Measuring aggressiveness and anger, but not aggression? A response to the CAAS critique

Objectives: The Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale (CAAS) was developed to measure antecedents of aggression in sport. The critique attacks the CAAS on three points: (1) the definition of aggression in sport adopted, (2) the‘‘one size fits all’’ element in the thinking behind the scale’s development, (3) the nature of the CAAS Anger and Aggressiveness items. The objectives of this response is to address misunderstandings in the critique. Methods: We identified a number of false assumptions that undermine the validity of the critique and attempt to clarify our position with respect to the criticisms made. Results: (1) The CAAS is being criticised for a definition that it did not use. (2) We accepted that the CAAS may not be suitable for everyone in our limitations section and fully accept the limitations of any scale. We have since undertaken a large research project to establish whether the scale is valid across and within specific sports. (3) The fundamental misunderstanding inherent throughout the critique is that the CAAS was designed as a measure of aggression, rather than anger and aggressiveness, rendering the critique of its items redundant. Conclusions: The critique misrepresents the authors of the CAAS and fails to present a coherent argument against its use. We hope to clarify our position here. The evidence to date suggests that the CAAS is a valid measure of anger and aggressiveness in many sports and that these concepts reliably differentiate players who admit unsanctioned aggression from those who do not.

The development of a short scale measuring aggressiveness and anger in competitive athletes

Objectives: The study of aggression and anger in competitive sport relies on accurate and economical measurement via observation, interview and questionnaire. Unfortunately, extant questionnaires have been criticised for having poor validity, are not sport specific, or reflect mood states rather than trait qualities. Therefore, a measure of trait anger and aggressiveness in competitive athletes was developed. Method: A list of statements representing aggressiveness and anger was generated and distributed to competitive athletes from diverse sports. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses were used to verify the theoretically predicted factor structure. Correlations with an extant measure of aggression and anger were used to ascertain concurrent validity. Discriminant validity was tested by comparing males with females, and aggressive with non-aggressive footballers. Results: A 12-item scale (Competitive Aggressiveness and Anger Scale, CAAS) consisting of two subscales was derived using principal component factor analysis with oblimin rotation. Confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modelling confirmed the overall structure. Test-retest correlation, construct and discriminant validities were good, supporting the utility of the scale as a measure of athlete trait aggressiveness and anger. Conclusions: The CAAS appears to be a useful measure of athletic anger and aggressiveness. Its brevity and ability to discriminate aggressive from non-aggressive athletes should prove useful for future research concerning aggressive behaviour in competitive athletes. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.