TheAnger Readiness to Change Questionnaire (ARCQ; Williamson et al., 2003 ) measures readiness to change among
those identified as in need of intervention to manage problematic anger. The Transtheoretical Stages of Change
model ( Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984, 1986 ), one of the most influential models of behavior change, was originally
developed to describe the process of behavior change for addictive behavior, and postulates that individuals pass
through a series of stages involving a series of different processes when attempting to change their behavior.
The ARCQ scale is an adaptation of the Readiness to Change Questionnaire (RCQ; Heather & Rollnick, 1993)
designed to identify stages of change among problem drinkers. The 12-item measure incorporates the original RCQ
items modified to measure stages within the context of anger problems by changing the wording of each item from
alcohol to anger (e.g., ‘Sometimes I think I should try and control my anger’). The questionnaire has four items to
assess three stages of change; pre-contemplation, contemplation, and action. Responses are made on 5-point Likert-
type response scale scored from /C02 (strongly disagree) to 12 (strongly agree), with total scores for each scale calcu-
lated by summing the relevant item scores. Possible scores range from /C08t o18 on each scale. The authors recom-
mend a method of scoring (stage allocation) which classifies only participants with meaningful patterns of scores
over the three ARCQ scale scores. Patterns showing high (or low) scores on all three scales, or high scores on both
pre-contemplation and action but low on contemplation, represent non-meaningful patterns. An allocation to the
pre-contemplation stage, for example, will occur when a person scores a positive score on the pre-contemplation
scale, but a negative (or zero) score on both the contemplation and action scales. Some 418 adult male convicted
prisoners located in 16 different prisons in two states of Australia were recruited for a project evaluating anger man-
agement programs. The mean age of the sample was 28.75 years (range 518 to 62 years). Of the 411 participants
who indicated ethnicity, 266 (64.7%) classified themselves as Australian/New Zealander, 77 (18.7%) as Australian
Aboriginal, 40 (9.7%) as European, 10 (2.4%) as Asian, and 18 (4.4%) as other. The majority ( N5237) were single
(58.8%), with 123 married/defacto (30.5%), and the remainder (10.7%) divorced/widowed. Most were unskilled/
unemployed ( N5226, 58.7%), with 140 (36.4%) semi-skilled/tradesmen, and 19 professionals. Over half the sample
(N5223, 62.1%) reported current offences that included violence. Sentences being served ranged from 1 month to
26 years ( M550.0 months, SD559.0), with 137 (41.5%) first time offenders with mean number of previous offences
2.98 (ranging from 1 to 14 offences) among repeat offenders. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the pre-
contemplation scale was (.58), for the contemplation scale (.79), and for the action scale (.78). Internal consistency
was enhanced when pre-contemplation items were reverse coded ( α5.82). The semi-structured interview of treat-
ment readiness developed by Serin (1998) and Serin and Kennedy (1997) was adapted for use as a brief 11-item
questionnaire, named the Treatment Readiness Scale (TRS). Correlations between this measure and the pre-
contemplation, contemplation, and action subscales were /C0.33, .50, and .55 respectively.
Three factors corresponding to the pre-contemplation, contemplation, and action stages were reliably identi-
fied. However, a CFA also showed that two contemplation items were loaded moderately by both the contempla-
tion and action factors. The final measurement model resulted in the addition of two extra pathways from the
action latent variable to two contemplation items. This model showed an improved model fit ( χ2
(49)5266.4,
p,.001; GFI 50.91; NNFI 50.86). There was support for the hypothesis that treatment was more beneficial in
reducing anger when ARCQ scores were initially high; either high total scores or classification to higher stages
(i.e., contemplation, preparation, action). The interaction between group and readiness to change was tested using
moderated multiple regression. The variables combined explained a significant 4.1% of the variance in standard-
ized anger change scores (F (2,271)55.78, p5.004). Only readiness to change was a significant predictor of anger
change (readiness to change, β5/C0.20; group, β5/C0.02). The ARCQ may be a useful tool for selecting participants
for anger management programs. It may also help to identify when alternative interventions are required for
those who are less ready for anger management. Sample items include: ‘Controlling anger better would be point-
less for me’ (Pre-contemplation); ‘I’m entitled to get angry, but sometimes I go too far’ (Contemplation); ‘Anyone
can talk about wanting to do something about anger, but I am actually doing something about it’ (Action).
The Short Anger Measure (SAM; Gerace & Day, 2014) measures angry feelings and aggressive impulses. The
SAM is a 12-item self-report measure of angry feelings and aggressive impulses. Originally developed for use as
a brief measure of anger for use with adolescents identified as ‘at risk’, the SAM differs from trait measures of
anger in that it asks respondents to rate their anger over the last week. It is intended for use as brief measure
of anger for use in forensic populations which can be used for screening purposes before treatment is offered
and to measure change in anger over time. SAM items were selected to address the frequency of the experience
and of the expression of anger. Respondents are asked to answer on a 5-point Likert-type response scale from
‘Never’ to ‘Very often’ over the previous week. Sample items are ‘I felt angry’, ‘Something annoyed me and I
couldn’t get it out of my mind’, ‘I felt like I was ready to explode’, ‘Other people or things got on my nerves’.
Total scores on the SAM in the development study ranged from 12 to 58, with a mean score of 23.56 ( SD59.31).94 4. ANGER/HOSTILITY MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS