Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory

Last Updated

October 15, 2024

Purpose

The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) is a 75-item true-false self-report used to measure hostility and aggression and to estimate the intensity of various subclasses of hostility.

Link to Instrument

Acronym BDHI

Area of Assessment

Behavior
Negative Affect
Personality

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Cost Description

Access to the inventory via the original article (1957) requires a library subscription. A kit for the updated Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire (2000) that includes 25 autoscore answer forms is $189.
entity.

CDE Status

None--last searched 5/9/2023.

Non-Specific Patient Population

Mixed Populations

75 true-false items
8 subscales: Assault, Indirect Hostility, Irritability, Negativism, Resentment, Suspicion, Verbal Hostility, and Guilt
Total scores range from 0-75
? Subscores range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 5-9
? Higher scores reflect more hostility
The Buss-Perry, and subsequently, the Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire were built off of the BDHI, and were published in 1992 and 2000, respectively, due to issues with reliability in the BDHI. The Aggression Questionnaire is a full revision of the BDHI and contains 34 items scored on the following scales: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, Hostility, and Indirect Aggression.

Number of Items

75 (Buss-Durkee, 1957)
34 (Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire, 2000)

Paper and pencil

10 minutes

Required Training

Training Course

Required Training Description

The original study published in 1957 does not specify a training requirement. The updated Buss-Warren Aggression Questionnaire inventory (2000) requires administrators to have a Qualification Level C: Bachelor��s degree in psychology or a related field plus additional training, or a Master��s degree or above in psychology, social work, school counseling, speech-language pathology, special education, or related field that provides appropriate training in administration and interpretation of psychological tests.

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Mark Siebert, Kyle Egerdahl, and Alex Mischler, rehabilitation psychology students under the direction of Timothy Tansey, PhD, Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education Dept., School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Kevin Fearn, MS, Shirley Ryan ��ͷ��app

ICF Domain

Activity

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Professional Association Recommendation

None--last searched 5/9/2023.

Considerations

Dated (1957)
Limited reliability has led to updated version being published
Buss and Perry published a new Aggression Questionnaire in 1992
Buss & Warren published an updated Aggression Questionnaire in 2000 (see Last Update)
The Dutch Adaptation of the BDHI (BDHI-D) demonstrates satisfactory convergent and divergent validity within the subscales (Lange, et al., 1995)

Normative Data

University students: (Biaggio, 1980; n = 150; male = 72; student volunteers receiving extra credit for an Introductory Psychology class)

Mean Scores (Std. Dev) for Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) Scales

BDHI Scale	Male (n = 72)	Female (n = 78)	Total (n =150)
Total**	31.42 (10.31)	25.78 (8.76)	28.49 (9.91)
Assault**	5.26 (2.45)	2.65 (1.73)	4.02 (2.50)
Indirect	5.25 (2.08)	4.79(2.01)	5.01 (2.05)
Irritability	5.94 (2.35)	5.45 (2.37)	5.68 (2.37)
Negativism	2.42 (1.20)	2.44 (1.18)	2.43 (1.19)
Resentment**	3.59 (1.65)	2.49 (1.40)	3.00 (1.61)
Suspicion	3.65 (2.17)	3.43 (2.16)	3.54 (2.16)
Verbal*	6.89 (2.83)	5.95 (2.57)	6.40 (2.73)
Guilt	4.64 (2.16)	4.97 (1.87)	4.82 (2.01)

*Sex difference significant at p < 0.05.

**Sex difference significant at p < 0.01.

Non-specific Patient Population: (Bishop & Quah, 1998; n = 169 (Chinese, n = 81; Indian, n = 33; Malay, n = 52; Other, n = 3))

Mean Scores for Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) Scales

BDHI Scale	Male (n = 68)	Female (n = 101)	Total (n = 169)
Total	31.35	31.71	31.56
Assault	3.72	3.40	3.53
Indirect*	4.28	5.41	4.96
Irritability	4.93	5.56	5.31
Negativism	2.90	3.19	3.07
Resentment*	4.28	3.45	3.78
Suspicion	4.59	4.04	4.26
Verbal	6.65	6.68	6.67

*Male and female mean scores significantly different at p < 0.05; male/female differences for Total and all other scales not significantly different at p < 0.05.

Test/Retest Reliability

Non-Specific Patient Population: (Bishop & Quah, 1998; n = 169; Persons of Chinese (n = 81), Indian (n = 33), Malay (n = 52), and Other (n = 3) descent)

Poor test-retest reliability for the BDHI Total (ICC = 0.64, p < 0.001, n = 30)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Assault subscale (ICC = 0.66, p < 0.001)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Indirect subscale (ICC = 0.53, p < 0.01)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Irritability subscale (ICC = 0.57, p < 0.001)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Negativism subscale (ICC = 0.41, p < 0.05)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Resentment subscale (ICC = 0.64, p < 0.001)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Suspicion subscale (ICC = 0.69, p < 0.001)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Verbal subscale (ICC = 0.60, p < 0.001)
Acceptable test-retest reliability for Female Total (n = 13): (ICC = 0.80)
- Acceptable test-retest reliability for female subscales: Irritability (ICC = 0.80), Resentment (0.80), and Suspicion (0.89)
Poor test-retest reliability for Male Total (n = 17): (ICC = 0.47)
- Acceptable test-retest reliability for males on Assault subscale (ICC = 0.71)
- Poor test-retest reliability for males on all other subscales (ICC's = 0.30 to 0.57)

University students: (Biaggio et al., 1981; n = 60 (32 female) university student volunteers from an Introductory Psychology class; subjects administered four anger scales: Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), Reaction Inventory (RI), Anger Self-Report (ASR), and Anger Inventory (NI))

Acceptable test-retest reliability for the BDHI Total (ICC = 0.82, p = 0.00)
- Acceptable test-retest reliability for the Assault subscale (ICC = 0.78, p = 0.00)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Indirect subscale (ICC = 0.68, p = 0.00)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Irritability subscale (ICC = 0.64, p = 0.00)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Negativism subscale (ICC = 0.64, p = 0.00)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Resentment subscale (ICC = 0.66, p = 0.00)
- Poor test-retest reliability for the Suspicion subscale (ICC = 0.68, p = 0.00)
- Acceptable test-retest reliability for the Verbal subscale (ICC = 0.77, p = 0.00)
- Acceptable test-retest reliability for the Guilt subscale (ICC = 0.72, p = 0.00)

Internal Consistency

Non-specific Patient Population: (Bishop & Quah, 1998)

Excellent: Cronbach��s alpha for Total scale = 0.85
Adequate: Cronbach��s alpha for Assault subscale = 0.72
Poor: Cronbach��s alpha for all other subscales:
- Indirect (�� = 0.49)
- Irritability (�� = 0.53)
- Negativism (�� = 0.50)
- Resentment (�� = 0.67)
- Suspicion (�� = 0.64)
- Verbal (�� = 0.50)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive validity:

University students: (Biaggio et al., 1981)

Poor predictive validity of BDHI Total with Verbal Antagonism Self-Report Variable (r = 0.25, p < 0.05)
- Poor to Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Assault subscale with Self-Report Variables: Constructive Action variables (r = -0.27, p <0.05 and r = -0.31, p < 0.01) and Physical Antagonism variables (r = 0.27, p < 0.05 for both)
- Poor to Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Indirect subscale with Self-Report Variables for Constructive Action (r = -0.27, p <0.05 for each of two variables and r = -0.35, p < 0.01 for another)
- Poor to Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Irritability subscale with Self-Report Variables for Constructive Action (r = -0.24 and r = -0.30, p < 0.05 for two variables and r = -0.31, p < 0.01 for another)
- Poor to Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Negativism subscale with Self-Report Variables: Constructive Action variables (r = -0.38, p < 0.01 and r = -0.24, p < 0.05) and Physical Antagonism variables (r = 0.30, p < 0.01 and r = 0.24, p < 0.05)
- Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Resentment subscale with Self-Report variable for Verbal Antagonism (r = 0.31, p < 0.01)
- Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Verbal subscale with Self-Report variable for Constructive Action (r = -0.35, p < 0.01)
- Poor predictive validity of BDHI Guilt subscale with Self-Report variables for Constructive Action (r = -0.24, p < 0.05 and r = -0.28, p < 0.05)
Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Total with Personal Incidents Record (PIR) Guilt Over Anger (r = -0.31, p < 0.05) and Condemnation of Anger (r = -0.38, p < 0.01)
- Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Assault subscale with PIR Condemnation of Anger (r = -0.31, p < 0.01)
- Poor predictive validity of BDHI Assault subscale with PIR Verbal Expression (r = 0.23, p < 0.05), Physical Expression (r = 0.26, p < 0.05), and Guilt Over Anger (r = -0.28, p < 0.05)
- Poor predictive validity of BDHI Indirect subscale with PIR Guilt Over Anger (r = -0.23, p < 0.05)
- Poor predictive validity of BDHI Irritability subscale with PIR Indirect Expression (r = -0.24, p < 0.05) and Condemnation of Anger (r = -0.30, p < 0.05)
- Adequate predictive validity of BDHI Verbal subscale with PIR Verbal Expression (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and Condemnation of Anger (r = -0.45, p < 0.01)
- Poor predictive validity of BDHI Verbal subscale with PIR Guilt Over Anger (r = -0.29, p < 0.05)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

University students: (Biaggio, 1980)

Excellent convergent validity between BDHI Total Hostility and Anger Self-Report (ASR) Total Expression (r = 0.64, p <0.01)
Excellent convergent validity (all p < 0.01) between BDHI Total Hostility and ASR Verbal Aggression (r = 0.61); BDHI Verbal Hostility and ASR Total Expression (r = 0.69); BDHI Assault and ASR Physical Expression (r = 0.78); BDHI Verbal Hostility and ASR Verbal Expression (r = 0.72); and BDHI Total Expression and ASR Awareness of Danger (r = 0.66)
Adequate convergent validity (all p < 0.01) between BDHI Total Hostility and ASR General Expression (r = 0.50); BDHI Total Hostility and ASR Physical Aggression (r = 0.53); BDHI Assault and ASR Total Expression (r = 0.59); BHDI Assault (r = 0.42), Indirect Hostility (r = 0.45), Irritability (r = 0.47), and Verbal Expression (r = 0.46) and ASR Awareness of Danger; and BDHI Suspicion and ASR Mistrust (r = 0.45)
Poor convergent validity (all p < 0.01) between BDHI Negativism (r = 0.28) and Resentment (r = 0.36) with ASR Awareness of Danger
Poor convergent validity (p < 0.01) between BDHI Guilt and ASR Guilt (r = 0.29)

University students: (Biaggio et al., 1981)

Poor correlation between BDHI Total and Verbal Antagonism Self-Report Variable (r = 0.25, p < 0.05)
- Poor correlation between BDHI Assault and two conditions of Physical Antagonism Self-Report Variable (r = 0.27, p < 0.05)
- Poor correlation between BDHI Negativism and two conditions of Physical Antagonism Self-Report Variable (r = 0.24, p < 0.05 and r = 0.30, p < 0.01)
- Adequate correlation between BDHI Resentment and Verbal Antagonism Self-Report Variable (r = 0.31, p < 0.01)

Discriminate Validity

University students: (Biaggio et al., 1981)

Excellent correlation between BDHI Assault and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable IM2 (r = -0.27, p < 0.05)
Adequate correlation between BDHI Assault and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable RP1 (r = -0.31, p < 0.01)
Excellent correlation between BDHI Indirect and two conditions (IM2 & RP1) of Constructive Action Self-Report Variable (r = -0.27 for each, p < 0.05)
Adequate correlation between BDHI Indirect and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable RP2 (r = 0.35, p < 0.01)
Excellent correlation between BDHI Irritability and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable IM1 (r = -0.24, p < 0.05)
Adequate correlation between BDHI Irritability and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable IM2 (r = -0.31, p < 0.01)
Excellent correlation between BDHI Irritability and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable RP2 (r = -0.30, p < 0.05)
Excellent correlation between BDHI Negativism and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable RP1 (r = -0.24, p < 0.05)
Adequate correlation between BDHI Negativism and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable IM2 (r = -0.38, p < 0.01)
Adequate correlation between BDHI Verbal and Constructive Action Self-Report Variable IM2 (r = -0.35, p < 0.01)
Excellent correlation between BDHI Guilt and two Constructive Action Self-Report Variables (r = -0.24 and r = -0.28, p < 0.05)

Adolescents with Conduct Disorders: (Lange et al., 1995a; n = 67, all male; mean age = 16, age range = 13-19; subjects divided by staff and group leader ratings into Aggressive (n = 16, mean age = 16 (1.44)) and Not Aggressive (n = 33, mean age = 16 (1.40); Dutch translation of BDHI into BSHI-D)

Significantly higher scores for the aggressive group than for the non-aggressive group on the total BDHI-D and both the Overt aggression and Covert aggression scales.
A canonical discriminant function analysis revealed the complete BDHI-D correctly classified the subjects with 96% accuracy
- The discriminant analysis showed that the Covert Aggression items correctly classified the subjects with 84% accuracy, while the Overt Aggression items correctly classified 94%

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders: (Petterson et al., 2015; Based on meta-analysis with n = 964)

SEM for entire group (n = 964): 5.32

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders (Petterson et al., 2015; Based on meta-analysis with n = 1,062)

MCID = 1.64

Cut-Off Scores

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders (Petterson et al., 2015; Based on meta-analysis with n = 1,062)

Cut-off Scores for the BDHI Scale

BDHI Scale	Cut-off Score*
Total	37.11
Assault	6.32
Indirect hostility	6.46
Irritability	6.93
Negativism	3.58
Resentment	3.99
Suspicion	5.40
Verbal hostility	8.43

*Cut-off equals functional mean score plus 1 standard deviation (a score below the cut-off is functional)

Internal Consistency

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders: (Petterson et al., 2015; n = 120)

Excellent: Cronbach��s alpha for Total score from all offenders with complete item-level data on the BDHI, regardless of whether they also had recidivism data (�� = 0.87, n = 86), as well as using only the subset of offenders with recidivism data (�� = 0.84, n = 29)

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders: (Petterson et al., 2015; Based on meta-analysis with n = 1,062)

Excellent: Cronbach��s alpha for Total score = 0.80
Adequate: Cronbach��s alpha for Assault subscale = 0.73
Poor: Cronbach��s alpha for all other subscales:
- Indirect hostility (�� = 0.55)
- Irritability (�� = 0.62)
- Negativism (�� = 0.43)
- Resentment (�� = 0.63)
- Suspicion (�� = 0.67)
- Verbal hostility (�� = 0.54)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders: (Petterson et al., 2015; n = 120 participants with pre- and post treatment scores on the BDHI, as well as recidivism data.)

Significant prediction of sexual recidivism from post-treatment scores on the Assault (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.40, p < 0.05) and Verbal Hostility (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.49, p < 0.05) subscales.

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Adult male incarcerated sexual offenders: (Petterson et al., 2015; n = 120)

Poor convergent validity of the Negativism subscale with the estimated risk of sexual recidivism (Static-2002 scores) at pretreatment (r = 0.25, p < 0.05) and post-treatment (r = 0.22, p < 0.05)
Poor negative convergent validity between Assault (r = -0.24, p < 0.05) and Verbal Hostility (r = -0.26, p < 0.01) with prior sexual offense convictions

Mixed Populations: (Lange et al., 1995; n = 463 (302 first year psychology students, 59 dentistry students, 59 bank employees, and 43 nursing students), mean age = 23 (6), female = 270 and male = 189 (gender question not answered by 4 subjects); used two-factor solution (overt and covert aggression) indicated by exploratory factor analysis; Dutch translation of BDHI into BDHI-D)

Correlations of the BDHI-D scales with other factors (n = 38 nursing students)

Other Factor	Covert Aggression (19 items)	Overt Aggression (16 items)	Total Score (35 items)
Anxiety¹	0.58^a	-0.07	0.32
Agoraphobia¹	0.45^b	-0.21	0.13
Depression¹	0.52^a	0.15	0.43^b
Somatization¹	0.38^b	-0.06	0.20
Insufficiency¹	0.56^a	-0.10	0.29
Sensitivity¹	0.55^a	-0.30	0.13
Hostility¹	0.47^b	0.10	0.37
Sleeplessness¹	0.34	-0.05	0.18
Psychoneuroticism¹	0.64^a	-0.07	0.36
Hostility²	0.24	0.64^a	0.60^a
Bitterness²	0.54^a	0.24	0.51^a
Negativism³	0.29	0.54^a	0.57^a
Extroversion³	-0.12	0.01	-0.07
Dominance⁴	-0.21	-0.08	-0.19
Social Desirability⁵	-0.37	-0.44^b	-0.55^a

^ap < 0.001; ^bp < 0.01

¹Subscale of the Symptom Checklist

²Scale from the Interpersonal Relations Questionnaire

³Scale from the Dutch Shortened MMPI

⁴Scale from the Dutch Personality Questionnaire

⁵Dutch version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

Bibliography

Biaggio, M. K. (1980). Assessment of Anger Arousal. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(3):289-298.

Biaggio M. K., Supplee, K., & Curtis, N. (1981) Reliability and validity of four anger scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45(6):639-48. PubMed PMID:7310621.

Bishop, G. D., & Quah,S.-H. (1998). Reliability and validity of measures of anger/hostility in singapore: Cook & Medley Ho Scale, STAXI and Buss-Durkee hostility inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(6),867�C878. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00024-5

Lange, A., Dehghani, B., & De Beurs, E. (1995a). Validation of the Dutch adaptation of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 33(2), 229�C233. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00044-k

Lange, A., Pahlich, A., Sarucco, M., Smits, G., Dehghani, B., & Hanewald, G. (1995b). Psychometric characteristics and validity of the Dutchadaptation of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (the BDHI-D). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(2),223�C227. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00043-j

Pettersen, C., Nunes, K., Woods, M., Maimone, S., Hermann, C., Looman, J., & Spape,J. (2015). Does Change in Hostility PredictSexual Recidivism? International Journal of Offender Therapy and ComparativeCriminology, 59 (6), 565-587.

��ͷ��app

Last Updated

Purpose

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Cost Description

CDE Status

Number of Items

Required Training

Required Training Description

Instrument Reviewers

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Considerations

Normative Data

Test/Retest Reliability

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID)

Cut-Off Scores

Internal Consistency

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Construct Validity

Bibliography

Leicester Cough Questionna...

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

Home and Community Environ...