Deviant Behavior Risk Scale Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- No
- More no than yes
- More yes than no
- Yes
- No
- Rather no than yes
- Rather yes than no
- Yes
- False
- More false than true
- More true than false
- True
Deviant Behavior Risk Scale Test - Description and methodology of the test
People examining patterns involving aggression, risk, conflict, loneliness, and well-being can use the Deviant Behavior Risk Scale Test as a structured self-report. Comparing its domains shows whether emotional reactions, risky choices, relationships, and everyday well-being point in similar or different directions. The questionnaire functions as a deviant behavior risk assessment without reducing those comparisons to a single trait.
What This Assessment Explores
The deviant behavior questionnaire presents seven scales:
- Risk of Aggressive Behavior (0-30) measures likelihood of harmful aggression; Low 0-10, Moderate 11-20, High 21-30.
- Risk of Disregarding Danger (0-30) measures willingness to ignore hazards; Low risk-taking 0-10, Moderate risk-taking 11-20, High risk-taking 21-30.
- Protest Risk (0-30) measures protest and conflict with the surrounding environment; Low 0-10, Moderate 11-20, High 21-30.
- Suicide Risk (0-30) measures suicidal thoughts and stress reactions; Low 0-10, Moderate 11-20, High 21-30.
- Risk of Socio-Psychological Isolation (0-30) measures loneliness and limited social contact; Low risk 0-10, Moderate risk 11-20, High risk 21-30.
- Psychological Climate Favorability (0-30) measures group relationships and developmental conditions; Unfavorable 0-10, Mixed/Moderate 11-20, Favorable 21-30.
- Well-Being and Health (0-30) measures physical comfort and health-promoting behavior; Low well-being 0-10, Moderate well-being 11-20, High well-being 21-30.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
The statements shown use four graded options, moving from No or False through two intermediate choices to Yes or True. Topics cover attitudes, emotions, routines, relationships, danger, and hopelessness, so answers are best grounded in recent experience, not an ideal self-image.
The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the Risks of Deviant Behavior instrument, associated with Damadaeva and Zhuravlev. Rasskazova and colleagues offer related evidence on psychological risk factors, although their adolescent inventory is not identical. Gottfredson and Hirschi's self-control framework provides a theoretical lens, not validation for these scores.
Scoring uses seven 0-30 domains with named bands. Because the per-answer conversion rule is unstated, interpret the displayed band rather than infer weighting. These patterns help interpret deviant behavior test results: higher values on risk scales indicate more pronounced risk, whereas higher values on climate and well-being measures indicate more favorable conditions.
Self-report can shift with mood, social setting, self-awareness, and impression management. The displayed bands are descriptive, not normative or clinical thresholds; scores are not diagnostic, and current safety concerns require timely support.
- Zhuravlev, D. V., Reverchuk, I. V., Damadaeva, A. S., & Glavatskikh, M. M. (Compilers). (2023). Formation of Assertive Behavior Skills: Diagnosis and Correction of Emotional States: Methodological Materials for Psychological Practice. Dagestan State University. ISBN 978-5-906429-45-2. 10.29039/978-5-906429-45-2
- Rasskazova, E. I., Tkhostov, A. S., Falkovskaia, L. P., Kiseleva, A. L., Kremlev, A. E., & Artamonova, E. G. (2019). Psychological Indicators of Delinquent Behavior in Adolescents: The Potential of the Psychological Risk Factors of Deviant Behavior in Adolescents Inventory for Differentiating Between Adolescents with Delinquent Behavior, Drug Addiction, and Controls. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 12(3), 149-162. 10.11621/pir.2019.0311
- Gottfredson, Michael R., & Hirschi, Travis. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press.
Updated: