Psychometric Properties of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory: Replication and Extension across Clinical and Non-Clinical Samples

Figures & data

Table 1. Mean, standard error, range, Cronbach’s α and test-retest reliability (ICC) of ESI-NL subscale scores for the three subsamples.

		Patients							Community							Undergraduates
Subscales	nitems	M	SE	range	α	Mr	ICC		M	SE	range	α	Mr	ICC		M	SE	range	α	Mr	ICC
Alcohol problems	9	16.47	.79	0-27	.93	.61	.89		4.42	.32	0-19	.81	.32	.84		2.86	.19	0-14	.70	.20	.89
Alcohol use	9	18.34	.56	1-27	.81	.31	.85		15.35	.50	0-26	.85	.38	.92		14.70	.42	0-25	.86	.40	.94
Marijuana use	7	12.25	.68	0-21	.94	.69	.96		5.74	.55	0-21	.94	.68	.96		3.09	.37	0-21	.92	.63	.97
Marijuana problems	7	7.77	.63	0-21	.93	.65	.92		1.52	.27	0-21	.90	.57	.91		.36	.08	0-9	.71	.26	.84
Drug problems	11	18.10	.95	0-33	.93	.54	.91		2.17	.37	0-26	.90	.44	.91		.31	.07	0-7	.50	.08	.86
Drug use	6	11.56	.48	0-18	.84	.47	.89		5.33	.40	0-18	.83	.45	.86		3.12	.23	0-17	.72	.30	.91
Alienation	3	4.87	.21	0-9	.68	.42	.80		2.44	.17	0-9	.77	.52	.76		1.70	.12	0-8	.72	.46	.83
Blame externalization	4	5.62	.30	0-12	.87	.63	.77		1.74	.21	0-12	.90	.70	.77		1.11	.15	0-8	.95	.83	.57
Boredom proness	4	6.73	.33	0-12	.88	.64	.78		4.25	.27	0-12	.88	.69	.70		3.31	.18	0-12	.84	.56	.56
Dependability	7	6.91	.39	0-19	.81	.38	.80		3.66	.28	0-19	.81	.38	.68		2.79	.17	0-12	.73	.28	.67
Empathy (-)	11	9.94	.65	0-33	.90	.43	.76		7.25	.41	0-29	.82	.29	.83		3.85	.25	0-27	.75	.22	.74
Excitement seeking	6	8.05	.47	0-18	.90	.60	.85		4.55	.35	0-17	.87	.53	.87		3.01	.21	0-15	.83	.45	.92
Fraud	6	5.36	.41	0-18	.79	.39	.86		1.36	.18	0-15	.77	.36	.83		.62	.08	0-8	.49	.14	.40
Honesty	5	4.84	.31	0-15	.80	.45	.74		4.17	.25	0-15	.73	.36	.76		3.41	.18	0-12	.65	.27	.47
Impatient urgency	5	8.99	.35	0-15	.84	.51	.71		6.12	.30	0-15	.82	.47	.82		5.19	.22	0-14	.79	.43	.82
Irresponsibility	10	14.83	.61	0-30	.76	.25	.86		4.67	.42	0-27	.83	.33	.90		1.55	.16	0-17	.72	.20	.84
Physical aggression	8	10.60	.61	0-24	.87	.45	.87		3.47	.30	0-22	.84	.40	.86		2.00	.15	0-11	.66^a	.22	.75
Destructive aggression	7	5.62	.50	0-21	.88	.52	.79		1.57	.22	0-19	.78	.34	.68		.40	.09	0-11	.67	.23	.74
Relation aggression	8	8.60	.51	0-24	.85	.41	.86		4.49	.34	0-19	.83	.37	.79		2.95	.19	0-15	.72	.24	.64
Planful control (-)	11	7.16	.38	0-18	.88	.55	.79		3.52	.26	0-18	.80	.40	.71		2.62	.15	0-11	.70	.40	.46
Problematic impulsivity	7	11.97	.50	0-21	.85	.44	.86		2.64	.27	0-16	.82	.39	.75		1.38	.13	0-12	.70	.25	.75
Rebelliousness	6	8.89	.44	0-18	.88	.56	.78		3.19	.26	0-17	.84	.46	.85		1.62	.15	0-12	.79	.39	.77
Theft	8	10.74	.68	0-24	.89	.50	.94		2.21	.27	0-18	.78	.30	.76		.68	.10	0-12	.50^a	.12	.43

Note. Reversed-keyed subscales are indicated by a minus sign in parentheses following the subscale labels. M_r= average inter-item correlation.

^a One item deleted from subscale due to zero variance.

Table 2. Fit statistics for confirmatory factor models for subsamples and the full sample.

	AIC	SABIC	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1-factor (K = 44)
Patients (n = 149)	20132.773	20264.947	.45	.40	.191	.156
Community (n = 178)	20227.659	20228.315	.68	.64	.152	.092
Undergraduates (n = 227)	21682.256	21693.505	.60	.56	.129	.108
Full sample (N = 554)	67394.022	67444.302	.72	.69	.157	.086
3-factor (K = 43)
Patients (n = 149)	18209.846	18202.932	.62	.57	.169	.147
Community (n = 178)	18552.765	18553.406	.75	.71	.141	.085
Undergraduates (n = 227)	19809.071	19820.065	.76	.73	.105	.086
Full sample (N = 554)	61656.924	61706.061	.79	.76	.145	.080
Bifactor 2 specific factors (K = 69)
Patient (n = 149)	20425.792	20414.698	.71	.64	.143	.117
Community (n = 178)	20807.732	21027.275	.78	.73	.129	.068
Undergraduates (n = 227)	22365.097	22382.739	.80	.75	.094	.070
Full sample (N = 554)	20155.074	20233.922	.83	.79	.126	.060

Note. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; CFI = Comparable Fit Index; K = number of free parameters; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SABIC = Sample-size adjusted Bayesian; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Robust Maximum Likelihood estimates for the 1-, 3- and bifactor model: Full sample: RMSEA CI 90%= .94 to .102; SMSR-.060; CFI=.84; TLI=.80; Patients: RMSEA CI 90%=.123 to .143; SMSR= .117; CFI=.71; TLI=.65; Community: RMSEA CI 90%=.095-.111; SMSR=.068; CFI=.80; TLI=.75; Student: RMSEA CI 90%=.070 to .093; SMSR=.070; CFI=.83; TLI=.79.

Table 3. Results of the Minimum rank factor analysis of the Dutch Externalizing Spectrum inventory per subsample.

	ECV real data				Mean ECV random data				95th percentile ECV random data				Eigenvalue
Factor	C	P	U	F	C	P	U	F	C	P	U	F	C	P	U	F
1	51.1	35.9	39.0	57.7	11.0	12.8	11.0	11.7	12.2	14.2	12.2	13.4	10.17	7.53	6.98	11.41
2	8.7	18.2	13.9	9.0	10.1	11.6	10.1	11.0	10.9	12.7	11.1	12.4	1.86	3.34	2.58	1.69
3	7.4	12.2	7.1	6.5	9.3	10.6	9.4	10.4	10.0	11.5	10.2	11.6	1.65	2.43	1.46	1.18
4	6.3	7.9	6.2	5.2	8.7	9.8	8.8	9.6	9.3	10.5	9.5	10.7	1.37	1.51	1.27	0.95
5	5.0	5.9	5.5	4.1	8.0	8.9	8.2	8.8	8.6	9.6	8.8	9.9	1.13	1.25	1.17	0.77
6	3.6	5.0	4.7	3.5	7.4	8.1	7.5	7.9	8.0	8.7	8.1	9.1	0.79	1.05	1.09	0.65
7	3.0	3.1	3.6	2.7	6.9	7.3	6.9	7.0	7.3	7.9	7.4	8.3	0.77	0.78	0.96	0.39
UniCo		–	–	.93
UniCo CI 95%		–	–	.91-.96
ECV		–	–	.87
ECV CI 95%		–	–	.85-.89
Schmid-Leiman
RMSR	–	.08	.06	–
RMSR CI 95%	–	.07-.08	.06-.06	–
Kelly’s criterion	–	.08	.07	–

Note. C = Community; P = Patients; U = Undergraduates; F = Full sample; UniCo = unidimensional congruence; ECV = explained common variance.

Table 4. Factor loadings per subsample.

	Full	Community	Patients				Undergraduates
Subscales	F1	F1	F1	F2	F3	G	F1	F2	G
1.Alcohol use	.34	.43	.05	.38	-.59	.18	-.05	.30	.46
2.Alcohol problems	.67	.77	-.20	. 39	-.37	.15	-.14	.33	.63
3.Marijuana use	.69	.67	.76	-.06	-.15	.41	-.14	.48	.69
4.Marijuana problems	.77	.79	.57	-.06	.17	.47	-.14	.39	.55
5.Drug use	.75	.68	.75	-.06	-.17	.38	-.11	.44	.65
6.Drug problems	.85	.81	.73	.01	-.10	.51	.04	.28	.48
7.Destructive aggression	.76	.79	.10	.09	.55	.55	.33	.03	.26
8.Physical aggression	.78	.57	.33	.14	.23	.60	.47	-.02	.27
9.Relational aggression	.78	.80	.10	.17	. 49	.62	.64	-.02	.36
10.Honesty(-)	.38	.52	-.06	-.14	.64	.18	.35	.03	.26
11.Empathy(-)	.49	.33	-.20	-.06	.77	.26	.32	.04	.26
12.Excitement Seeking	.72	.72	.19	.20	.26	.59	.42	.11	.45
13.Irresponsibillity	.89	.82	.53	.08	.08	.56	.58	.07	.48
14.Planful control(-)	.58	.43	-.31	.27	.28	.33	.54	-.09	.19
15.Problematic impulsivity	.89	.81	.27	.40	-.15	.67	.72	-.01	.43
16.Rebellious	.86	.78	.14	.35	.17	.70	.52	.09	.47
17.Alientation	.56	.43	-.14	.37	-.23	.26	.43	-.11	.09
18.Blame externalization	.65	.45	-.19	.35	.08	.40	.55	-.07	.23
19.Boredom proneness	.62	.68	.02	.39	-.09	.47	.46	.01	.31
20.Dependability(-)	.61	.57	-.11	-.04	.63	.27	.51	.06	.42
21.Fraud	.78	.76	.27	-.02	.47	.49	.53	-.02	.30
22.Impatient urgency	.64	.60	.08	.47	-.15	.62	.57	-.06	.26
23. Theft	.81	.61	.55	-.03	.24	.53	.29	.07	.29
Correlations factors
F1xF2	–	–	.44				.45
F2xF3	–	–	.33				–
F1xF3	–	–	.49				–

Note. Reversed-keyed subscales are indicated by a minus sign in parentheses following the subscale labels.

Table 5. Correlations of factor scores (Patrick et al., 2013) and self-report personality measures per subsample.

		Patients				Community				Undergraduates
	n	AGG	SUB	g	n	AGG	SUB	g	n	AGG	SUB	g
NEO	145				178				35
Neuroticism		.07	.08	.24		.33	.28	.49		−.09	−.00	−.05
Extraversion		−.13	.07	−.10		−.15	.01	−.17		.05	.11	.16
Openess		−.07	−.01	−.12		.16	.30	.24		.11	.05	.19
Agreeableness		−.38	−.01	−.30		−.59	−.28	−.57		−.37	.36	−.27
Conscientiousness		−.41	−.19	−.42		−.56	−.37	−.61		−.30	.16	−.63
AQ	142	.49	.17	.51	178	.65	.40	.66	227	.56	−.31	.57

Note. NEO = NEO-FFI; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire; AGG = Callous Aggression factor, according to Patrick et al. (2013); SUB = Substance Abuse factor, according to Patrick et al. (2013); g = general factor, according to Patrick et al. (2013).

Patrick, C. J., Kramer, M. D., Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2013). Optimizing efficiency of psychopathology assessment through quantitative modelling: Development of a brief form of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1332–1348.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar