Cited by 203Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

UTILITY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF ANGER REACTIONS-5 (DAR-5) SCALE AS A BRIEF ANGER MEASURE: Research Article: Utility of DAR-5

Forbes, David, Alkemade, Nathan, Mitchell, Damon, Elhai, Jon D., McHugh, Tony, Bates, Glen, Novaco, Raymond W., Bryant, Richard +1 more·2014·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anger is a common emotional sequel in the aftermath of traumatic experience. As it is associated with significant distress and influences recovery, anger requires routine screening and assessment. Most validated measures of anger are too lengthy for inclusion in self-report batteries or as screening tools. This study examines the psychometric properties of a shortened 5-item version of the Dimensions of Anger Reactions (DAR), an existing screening tool. METHODS: Responses to the DAR-5 were analysed from a sample of 486 college students with and without a history of trauma exposure. RESULTS: The DAR-5 demonstrated strong internal reliability and concurrent validity with the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor model of the DAR-5 for the trauma-exposed and nontrauma subsamples. A screening cut-off point of 12 on the DAR-5 successfully differentiated high and low scorers on STAXI-2 Trait Anger and PCL posttraumatic stress scores. Further discriminant validity was found with depression symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results support use of the DAR-5 for screening for anger when a short scale is required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.22148

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forbes, D., Alkemade, N., Mitchell, D., Elhai, J. D., McHugh, T., Bates, G., Novaco, R. W., Bryant, R., & Lewis, V.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of Toledo (US)
  • Austin Health (AU)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-06-25
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
166-173
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1899223624
Cited by
203
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
anger, trauma exposure, post-traumatic stress, screening tool, psychometric properties, internal consistency, concurrent validity, factor structure, university students, depression
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anger, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Ohio, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Students, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review