . . .
Long-Term
5 35 47 46 91*
* * *
(ASRI) * * * *

. . . . .
Comparison
6 35 44 48 92 91*
* * * *
Scale * * * * *

Parent Self-Report
Short-Term −.0 .
7 .01 .05 .12 .16
(ASRI) 5 14
.
Long-Term −.0 −.1 .
8 .01 .06 .20 80*
(ASRI) 6 2 16 *

. .
Comparison −.0 −.0 . * .
9 .10 .17 * 25 72
Scale 1 1 24 * * 73**
*
p<.05.
**
p<.01 (2-tailed).
Concurrent validity
A second set of correlations were examined in order to
confirm that adolescents’ responses on the ASRI were
statistically associated with constructs theoretically and
empirically linked to self-regulation. These bivariate
associations are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Correlations between the ASRI and relational and
behavioral constructs associated with self-regulation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Short-Term Self-
1
Regulation
Long-Term Self-
2 .74**
Regulation
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comparison Self-
3 .74** .68**
Regulation Measure
4 Acceptance .23** .40** .34**
Psychological −.3 −.3 −.3 −.5
5
Control 0** 0** 3** 4**
−.1 −.0 −.0 −.3 −.3
6 Behavioral Control
3 3 9 1** 7**
Academic −.2 .
7 .41** .41** .49** .15 **
Performance 4 02
.
* ** **
8 Prosocial Behavior .20 .31 .15 .23 .05 19 .02
*

.
−.3 ** −.4 −.2 ** −.2
9 Internalizing ** .27 ** ** .34 16 ** .10
5 8 3 * 5

1 −.3 −.4 −.3 −.2 . −.3 −.1

Externalizing ** ** ** ** .21** .15
0 4 6 3 1 02 4** 7*
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01 (2-tailed).

Parenting

Both short-term and long-term ASRI factors were positively

correlated with warmth and negatively correlated with
parental psychological control. Neither form was associated
with behavioral control. The same pattern was evident for
the comparison self-regulation measure.

Adjustment

Short and long-term self-regulation were associated with all

indicators of adjustment. Higher levels of both forms of self-
regulation were associated with better school performance,
higher levels of prosocial behavior, and lower levels of
internalizing and externalizing difficulties. With one
exception, the same pattern was evident for the comparison
measure, which was not correlated with reported prosocial
behavior.

Incremental validity
Seven hierarchical regressions were conducted to evaluate
the incremental validity of the ASRI. For all models, the
comparison self-regulation index was entered on the first
step, followed by the addition of the short- and long-term
self-regulation factors on the second step. Incremental
validity is evidenced by significant changes in the variance
explained by the second step of the model. When model
results suggested mediation was possible, Sobel tests were
computed using an internet-based calculator (Preacher and
Leonardelli, 2001). Results of these analyses are presented
in Table 4.
Table 4 Results of regression analyses predicting relational
and behavioral constructs associated with self-regulation
Parental Psychologic Behavioral Academic
warmth al control control performance
Model 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Comparis
.34*** .25* −.33*** −.23* −.09 −.03 .49*** .37**
on SR
Short- −.27
* −.04 −.22+ .03
Term SR
Long-
.43*** −.12 .15 .13
Term SR
Model R 2 .11 .19 .11 .12 .01 .03 .24 .25
Prosocial Externalizin
Internalizing
behavior g
Model 1 2 1 2 1 2
*
Comparis + *** *** −.33
.15 −.11 −.48 −.52 ** .06
on SR
Short-
.00 −.04 .05
Term SR
Long- *** −.46*
.39 .10 **
Term SR
 Parental Psychologic Behavioral Academic
warmth al control control performance
Model 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Model R 2 .02 .10 .23 .23 .11 .22
All regression weights are standardized (βs).
+p < .10.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

At the first step of the parental warmth model, the

comparison scale predicted a significant portion of the
variance, F (1, 161)=20.42, p < .001, R 2=.11. The addition
of the two ASRI scales on the second step significantly
increased the portion of variance accounted for by the
model, ΔF (2, 159)=7.67, p < .001, ΔR 2=.08. Long-term self-
regulation was positively associated and short-term self-
regulation was negatively associated with parental warmth.
Additionally, the association between the comparison scale
and parental warmth was reduced at this model step. Sobel
tests indicated that the long-term ASRI factor mediated the
effect of the comparison scale on parental warmth, Sobel
ratio=4.95, p < .001.

The comparison scale also successfully predicted parental

psychological control, F (1, 161)=20.18, p < .001, R 2=.11.
Youths reporting lower levels of self-regulation as measured
by the comparison scale reported higher levels of parental
psychological control. Although the addition of the ASRI
scales did not significantly increase the portion of variance
accounted for by the model, the effect of the comparison
scale was reduced on the second step, ΔF (2, 159)=.93, p > .
05, ΔR 2=.01.

The comparison scale did not explain a significant portion of

the variance in behavioral control, F (1, 161)=1.27, p > .05,
R 2=.01. The addition of the ASRI scales on the second step
did not improve or contribute to the model, ΔF (2,
159)=1.49, p > .05, ΔR 2=.02.
For academic performance, the comparison scale predicted a
significant portion of the variance in school grades, F (1,
161)=49.72, p < .001, R 2=.25. The addition of long- and
short-term self-regulation on the second step reduced the
contribution of the comparison measure but did not
significantly increase the portion of variance accounted for
by the model, ΔF (2, 159)=1.25, p > .05, ΔR 2=.01.

For prosocial behavior, the comparison scale did not predict

a significant portion of the variance, F (1, 163)=3.64, p > .
05, R 2=.02. The addition of the ASRI factors on the second
step increased the portion of variance accounted for by the
model, ΔF (2, 161)=7.37, p < .001, ΔR 2=.08. Long-term self-
regulation was the only significant predictor of prosocial
behavior on the second model step. A Sobel test indicated
that the indirect effect of the comparison measure via the
long-term ASRI factor was significantly different from zero,
Sobel ratio=3.96, p < .001.

A significant portion of the variance in internalizing behavior

was explained by the comparison self-regulation scale, F (1,
158)=46.73, p < .001, R 2=.23. The addition of short-term
and long-term self-regulation on the second step did not
explain any additional portion of the variance in
internalizing, ΔF (2, 156)=.43, p > .05, ΔR 2=.00. However,
the association between the comparison measure and
internalizing increased on the second step, suggesting a
suppressor effect. Follow-up analyses suggested that the
presence of the ASRI long-term factor in the model is
necessary for this suppressor effect to occur.

The comparison scale predicted a significant portion of the

variance in externalizing on the first step, F (1, 160)=19.93,
p < .001, R 2=.11. The addition of the ASRI factors on the
second step increased the portion of variance accounted for
by the model, ΔF (2, 158)=10.65, p < .001, ΔR 2=.11, and
fully attenuated the effect of the comparison measure. Long-
term self-regulation remained the sole significant predictor
of externalizing difficulties, suggesting that long-term self-
regulation fully mediates the effect of the comparison
measure on externalizing. A Sobel test revealed that the
indirect effect of the composite measure on externalizing via
long-term self-regulation was significantly different from
zero, Sobel ratio=−5.76, p < .001.

In sum, the long-term ASRI factor significantly increased the

portion of variance in 3 models, and fully or partially
mediated the effect of the composite measure on two
parenting variables and three indicators of adjustment. The
ASRI long-term factor also revealed a suppressor effect for
internalizing. No variables predicted behavioral control in the
hierarchical models.

Discussion
Factor structure of the ASRI

The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI) was

developed specifically to correspond with theories of self-
regulatory development in adolescence. Items representing
long- and short-term contexts were included, in accordance
with theory that adolescents are able to self-regulate for
longer durations of time than children and in accordance
with their own long-term goals (Demetriou, 2000). This is the
first known study to examine the temporal distinction in self-
regulation. Most previous studies have used items
exclusively tapping short-term regulation, or have not made
the distinction between the types. The ASRI’s items were
also designed to represent five self-regulatory functions from
Barkley’s (1997) hybrid model of self-regulation, including
monitoring, activating, adapting, persevering, and inhibiting.
Finally, study goals necessitated the creation of three
versions of the ASRI, including forms for adolescent self-
reports, parent (adult) self-reports, and one for parental
report on their teenager’s self-regulation.

The CFA and reliability analyses demonstrated that, for the

most part, the internal consistency of each factor was
satisfactory. A two-factor model evidenced better fit than a
single factor model, and in turn, the revised two-factor
model had the best fit. The degree to which individual items
from separate factors correlated was unanticipated but not
undesirable. Items from two related constructs should be
correlated, and this is consistent with other studies in this
area (e.g., Raffaelli et al., 2005). Furthermore, several items
that were judged by expert raters to be consistent with
either short-term or long-term self-regulation loaded strongly
on the incorrect factor. Upon further consideration, some of
the terms used in these items may be perceived as vague.
Additional rewording of these inconsistent items so that their
temporal context is explicit may reduce the incidence of this
problem. For example, item 15 (“If I really want something, I
have to have it right away”) may be clearer if recast as “If I
really want a special item, I must purchase it immediately.”
These results suggest that the inclusion of additional items
and the revision or omission of some of the current items is
one area in which the ASRI may be further improved.

The small sample size of the parent self-report sample and

the relatively few parent reports on their child’s self-
regulation prohibited performing confirmatory factor
analyses with either of the parental reports. It remains
unknown whether the items that performed poorly in the
adolescent self-report version of the ASRI performed better
or worse in the parental report versions. Presumably, the
parent report on child version would perform better,
evidenced by the greater consistency in their responses.
Parents may respond to the ASRI and other similar
questionnaires with global conceptualizations of their
children’s self-regulatory competencies in mind. Conversely,
parents and adolescents may recall more detail or perceive
“shades of gray” in their self-regulatory self-schema,
evidenced by scales that have comparatively poorer internal
consistency.

Validity evaluations

The construct and concurrent validity of the ASRI is

suggested through the correlations: specifically, the ASRI
was statistically associated with other indicators was as
expected. For all three forms of the ASRI, both ASRI factors
were strongly correlated with the comparison questionnaire.
Furthermore, parental reports on their children and
children’s self-reports were also statistically linked. These
results support the notion that the ASRI has sufficient
construct validity. The modest correlations between the
comparison self-regulation scores of parent reports of their
own and their child’s self-regulation were unanticipated and
are most likely due to reporter bias.

Correlations between the adolescent self-reported ASRI

factors, parenting and adjustment were also evaluated.
Associations were consistent with hypotheses. Both the
short-term and long-term ASRI factors were positively
correlated with parental warmth and negatively correlated
with psychological control. Neither ASRI factor was
statistically associated with parental behavioral control. This
pattern is consistent with other studies using different
measures of self-regulation (Finkenauer et al., 2005).
Likewise, the four adjustment indicators were also
statistically linked to both ASRI factors. Specifically, youth
reporting higher levels of long- and/or short-term self-
regulation also tended to report better school grades, more
prosocial behavior, and less internalizing and externalizing
behavior. The association between the self-regulation factors
and prosocial behavior was unique to the ASRI, as there was
no link from the comparison measure to prosocial behavior.

Finally, the incremental validity of the ASRI factors was

scrutinized. Regression analyses revealed that the long-term
ASRI factor increased the portion of variance accounted for
by the comparison index of self-regulation in 3 of the 7
models (parental warmth, prosocial and externalizing
behavior). The short-term ASRI factor also explained a
unique portion of variance in parental warmth. These
findings extend previous studies and support the
incremental validity of the ASRI, suggesting that regulation
over the long term contributes to momentary control
processes that promote adjustment. Likewise, these results
suggest that long-term self-regulation is another potential
product of warm parenting behavior. Neither ASRI factor
increased the portion of variance explained in the remaining
4 models. Although just less than half of the study models
were improved by the ASRI, these results are not at all
discouraging. It remains possible that the two aspects of
self-regulation are implicated in different forms of
adjustment or are the result of distinct parenting behaviors.
For example, good short-term regulation may prevent
youths’ involvement in impulsive acts in the face of
momentary temptations that may lead to decreased
competence. Likewise, depressive symptoms may
undermine youth’s momentary control processes.
Alternately, good long-term self-regulation may keep
teenagers on goal-oriented pathways which reduce the
number of temptations they encounter. For example,
teenagers who value academic achievement may choose to
avoid large parties in which alcohol will be present.
Regardless, much more work is also needed to elucidate
whether the short- and long-term aspects of self-regulation
have different antecedents or are linked to different
adjustment outcomes.

Study limitations and future directions

Like any other study, the current study has several

limitations. First, study data was primarily obtained through
adolescent self-report questionnaires. Parental reports were
sought for parts of the study, but an insufficient number
responded for additional analyses to be conducted. For
future studies, multiple reporters should be recruited to
provide their perspective on additional study variables.
Common method variance is another relevant limitation of
the current study, as all measures were questionnaire-based
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Correlations between
measures may be spurious because respondents provided all
of their own questionnaire data. These limitations can be
addressed by seeking complete reports from multiple
respondents and by including objective measurement
techniques whenever possible.
Second, study data were collected at only one time point,
thus the cross-sectional nature of this study precludes any
firm directional or causal interpretations. The temporal
stability of the ASRI factors could not be examined in the
current cross-sectional study. Thus, short-term longitudinal
work is needed to determine the test-retest reliability of the
ASRI.

Sample characteristics may have affected the results in

unknown ways: participants were volunteers, and thus were
not representative of all youth in the United States or all
youth in this particular school district. Study participants
reported relatively low levels of maladjustment and overall
good parenting (high warmth and behavioral control, low
psychological control). Problems related to study self-
selection and study generalizability are well known (e.g.,
Campbell and Stanley, 1963). This is attributable to two
issues. Youth were relied upon to return the parental consent
form in order to participate in the study, and teens with
particularly poor self-regulation may have found this task to
be more difficult than their peers with better self-regulation
(a problem mentioned by teachers at the study site). The
size of the adolescent sample was relatively small, which
also may be attributed to recruitment and parental consent
procedures. Finally, youth or parents with particularly poor
relationships may have actively or passively opted not to
participate. Future studies with more representative samples
will be invaluable in order to replicate these findings.

Despite these limitations, the current study makes a

substantial contribution to the literature by evaluating a new
theoretically-based questionnaire of adolescent self-
regulation. The measure scrutinized in this study is the first
to demonstrate the value of separating long- and short-term
self-regulation in empirical work with adolescents. The ASRI
provides a new direction for theory-driven research on self-
regulation in adolescence, and makes direct tests of these
theoretical assumptions possible. This new measure provides
a basis for future longitudinal research on the development
of long-term and short-term self-regulation, and how these
dimensions may be differentially associated with parenting
behaviors and adjustment. In time, this line of research may
help improve youth risk-prevention programs, as well as
increase the effectiveness of parenting interventions.

Acknowledgments This research was conducted while the

author was a doctoral candidate in the Department of
Psychology at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and was
funded by a grant to M. Raffaelli and L. J. Crockett from the
National Institutes of Mental Health (R01-MH62977).
Research assistance was provided by Matthew Maguire,
Megan Milligan, and Lisa Palmer. Many thanks to Daniel S.
Shaw and Emily Trentacosta for their comments on this
manuscript, and to Scott Novak for sharing his self-
regulation questionnaire.
Appendix
Short Term Self-Regulation Items
When I’m sad, I can usually start doing something that will
2.
make me feel better.
6. When I’m bored I fidget or can’t sit still.
I can usually act normal around everybody if I’m upset with
8.
someone.
I am good at keeping track of lots of things going on
9.
around me, even when I’m feeling stressed.
11
I can start a new task even if I’m already tired.
.
13
Little problems detract me from my long-term plans.
.
14 I forget about whatever else I need to do when I’m doing
. something really fun.
16 During a dull class, I have trouble forcing myself to start
. paying attention.
17 After I’m interrupted or distracted, I can easily continue
. working where I left off.
18 If there are other things going on around me, I find it hard
. to keep my attention focused on whatever I’m doing.
19
I never know how much more work I have to do.
.
21 It’s hard to start making plans to deal with a big project or
. problem, especially when I’m feeling stressed.
22
I can calm myself down when I’m excited or all wound up.
.
Long-Term Self-Regulation Items
If something isn’t going according to my plans, I change
3.
my actions to try and reach my goal.
I can find ways to make myself study even when my
4.
friends want to go out.
12
I lose control whenever I don’t get my way.
.
15
If I really want something, I have to have it right away.
.
20 When I have a serious disagreement with someone, I can
. talk calmly about it without losing control.
23
I can stay focused on my work even when it’s dull.
.
25 I can stop myself from doing things like throwing objects
. when I’m mad.
26
I work carefully when I know something will be tricky.
.
28
I am usually aware of my feelings before I let them out.
.
29 In class, I can concentrate on my work even if my friends
. are talking.
When I’m excited about reaching a goal (e.g., getting my
30
drivers license, going to college), it’s easy to start working
.
toward it.
31 I can find a way to stick with my plans and goals, even
. when it’s tough.
32
When I have a big project, I can keep working on it.
.
37 I can resist doing something when I know I shouldn’t do it.
.
Items Not Included in Analyses
It’s hard for me to notice when I’ve “had enough” (sweets,
1.
food, etc.).
5. I lose track of the time when I’m doing something fun.
It’s hard for me to get started on big projects that require
7.
planning in advance.
10 When I’m having a tough day, I stop myself from whining
. about it to my family or friends.
24
I usually know when I’m going to start crying.
.
33
I can usually tell when I’m getting tired or frustrated.
.
34 I get carried away emotionally when I get excited about
. something.
35 I have trouble getting excited about something that’s
. really special when I’m tired.
36 It’s hard for me to keep focused on something I find
. unpleasant or upsetting.

References

Bandura A, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Gerbino M, Pastorelli

C (2003) Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse
spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Dev 74:769–782

Barber BK, Harmon EL (2001) Violating the self: Parental

psychological control of children and adolescents. In: Barber
BK (ed) Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents. American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, pp 15–52

Barkley RA (1997) ADHD and the nature of self-control.

Guildford, New York
Barkley RA (2004) Attention-deficity/hyperactivity disorder
and self-regulation. In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD (eds)
Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications. Guilford, New York, pp 301–323

Baumrind D (1991) The influence of parenting style on

adolescent competence and substance use. J Early Adolesce
11:56–95

Brody GH, Ge X (2001) Linking parenting processes and self-

regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use
during adolescence. J Fam Psychol 15:82–94

Brown BB, Clasen DR, Eicher SA (1986) Perceptions of peer

pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported
behavior among adolescents. Dev Psychol 22:521–530

Brown JM, Miller WR, Lawendowski LA (1999) The self-

regulation questionnaire. In: VandeCreek L, Jackson TL (eds)
Innovations in clinical practice: A sourcebook, vol. 17.
Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange,
Inc, Sarasota, FL, pp 281–292

Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and

quasiexperimental designs for research. Rand McNally,
Chicago

Capaldi DM, Rothbart MK (1992) Development and validation

of an early adolescent temperament measure. J Early
Adolesce 12:153–173

Carlo G, Randall BA (2002) The development of a measure of

prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. J Youth Adolesce
31:31–44
Center for Human Resource Research (2002) NLSY79 child &
young adult data users guide: A guide to the 1986–2000 child
data and 1994–2000 young adult data. The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH

Colder CR, Chassin L (1997) Affectivity and impulsivity:

Temperament risk for adolescent alcohol involvement.
Psychol Addict Behav 11:83–97

Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood

Development, Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA (2000) From neurons
to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood
development. Na