reported that the NAS exhibited negli gible correlations (ranging from /C0.15 to .02) with the Personal
Incidents Record. Novaco (1994) reported that NAS-PI scores were pred ictive of STAS and staff ratings of
anger. Cornell et al. (1999) reported negative corre lations between the STAXI Anger Control and NAS
(/C0.46), and PI ( /C0.21), respectively. Hornsveld et al. (2011) reported negligible or negative correlations
between the NAS-PI and the Psychopathy Checklist-Rev ised (PCL-R). As further evidence of discriminant
validity, Hornsveld et al. (p. 941) noted the lack of significant correlations between the NAS-PI and PCL-R
t o t a ls c o r e ,a sw e l la san e g a t i v ec o r r e l a t i o n( /C0.29) between the NAS total score and PCL-R Interpersonal
scale, and ( /C0.25) between the PI total score and PCL-R Affect ive scale. The NAS-PI was found to discrimi-
nate between outpatients referred for anger management versus normal healthcare employees, as well
as between forensic psychiatric patients versus normal secondary school vocational students ( Hornsveld
et al., 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
As evidence of construct/factor analytic validity, Jones et al. (2003) , using the NAS-PI (1994 version), carried
out an exploratory factor analysis ( N5566) that produced three factors, but these did not line up with those
Novaco (1994) had suggested previously. Monahan et al. (2001) undertook an exploratory factor analysis
(N51101) that failed to produce the expected factor structure. Novaco (2003) reported the results of an explor-
atory factor analysis based on the national standardization sample ( N51546) which also failed to find the
expected factor structure. Lindqvist et al. (2003) (NAS-PI, 1998 version; N5100) also failed to find the factor
structure claimed by Novaco (1994) .Hornsveld et al. (2011) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the
combined patient sample ( N5336) but could not find support for Novaco’s (1994) proposed three subscale
structure ( χ2/df52.38, GFI 5.73, CFI 5.78, RMSEA 5.06). Hornsveld et al. also carried out a CFA on the stu-
dent sample ( N5320) but again failed to confirm the three subscales ( χ2/df51.93, GFI 5.76, CFI 5.73,
RMSEA 5.05). Thus, the putative tripartite structure of the NAS (cognitive, behavioral, and arousal factors)
could not be confirmed.
Criterion/Predictive
As evidence of criterion/predictive validity, Novaco (1994) reported that the NAS significantly predicts mea-
sures of aggressive behavior from hospital records and staff ratings as well as predicting the number of convic-
tions for violent crimes ( Cornell et al., 1999 ). Likewise, Doyle and Dolan (2006) reported that among 112 violent
offenders ( M540 years, SD511.5) whom had been released into the general community, measures of risk
including the NAS significantly predicted future violent episodes.
Location
Novaco, R.W. (2003). The Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory: Manual . Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
www.wpspublish.com/store/p/2878/novaco-anger-scale-and-provocation-inventory-nas-pi#sthash.ym5GnyME.
dpuf (Retrieved January 17, 2014).
Results and Comments
The NAS-PI appears to provide a useful measure of affective, cognitive, and behavioral components of
anger/hostility/aggression. Nonetheless, most f actor analytic studies have failed to find support for
Novaco’s (1994) proposed three subscale structure. Even Novaco’s (2003) own factor analysis using the
large national stand ardization sample ( N51646) failed to confirm the purported three-dimensional struc-
ture. We can only conclude that, despite the great po pularity of the NAS-PI, its construct validity remains
in doubt.
NAS-PI SAMPLE ITEMS
Scale Sample items
Part A ‘Every week I meet someone I dislike’
‘When I get angry, I get really angry’
‘I can walk away from an argument’86 4. ANGER/HOSTILITY MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS