Adolescent Discouragement Indicator (Lingg, 1990)

Degree of attitudes towards and interest in initiating positive and cooperative dating and romantic relationships in children and adolescents, 15 item subscale, Ages 12-18

Populations: Adolescents; defined in validation as individuals 12-18 still in school and financially supported by parents.
Age ranges: 12-18
Languages: English
Countries: United States

Items

Building a romantic relationship is an important part of growing up.
Dating is a time to learn what I like in other people.
I am willing to cooperate in a long term relationship.
A long term relationship is in my future plans.
My good qualities contribute to the quality of a love relationship.
I am willing to make a commitment to a love relationship someday.
I share my thoughts with people I date.
My girlfriend/boyfriend and I do things with other people.
Dating allows me to discover things about myself.
Sharing my life with someone special is part of my present and/or future.
Spending time with members of the other sex is fun.
Dating someone special does not mean I am no longer a part of the family.
Dating interests me.
Dating is a time to meet new people.
For me, dating is worthwhile.

This sub-scale is part of a 75 item scale which measures Alderian discouragement in the context of work and school, friends and family, self, and the meaning of life.

Responses:

“Each item on the ADI has five possible response choices: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), undecided (U), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD).” (Lingg, 1990)

Scoring

“A response of strongly agree yields a score of one point and a response of strongly disagree yields five points. Scores are summed to yield a total discouragement score ranging from 75 to 375 points. Scale scores range from 15 to 75 points. Higher scores represent a greater degree of discouragement.” (Lingg, 1990)

Citations

Lingg, M. (1990). Adolescent Discouragement: Development of an Assessment Instrument [Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas]. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc332198/

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

Significant design input from young people
Cognitive interviews with young people
Expert input

Validity

Green: Face validity
Green: Convergent validity
Green: Construct validity

Reliability

Green: Internal consistency
Green: Test-retest

Ease of use

Green: Readability

Definitions

Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.

Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.

Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.

Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.

Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).

Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.

Key

Green: Meets validation criteria
Red: Does not meet validation criteria
Unknown: Evidence not available