Validity and Higher Order Factor Structure of the

Validity and Higher Order Factor Structure of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised University at Buffalo State University of New York a. Psychology Matthew D. a Scalco , Craig R. a Colder , Department, State University of New York at Buffalo BACKGROUND & Liliana J. b. Psychology b Lengua University at Buffalo State University of New York Department, University of Washington Aim 3: CFA Replication in Independent Sample RESULTS X 2 difference df Measurement invariance Table Equal Forms vs. Equal Factor Loadings (Equal Metric) The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ) parent report-version includes 10 subscales that form four higher-order factors (see Ellis & Rothbart 2001 & Rothbart & Bates, 2006): Effortful Control X Inhibitory control Activational Control Attention Surgency Shyness Affiliation Fear Frustration Depression Aggression Surgency Negative Affect Affiliation X Effortful Control = inhibition, attention, and goal directed behavior. Surgency = sensitivity to reward, sensation seeking, social approach X X X Negative affect = predisposition to experience emotional distress such as sadness, anger, and frustration. X X X Affiliation = peer closeness and affection Although prior work has provided some support for this structure (see Ellis & Rothsbart, 2001; Ellis, 2002; Rothbart & Bates, 2006; Kim, Brody, & Murray, 2003), this work has several limitations. First, items within subscale are heterogeneous. • Items assessing “fear” reflect aspects of Anxiety (“Worries about our family when s/he is not with us” “Worries he/she will get into trouble”), Fear (“Feels scared when entering a darkened room at night”), and nervousness (“Is nervous being home alone”), constructs generally considered forms of negative affect and not indicators of Surgency (reward sensitivity, approach oriented behavior). • Items assessing affiliation reflect aspects of social functioning such as peer closeness (“Wants to have close relationships with other people”) and expression of affect when with peers (”Enjoys exchanging hugs with people she likes” and “Likes to be able to share his/her private thoughts with someone else”). Given the overlap in social approach behavior and Surgency, it is also possible that affiliation is an indicator of Surgency and not a stand alone factor. • Finally, the aggression and depression subscales were originally written to assess problem behavior (Ellis & Rothsbart, 2001), and hence incorporating them into higher-order temperament dimensions creates a fuzzy boundary between temperament and problem behavior. Aim 1: EFA results W 1 -W 3 Parallel Analysis, KGR, Scree Plot, and incremental variance based on eigenvalues from the full correlation matrix all suggested a 3 factor solution at each wave of data. Accordingly, Principal Factor analysis (PFA) specified a 3 factor solution. Table 1: PFA 3 Factor Results W 1 -W 3 Wave 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality fear -0. 15 0. 10 0. 57 0. 37 frustration -0. 50 0. 08 0. 26 0. 33 surgency -0. 15 0. 37 -0. 41 0. 31 shyness 0. 02 -0. 46 -0. 04 0. 21 affiliation 0. 14 0. 50 -0. 01 0. 30 attention 0. 77 0. 10 -0. 01 0. 64 inhibition 0. 70 -0. 13 -0. 01 0. 47 activational 0. 74 0. 17 0. 08 0. 61 Aim 1: Test cross-sectional factor structure of the 8 EATQ subscales written to assess temperament across 3 waves of data using a large community sample of early adolescents (N = 387) who were 11 -12 at W 1. We predicted that affiliation would load onto surgency, while fear and frustration would form a negative affect factor. The remaining scales were expected to load consist with the structure found by Ellis & Rothbart, 2001 (see Table above). Aim 2: Test validity of the subscales and higher order structure at each wave. Well established measures of problem behavior (parent and child report) and social functioning, as well as behavioral tasks assessing executive functioning and sensitivity to punishment and reward will be correlated with the subscales and higher-order factors. Aim 3: Test the higher order structure and test for measurement invariance using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in an independent sample (N = 378) of similarly aged adolescents who were also assessed for 3 waves. Hypotheses were that the factor structure would be invariant across and replicate across independent samples. METHOD Participants were drawn from two three wave longitudinal studies designed to test risk and protective factors for adolescent SU. Inclusion criteria were a 10 to 12 year-old child at the time of recruitment with no language or physical disabilities that would preclude participation. The community samples included 387 (Sample 1) and 378 families (Sample 2). Children were 11 -13 years old (M = 11. 6, SD =. 55; 55% female) and 10 -13 years old (M = 11. 1, SD =. 85; 52% female) at the first assessment for Sample 1 and 2, respectively. Subsequent assessments occurred annually. Attrition rate by W 3 was 6. 5% and completers vs. non-completers did not differ on any demographic or study variables. Measures Reporter Measure Citations General Anxiety Adolescent, Parent YSR, CBCL Lengua et al. , 2001 Anxious OCD Adolescent, Parent YSR, CBCL Lengua et al. , 2001 Depression Adolescent, Parent YSR, CBCL Lengua et al. , 2001 Social Anxiety Adolescent SASC-R La. Greca, 1999 Conduct Disorder Adolescent, Parent YSR, CBCL & DBD Lengua et al. , 2001 Oppositional Defiant Adolescent, Parent YSR, CBCL & DBD Lengua et al. , 2001 ADHD Parent CBCL & DBD Achenabach & Rescorla, 2001 Peer Victimization Adolescent PVS Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996 Behavioral Activation System Parent SPSRQ Colder et al. , 2011 Behavioral Inhibition System Parent SPSRQ Colder et al. , 2011 Flight-Freeze System Parent SPSRQ Colder et al. , 2011 Behavioral Inhibition Adolescent Stop Signal Reaction Time Logan & Cowen, 1984 Sensitivity to Reward Adolescent Point Scoring Reaction Time Task Colder et al. , 2011 Sensitivity to Punishment Adolescent Point Scoring Reaction Time Task Colder et al. , 2011 Tower of London Adolescent Initial Think Time Shallice (1982) Wisconsin Card Sorting Task Adolescent Perseveration Errors Heaton et al. , (1993) 1. 3 factors were consistent with Effortful Control (EC), Surgency (SUR), and Negative Affect (NA) as hypothesized A. Frustration had moderate cross loading on EC, but the loading was smaller than subscales intended to measure EC B. Affiliation had a similarly sized loading on SUR as both the surgency and shyness subscales C. Fear did not cross-load on the SUR factor Wave 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality fear -0. 00 -0. 10 0. 54 0. 31 frustration -0. 38 0. 01 0. 41 0. 38 surgency -0. 19 0. 51 -0. 18 0. 28 shyness 0. 02 0. 61 -0. 07 0. 38 affiliation 0. 26 0. 51 0. 14 0. 38 attention 0. 82 0. 07 0. 01 0. 69 inhibition 0. 67 -0. 13 -0. 21 0. 54 activational 0. 78 0. 02 0. 08 0. 60 Second, research testing the second order structure and validity have been limited to small samples (N < 200) and cross-sectional designs. Aims and Study Hypotheses Aim 1: PFA Summary 2. The EC factor explained the most variance in it’s respective indicators 3. Additional Analyses: A. When the depression and aggression subscales were added to the PCA and PFA, structural results reported here were the same. That is, fear continued to load on the NA factor with frustration, depression, and aggression B. Affiliation still loaded on SUR Wave 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality fear -0. 07 0. 55 0. 33 frustration -0. 48 0. 02 0. 33 0. 40 surgency -0. 16 0. 56 -0. 17 0. 36 shyness 0. 02 0. 64 -0. 10 0. 44 affiliation 0. 16 0. 51 0. 20 0. 31 attention 0. 78 0. 09 -0. 01 0. 64 inhibition 0. 66 -0. 15 -0. 18 0. 52 activational 0. 74 0. 06 0. 14 0. 53 4. Conclusions A. A 3 factor solution was retained such that fear and frustration loaded on NA, surgency, shyness, and affiliaiton loaded on SUR, and attention, inhibitory control, and activational control loaded on EC. Aim 2: Nomological Net of 3 Factor Results W 1 -W 3 Table 2: Correlation Coefficients for Nomological Net at Subscale and Higher Order levels (W 1 -W 3) Intern Extern ANX W 1 atten W 1 inhib W 1 actct W 1 fear W 1 frust W 1 surge W 1 shy W 1 affil -0. 13 -0. 14 0. 11 0. 09 -0. 06 0. 10 -0. 01 -0. 23 -0. 39 -0. 32 0. 04 0. 21 0. 09 0. 03 -0. 08 -0. 24 -0. 18 -0. 15 0. 43 0. 30 -0. 27 0. 02 -0. 09 ANX- Atten. OCD tion -0. 23 -0. 25 -0. 14 0. 27 0. 43 -0. 14 -0. 09 W 2 atten W 2 inhib W 2 actct W 2 fear W 2 frust W 2 surge W 2 shy W 2 affil -0. 11 -0. 08 0. 12 -0. 09 -0. 24 -0. 23 -0. 28 -0. 06 0. 20 0. 08 -0. 20 -0. 15 -0. 11 0. 45 0. 38 -0. 23 -0. 04 -0. 19 -0. 25 -0. 11 0. 25 0. 41 0. 04 -0. 07 -0. 06 W 3 atten W 3 inhib W 3 actct W 3 fear W 3 frust W 3 surge W 3 shy W 3 affil -0. 17 -0. 15 -0. 06 0. 18 -0. 06 -0. 09 -0. 08 -0. 28 -0. 36 -0. 27 0. 04 0. 26 0. 11 0. 14 -0. 09 -0. 17 -0. 21 -0. 11 0. 37 0. 38 -0. 16 -0. 24 -0. 05 -0. 26 -0. 35 -0. 13 0. 30 0. 46 0. 08 -0. 09 0. 02 -0. 75 -0. 58 -0. 68 0. 14 0. 39 0. 09 -0. 02 -0. 15 CD DEP c. ANX ODD c. ANX OCD -0. 33 -0. 43 -0. 36 0. 09 0. 45 0. 04 -0. 27 -0. 39 -0. 32 -0. 33 0. 21 0. 43 -0. 11 0. 05 -0. 14 -0. 35 -0. 41 0. 15 0. 51 0. 03 0. 02 -0. 21 Social Exclusion Condition -0. 10 -0. 12 -0. 11 0. 10 0. 06 -0. 01 0. 07 0. 03 -0. 11 -0. 15 0. 03 0. 04 0. 01 -0. 02 c. CD SOCRewres Impfun Drive Fear c. DEP c. ODD ANX c. PVIC BAS BAS FFFS ANX (BIS) Puberty SR SP -0. 24 -0. 31 0. 06 0. 20 0. 05 0. 01 -0. 08 -0. 19 -0. 24 -0. 25 0. 05 0. 14 0. 06 -0. 03 -0. 25 -0. 13 -0. 19 0. 43 0. 35 -0. 22 0. 07 -0. 04 0. 03 -0. 12 0. 03 0. 00 0. 07 -0. 01 0. 03 0. 07 -0. 14 -0. 08 -0. 02 0. 07 -0. 06 0. 03 0. 02 -0. 06 -0. 07 -0. 04 -0. 01 0. 04 0. 00 0. 02 -0. 17 -0. 18 -0. 14 0. 03 0. 04 -0. 03 0. 08 - - -0. 14 -0. 30 -0. 22 0. 03 0. 17 0. 05 0. 02 -0. 10 -0. 07 -0. 05 -0. 03 0. 12 0. 11 -0. 04 0. 08 0. 01 -0. 17 -0. 28 -0. 15 0. 09 0. 18 0. 05 0. 07 0. 00 -0. 14 -0. 27 -0. 12 0. 33 0. 23 -0. 14 0. 10 -0. 58 -0. 63 -0. 59 0. 11 0. 52 0. 20 0. 04 -0. 21 -0. 75 -0. 60 -0. 67 0. 13 0. 40 0. 12 -0. 02 -0. 20 -0. 33 -0. 40 0. 06 0. 44 0. 08 -0. 01 -0. 20 -0. 31 -0. 26 -0. 25 0. 24 0. 38 -0. 11 -0. 18 -0. 12 -0. 38 -0. 49 -0. 46 0. 10 0. 56 0. 10 0. 02 -0. 14 -0. 11 -0. 12 -0. 10 0. 07 0. 13 -0. 10 -0. 07 -0. 05 -0. 12 -0. 10 -0. 09 -0. 05 0. 06 0. 03 -0. 07 -0. 21 -0. 15 -0. 24 -0. 06 0. 17 0. 06 0. 03 -0. 07 -0. 19 -0. 22 -0. 17 0. 03 -0. 05 -0. 09 -0. 23 -0. 29 -0. 24 -0. 03 0. 19 0. 07 0. 08 -0. 13 -0. 09 -0. 08 -0. 04 0. 10 0. 12 -0. 16 -0. 17 -0. 08 -0. 23 -0. 22 -0. 18 0. 05 0. 13 0. 09 0. 04 0. 03 -0. 04 -0. 21 -0. 02 0. 12 0. 25 0. 30 0. 31 0. 30 -0. 54 -0. 59 -0. 56 0. 15 0. 49 0. 22 0. 15 -0. 10 -0. 73 -0. 56 -0. 61 0. 17 0. 43 0. 09 -0. 05 -0. 12 -0. 38 -0. 50 -0. 38 0. 09 0. 46 0. 08 -0. 06 -0. 14 -0. 32 -0. 33 -0. 22 0. 24 0. 45 -0. 07 -0. 22 -0. 14 -0. 37 -0. 46 -0. 35 0. 12 0. 55 0. 13 0. 01 -0. 09 -0. 17 -0. 14 -0. 05 0. 17 0. 20 -0. 02 -0. 01 -0. 05 -0. 17 -0. 16 -0. 10 0. 08 0. 19 0. 03 0. 10 -0. 03 -0. 29 -0. 32 -0. 27 0. 04 0. 22 0. 03 0. 05 -0. 14 -0. 24 -0. 16 0. 09 0. 20 0. 01 0. 00 -0. 08 -0. 23 -0. 32 -0. 22 0. 04 0. 27 0. 12 0. 14 -0. 07 -0. 09 0. 01 -0. 02 0. 15 -0. 08 -0. 17 -0. 09 -0. 21 -0. 16 -0. 14 0. 08 0. 13 0. 11 0. 07 -0. 04 -0. 14 -0. 32 -0. 09 0. 12 0. 29 0. 27 0. 36 0. 26 -0. 53 -0. 62 -0. 55 0. 16 0. 51 0. 27 0. 17 -0. 09 0. 02 -0. 23 -0. 02 -0. 09 0. 20 0. 46 -0. 02 0. 03 -0. 24 -0. 08 -0. 19 0. 28 0. 21 -0. 42 0. 23 -0. 29 Control Condition INHIB TOL WSCT -0. 04 -0. 24 -0. 02 -0. 06 0. 19 0. 46 0. 36 0. 09 -0. 23 -0. 04 -0. 15 0. 32 0. 24 -0. 39 -0. 75 -0. 38 -0. 24 -0. 18 -0. 17 0. 51 0. 42 -0. 21 -0. 26 -0. 03 0. 08 -0. 01 0. 05 -0. 02 0. 04 -0. 04 0. 02 0. 04 0. 06 0. 14 0. 11 0. 10 -0. 08 -0. 07 -0. 03 0. 10 -0. 04 -0. 01 0. 00 0. 03 0. 10 -0. 02 0. 01 -0. 15 -0. 09 -0. 14 0. 01 0. 00 0. 03 0. 14 0. 06 -0. 13 -0. 01 -0. 06 -0. 03 -0. 02 -0. 15 -0. 12 -0. 07 0. 04 0. 10 -0. 03 0. 00 -0. 08 -0. 06 -0. 21 -0. 09 -0. 03 0. 22 0. 37 0. 35 0. 10 -0. 26 -0. 08 -0. 15 0. 29 0. 22 -0. 40 -0. 78 -0. 33 -0. 27 -0. 25 -0. 12 0. 48 0. 43 -0. 20 0. 04 0. 06 -0. 04 0. 02 0. 00 0. 03 0. 07 0. 13 -0. 03 0. 07 0. 06 0. 02 -0. 01 -0. 08 -0. 05 -0. 06 -0. 15 -0. 09 0. 11 -0. 01 -0. 12 0. 00 0. 01 -0. 13 -0. 12 -0. 13 -0. 03 0. 04 0. 07 0. 02 -0. 05 0. 11 0. 13 0. 10 -0. 16 -0. 11 0. 00 0. 03 -0. 04 -0. 22 -0. 09 0. 12 0. 13 -0. 09 -0. 04 -0. 05 Control Condition Higher Order Factors W 1 efcon -0. 16 W 1 neg 0. 12 W 1 surg -0. 02 -0. 36 0. 16 0. 03 -0. 22 0. 45 -0. 23 0. 43 -0. 16 -0. 79 0. 33 -0. 04 -0. 43 0. 34 -0. 12 -0. 41 0. 40 -0. 15 -0. 46 0. 41 -0. 10 -0. 13 0. 10 0. 03 -0. 16 0. 04 0. 00 -0. 34 0. 16 -0. 01 -0. 27 0. 12 0. 03 -0. 25 0. 12 -0. 06 0. 14 0. 00 -0. 23 0. 17 0. 06 -0. 19 0. 28 0. 18 -0. 69 0. 40 0. 02 -0. 07 0. 34 -0. 21 0. 30 -0. 41 -0. 23 0. 48 -0. 16 -0. 01 0. 04 0. 05 -0. 10 0. 03 -0. 02 -0. 06 0. 02 0. 01 -0. 19 0. 04 0. 07 - - W 2 efcon -0. 11 W 2 neg 0. 12 W 2 surg -0. 08 -0. 30 0. 09 0. 01 -0. 18 0. 50 -0. 15 -0. 20 0. 41 0. 00 -0. 79 0. 33 -0. 03 -0. 43 0. 32 -0. 04 -0. 31 0. 38 -0. 12 -0. 51 0. 41 0. 00 -0. 13 0. 12 -0. 08 -0. 12 0. 01 -0. 02 -0. 24 0. 07 0. 01 -0. 22 0. 12 -0. 03 -0. 29 0. 10 0. 00 -0. 08 0. 14 -0. 12 -0. 24 0. 11 0. 07 -0. 09 0. 23 0. 29 -0. 65 0. 40 0. 08 -0. 10 0. 09 0. 33 -0. 17 0. 34 -0. 30 -0. 23 0. 57 -0. 11 0. 05 0. 02 -0. 02 0. 12 0. 01 -0. 05 -0. 02 0. 08 -0. 05 -0. 15 0. 03 0. 00 0. 08 -0. 04 -0. 13 0. 09 -0. 09 W 3 efcon -0. 14 W 3 neg 0. 21 W 3 surg -0. 07 -0. 35 0. 19 0. 03 -0. 18 0. 46 -0. 14 -0. 27 0. 47 0. 05 -0. 75 0. 37 0. 00 -0. 49 0. 35 0. 00 -0. 34 0. 43 -0. 11 -0. 46 0. 42 0. 04 -0. 14 0. 23 -0. 04 -0. 16 0. 17 -0. 01 -0. 35 0. 16 -0. 04 -0. 25 0. 18 -0. 02 -0. 30 0. 20 0. 05 -0. 05 0. 17 -0. 11 -0. 20 0. 13 0. 06 -0. 20 0. 26 0. 28 -0. 67 0. 42 0. 13 -0. 13 0. 12 0. 27 -0. 20 0. 32 -0. 41 -0. 24 0. 56 -0. 12 0. 02 0. 10 0. 04 0. 00 -0. 08 -0. 13 0. 06 -0. 08 -0. 15 0. 01 0. 04 0. 13 -0. 17 -0. 05 -0. 20 0. 15 -0. 09 Note. Intern = internalizing, extern = externalizing, ANX = general anxiety, ANX-OCD = anxiety obssessive compulsive disorder, CD = conduct disorder, DEP = depression, ODD = opposition defiant disorder, SOC-ANX = Social Anxiety, PVIC = peer victimization, rewres = Reward Responsiveness, impfun = Impulsivity Fun Seeking, BAS = Behavioral Activation System, FFFS = Fight Flight Freeze System, ANX (BIS) = Anxiety scale of the Behavioral Inhibition System, SR = Sensitivity to Reward, SP = Sensitivity to punishment, INHIB = Stop task inhibitory control, TOL = tower of London, WSCT = Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, W = wave, atten = attention, inhib = inhibitory control, actct = activational control, frust = frustration, surge = surgency, shy = shyness, affil = affiliation, efcon = effortful control, neg = negative affect, surg = surgency. p 7. 67 10 p=. 66 Equal Metric vs. Equal Intercepts (Equal Scalar) 139. 33 10 p<. 01 Equal Metric vs. Equal Error Variances 26. 01 Equal Metric vs. Partial Equal Error Variances (W 1 atten freed) Factor Loadings from Final Model: W 1 -3 NA SUR EC R 2 fear 0. 39 0. 15 16 p=. 054 frustration 0. 86 0. 74 12. 11 15 p=. 67 surgency Partial Equal Error Variances vs. Equal error auto-covariances 40. 11 16 p<. 01 0. 50 0. 25 Partial Equal Error Variances vs. Equal Factor Variances 6. 75 6 p=. 35 shyness 0. 84 0. 71 affiliation 0. 51 0. 26 Fit for Final CFA Model with Equal Metric, Partial Equal Error Variances, and Equal Factor Variances: X 2 = 498. 57 (df = 223), RMSEA =. 06 (90% CI =. 05 -. 06), CFI/TLI =. 96/. 95, SRMR =. 08 attention 0. 85 0. 72 inhibition 0. 67 0. 45 activation 0. 71 0. 55 Table 3: CFA Latent Factor Correlation Matrix 1. W 1 NA 2. W 1 SUR 3. W 1 EC 4. W 2 NA 5. W 2 SUR 6. W 2 EC 7. W 3 NA 8. W 3 SUR 9. W 3 EC 1. 1 -0. 21 -0. 47 0. 94 -0. 18 -0. 41 0. 77 -0. 14* -0. 37 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9. 1 0. 16 -0. 23 0. 87 0. 08* -0. 13* 0. 78 0. 12* 1 -0. 46 0. 12* 0. 85 -0. 40 0. 05* 0. 81 1 -0. 26 -0. 52 0. 87 -0. 17 -0. 45 1 0. 14* -0. 20 0. 84 0. 16 1 -0. 43 0. 03* 0. 88 1 -0. 17 -0. 48 1 0. 15 1 Note. All values are significant unless marked by *, in which case p >. 05. W = wave, NA = Negative Affect, SUR = Surgency, and EC = Effortful Control Aim 3: Summary of CFA Results 1. Model fit indices ranged from poor (X 2) to acceptable (SRMR, RMSEA) and good (CFI/TLI) 2. Metric Invariance over time was established for the structure although strong invariance (equal intercepts) was not supported. Partial Invariance was also established for the error variances and factor variances. 3. Stability correlations were large supporting test re-test reliability 1. Stability correlations lagged across two years were high (around. 8 for all constructs). 4. Correlations were small to moderate within wave across construct with Negative Affect and Effortful Control (EC) the largest (-. 47 to -. 52). This is likely due to frustration being forced to load on EC@0. 5. The pattern of stability and cross-construct correlations supports convergent and divergent validity for the factors CONCLUSIONS Structure of the Parent Report EATQ-R in Early Adolescence 1. As hypothesized, once scales written to assess problem behavior were removed, the factor structure of the EATQ changed. However, including these scales didn’t change the factor structure. 1. Fear and Frustration formed a negative affect factor 2. Affiliation loaded on the Surgency factor 3. Remaining structure was consistent with Ellis & Rothbart ( 2001) 2. As hypothesized, the structure was replicated using CFA in an independent sample 1. Fit was acceptable 2. Metric invariance in time was established but strong invariance was not supported 3. Stability correlations were large Validity of the Parent Report EATQ in Early Adolescence 1. Some of the EATQ-R subscales correlated with criterion variables as would be expected and the patterns were consistent across Parent and Child reported problem behavior with Child Report having smaller effects A. Attention correlated higher with attention problems than with CD and ODD while inhibitory control correlated higher with CD and ODD than with anxiety and depression. A. Both correlated with Inhibitory Control on the Stop Task and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task B. Frustration correlated with all problem behavior, BAS, FFFS, and BIS C. Affiliation was negatively related to CD, ODD, Depression, and FFFS and positively related to Reward Responsiveness (BAS) D. Correlations between Shyness and Social Anxiety, Shyness and Depression, and Shyness and FFFS were in the expected direction and their magnitude increased across the waves E. Surgency as a subscale correlated positively with BAS scales, especially Drive, and negatively with FFFS and BIS A. Fear correlated more strongly with BIS Anxiety than with the FFFS supporting the contention that the “fear” scale is a mix of anxiety, nervousness, and fear 2. The Higher Order Factors correlated consistently with some criterion variables. 1. EC had large correlations with attention problems and moderate correlations with CD, ODD, and Depression, and small correlations with anxiety, Inhibitory Control on the Stop Task, The Tower of London and The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. EC was negatively related to BAS scales. 2. NA was positively related to all problem behavior scales, FFFS, and BIS and had a smaller correlation with Reward Responsiveness (BAS) 3. Surgency was related positively to BAS scales and negatively to FFFS, BIS This research was supported by two grants from NIDA (R 01 DA 020171 and R 01 DA 019631) awarded to Craig Colder. The content of this poster is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA. Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew Scalco, B. A. , Psychology Department, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260. Email: mscalco@buffalo. edu