PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS RELATED TO BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS AMONG ADOLESCENTS- AN EXPLORATORY STUDY Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the award of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY by JISHA P K under the guidance of DR. NICE MARY FRANCIS P POST-GRADUATE AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD (Affiliated to the University of Calicut) 2024 CERTIFICATE This is to certify that this thesis entitled RELATED TO BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS AMONG ADOLESCENTS- AN EXPLORATORY STUDY is a bonafide record of research work carried out by Ms. JISHA P K under my supervision and guidance and that no part of this has been presented before for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship or fellowship of other similar title or recognition. Pudukad Dr. Nice Mary Francis P Date: Supervising Teacher DECLARATION I, Jisha P K, do hereby declare that this thesis entitled PSYCHOSOCIAL FACTORS RELATED TO BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS AMONG ADOLESCENTS- AN EXPLORATORY STUDY is a bonafide record of the research work done by me under the guidance of DR. NICE MARY FRANCIS P, Asso. Professor, Department of Psychology, Prajyoti Niketan College for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology at the University of Calicut that has not been placed by anybody in any University for the award of any Degree or Diploma, Associateship, Fellowship, or other similar title of recognition. Pudukad Jisha P K Date: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis was achieved through the collaborative efforts of several individuals. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervising teacher, Dr. Nice Mary Francis P, for her invaluable support and guidance throughout the course of my study. Her expertise, encouragement, and dedication have been instrumental in shaping my research and academic journey. I am sincerely grateful for her unwavering commitment to excellence, her insightful feedback, and her willingness to share her knowledge and expertise with me. Her mentorship has not only enriched my academic experience but has also inspired me to strive for excellence in all endeavors. I owed special thanks to Dr. Fr. Harshajan Pazhayattil, Founder Director of Prajyoti Niketan College, and Dr. Binu P. Chacko, Principal of Prajyoti Niketan College. My sincere appreciation extends to all the teachers in the department, whose constant support has greatly contributed to the success of this journey. I wish to extend my gratitude to Dr. Fathima Saliha Bushra and Dr. Shamla V. M. for their invaluable guidance in statistics and expert advice in analysis. I am profoundly grateful to all the scholars at Prajyoti Niketan College for their insightful discussions, constructive suggestions, and critical evaluations of my research ideas, which have been immensely beneficial. Their genuine friendship, emotional support, and motivational guidance have played a significant role in my progress. I am truly thankful for their presence and encouragement throughout this endeavor. I express my gratitude to all those who facilitated my research, including the heads of institutions who granted permission for data collection and the higher secondary students who participated in my study. Their cooperation and willingness to contribute to the research process are deeply appreciated. I am deeply grateful to my wonderful family for their support, love, and prayers. My beloved parents have been a constant source of encouragement and care, providing strength throughout my journey. I am thankful to my children, Idhanth Krishna and Aidan Krishna, for their sacrifices and unconditional love, which have enabled me to pursue my academic aspirations. I deeply cherish my loving husband, Mr. Jayesh Gopal, for his continuous support since the beginning of the research process. His emotional and financial support have transformed my dream into a reality. I wish to express my gratitude for the care, advice, and recognition I received from my siblings and friends. Finally, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have been part of this journey. I humbly express my gratitude to the Almighty for guiding me and making this journey a success. Jisha P K CONTENTS CHAPTERS TOPICS Page No. Chapter I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF 1-64 LITERATURE Chapter II METHOD 65-104 Chapter III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 105-215 Chapter IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 216-248 Chapter V RECOMMENDATIONS 249-252 REFERENCES 253-278 APPENDICES 279-305 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Title No. No. 1 Split up of the participants based on the sex 67 2 Split up of the participants based on the birth order 67 3 Classification of the participants based on type of family 68 4 Breakup of the participants with regard to socio economic status 68 5 Mean, SD and t value, corrected item total correlation of items in 72 the problem behaviour rating scale 6 KMO and Bartlett's Test 75 7 Rotated Component Matrixa 77 8 Unstandardized Loadings (Standard Errors) and Standardized 80 Loadings for confirmatory factory analysis model of problem behaviour rating scale 9 Model Fit Indices: Goodness of fit indices for two factor model 81 of problem behaviour rating scale 10 Reliability statistics of PBRS for total scale and factor wise 83 11 Reliability statistics of EATQ-R for total scale and factor wise 84 12 Mean, SD and t value of items in the Family Adaptability and 88 Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV 13 Reliability statistics of FACES IV for total scale and dimensions 90 wise 14 Mean, S.D, t value, significance level, corrected item total 95 correlation of each items in the test SAI 15 Mean, S.D, t value, significance level, corrected item total 99 correlation of each items in the test PPS 16 Basic descriptive statistics of all the variables under investigation 106 (N=1014) 17 Distribution of internalizing, externalizing, and overall 109 behavioural problems across severity levels and genders in adolescents (N-1014) 18 al problems 114 and its dimensions based on gender 19 al problems 117 and its dimensions based on type of family 20 Mean and SD of four Birth Order groups on behavioural 119 problems and its dimensions 21 One-way ANOVA of behavioural problem and its dimensions on 119 the basis of birth order 22 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 119 of groups based on birth order 23 Mean and SD of SES on behavioural problem and its dimensions 122 24 One-way ANOVA of behavioural problem and its dimensions on 123 the basis of SES 25 Mean, SD, t value of temperamental dimensions, family 125 dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure based on gender 26 Mean, SD, t value of temperamental dimensions, family 130 dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure based on type of family 27 Mean, SD, of temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, 133 school adjustment and peer pressure based on birth order 28 One way ANOVA of temperamental dimensions, family 134 dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure based on birth order 29 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 134 of temperamental dimensions based on Birth order 30 Mean, SD, of temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, 139 school adjustment and peer pressure based on socio economic status (SES) 31 One way ANOVA of temperamental dimensions, family 140 dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure based on socio economic status (SES) 32 Multiple comparisons of mean differences (Scheffe Procedure) of 140 temperamental dimensions, family dimensions and school adjustment based on socio economic status (SES) 33 Mean and SD of behavioural problem and its dimensions on the 148 basis of Temperamental dimensions 34 One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of behavioural 149 problem and its dimensions on the basis of Temperament 35 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 150 based on temperamental dimensions 36 Mean and SD of Behavioural Problems and its dimensions on the 157 basis of Family dimensions 37 One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of behavioural 158 problems and its dimensions on the basis of family dimensions 38 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 159 based on family dimensions 39 Mean and SD of behavioural problem and its dimensions on the 167 basis of school adjustment 40 One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of behavioural 167 problem and its dimensions on the basis of school adjustment 41 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 167 based on school adjustment 42 Mean and SD of behavioural problem and its dimensions on the 170 basis of peer pressure 43 One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Behavioural 171 problem on the basis of Peer Pressure 44 Multiple comparisons of Mean Differences (Scheffe Procedure) 171 based on peer pressure 45 Relationship between dimensions of temperament and 174 dimensions of behavioural problems (n=1014) 46 Relationship between dimensions of family and dimensions of 184 behavioural problems (n=1014) 47 Relationship between school adjustment and dimensions of 191 behavioural problems (n=1014) 48 Relationship between peer pressure and dimensions of 193 behavioural Problems (n=1014) 49 Multiple Regression Analysis (Step wise) for the internalizing 196 behavioural problems 50 Multiple Regression Analysis (Step wise) for the externalising 201 behavioural problems 51 Multiple Regression Analysis (Step wise) for the overall 204 behavioural problems LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Title No. No. 1 Scree plot for problem behaviour rating scale 75 2 First order confirmatory factor analysis for problem behaviour 79 rating scale. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Title No. A Personal Data Sheet B Problem Behaviour Rating Scale- Adolescent Version C Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R) D Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV- Revised (FACES IV- R) E - Revised F Peer Pressure Scale- Revised G Copy of paper publications ABBREVIATIONS IBP : Internalizing Behavioural Problems EBP : Externalizing Behavioural Problems OBP : Overall Behavioural Problems SES : Socio Economic Status NA : Negative Affect EC : Effortful Control SU : Surgency AF : Affiliativeness FC : Family Cohesion FA : Family Adaptability EF : Enmeshed Family RF : Rigid Family FCM : Family Communication FS : Family Satisfaction SA : School Adjustment PP : Peer Pressure PUBLICATIONS (Copy of publications are attached as appendix G) Jisha, P. K., & Francis P, N. M. (2023). Problem Behaviors and Adolescent Temperament: A Cross Sectional Study. IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review, 11(1). Jisha, P. K., & Francis P, N. M. (2021). Internalizing and externalizing behavioural problems among higher secondary students in Kerala. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 9(4). ABSTRACT Adolescent behavioural problems are a significant concern for parents, teachers, and society. Various factors contribute to these issues, making them challenging to characterize. The purpose of the present study was to understand the relationship between temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment, peer pressure, and behavioural problems in adolescents. The study included a total of 1014 participants, with 477 males and 537 females chosen from various districts in Kerala. Participants were selected using convenience sampling methods to meet the required sample size. The research design employed was quantitative and descriptive in nature. The participants completed the instruments such as the Problem Behaviour Rating Scale-Adolescent Version, Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R), Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV-Revised (FACES- IV- -Revised, Peer Pressure Scale-Revised, and a personal data sheet. Statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, t tests, one-way ANOVA, correlation, and step-wise multiple regression were employed for data analysis. The result revealed that a significant relationship was found to exist between temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment, peer pressure, and dimensions of behavioural problems, and it can be concluded that temperamental aspects like effortful control (EC), surgency (SU), and negative affect (NA), along with contextual elements such as peer pressure (PP), school adjustment (SA), and family satisfaction (FS), each contribute uniquely to behavioural problems. Thus, the findings of the study suggest implementing family-focused mental health programs in schools to enhance the overall well-being of adolescents. Key Words: Adolescents, Behavioural Problems, Temperament, Family, School Adjustment, Peer Pressure Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Putnam et al. (2001) identified four main temperament factors in early adolescents: Effortful Control, Surgency, Negative Affectivity, and Affiliation. Effortful Control is described as a child's ability to use attentional resources and limit behavioural reactions in order to regulate emotions and related behaviours (Rothbart et al., 1994). It encompasses the ability to manage attention (attentional control), suppress a dominant response (inhibitory control), and trigger a subdominant response (activation control) while experiencing emotion (Evans & Rothbart, 2007). Low levels of effortful control contribute to an increased likelihood of engaging in aggressive-antisocial actions and suffering symptoms of sadness (Wang et al., 2015). Surgency (Extraversion) is characterized by high activity, intensity of pleasure seeking, and low shyness and impulsivity (Rothbart & Putnam, 2002). It is considered a determinant for the development of externalizing problems such as impulsivity and aggression (Berdan et al., 2008). -intensity surgery (e.g., high initiation and/or low inhibition) can cause externalized symptoms, whereas low- intensity surgery (e.g., low initiation and/or high inhibition) can lead to internalized 11). Negative affectivity is defined by feelings of sadness, discomfort, frustration, fear, and challenges in self-soothing (Rothbart & Putnam, 2002). It is a symbol of emotional dysregulation, rendering children more susceptible to developing externalizing behaviour problems (Oldehinkel et al., 2004). Children exhibiting high levels of negative affectivity often experience easy frustration, potentially leading to Introduction patterns of anger, irritability, or aggression (Berdan et al., 2008).It encompasses fear and frustration in children, and frustration in adolescents (Putnam & Stifter, 2005). Affiliativeness refers to the inherent longing for closeness and connection with others, regardless of one's level of extraversion or shyness (Capaldi Aggression was linked to low levels of affiliativeness, whereas depression was linked to high levels of affiliativeness (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). In contrast, a high affiliative need may act as a protective factor against maladaptive outcomes by promoting social support (Oldehinkel et al., 2004). Role of temperament in adolescent behaviour Introduction The family provides a nurturing foundation for children's early socialization and the development of personality. The family environment provided unconditional love and acceptance, which had a positive impact on children's behaviour management skills (Dasgupta & Sanyal, 2008). Families are basic social units that serve as the foundation for social structures and organisations in every culture. They are dynamic, goal-oriented, and self-correcting systems, intricately interconnected and continually influenced by their environment and individual characteristics (Akhlaq et al., 2013; Zabriskie & McCormick, 2001). Family functioning, which includes role distribution, communication, emotional reaction, problem-solving capacity, and behaviour control, is critical in determining the quality of a family setting. The family function studies the family as a whole, considers the family as a system, and investigates the overall function of the family. Moreover, adolescent mental health is closely related to family system functioning (Shek, 2002). Several models explain family functioning, with Olson's Circumplex model being particularly significant. explains family function based on two dimensions family cohesion and adaptation, aided by third component, communication as a facilitating dimension. Families encourage their movement along the other two Introduction dimensions through excellent communication and engagement abilities Olson (2000). Family satisfaction has been included as a new scale in the FACES IV. It is a critical outcome measure, assesses satisfaction with three FACES IV aspects (cohesion, flexibility, and communication) (Olson et al., 2019). Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES IV) evaluates family dimensions: cohesion, flexibility (adaptability), disengaged family, enmeshed family, rigid family, chaotic family, family communication and a family satisfaction (Olson, 2011). that children from highly cohesive families exhibit lower susceptibility to the negative effects of daily hassles compared to children from less cohesive families (Kliewer & Kung, 1998). Disengaged family characterised by significant emotional distance and minimal interaction between family members with a strong emphasis on personal separateness and independence (Olson, 2000). Matejevic et al. (2014) discovered that adolescents with addiction illnesses had substantially more disengaged family Introduction functioning, parenting style centred on rejection and overprotection, and a high presence of inadequate family systems. Enmeshed family involves excessive emotional closeness, often with a demand for loyalty. Individuals within the relationship become highly dependent on each other and are reactive to one another's emotions and needs. There is a limited sense of personal separateness, and little private space is allowed. The energy and focus of individuals are primarily directed within the family, resulting in fewer individual friendships or outside interests (Olson, 2000). Coe et al. (2018) found that higher degrees of enmeshment predicted an increase in children's externalizing issues during times of high instability but a decrease in externalizing symptoms during times of more stability. Rigid family led by one person with extreme control, few negotiations, constant regulations, clearly defined jobs and the leader tends to impose most decisions (Olson, 2000). Adolescents with anorexia described their family as very disengaged, rigid, and lacking in communication (Olson et al., 2019). Chaotic family characterised by unpredictable or restricted leadership, decisions are spontaneous and poorly thought out, roles are vague and frequently vary from person to person (Olson, 2000). Chaos has been defined as a busy, noisy, disorganised, and unpredictable environment for child development (Evans et al., 2010). Kamp Dush et al. (2013) found that higher chaos (at both the home and mother's job levels) is associated with lower child health after controlling for relevant variables such as household economic position, family structure, and maternal health status. Introduction Communication refers a positive communication skills in the family system, which are regarded as an enabling dimension that helps families change their degrees of cohesion and adaptability (Olson & Gorall, 2006). It is a form of verbal and nonverbal exchange of messages among family members (Epstein et al., 1993).Communication within the family is critical because it allows individuals to communicate their needs, wishes, and worries and resolve inescapable conflicts that occur in all families (Peterson & Green, 2009). Poor communication in family systems leads to lower cohesion and flexibility, whereas effective communication leads to improved functioning (Olson, 2000). Family satisfaction is the extent to which family members are pleased and (2020), family pleasure involves both personal and interpersonal aspects. Schrodt (2009) discovered that the family expressive environment was positively correlated with satisfaction, whereas the structural traditional way of conflict avoidance was negatively associated with family satisfaction. Influence of family in adolescent behaviour The family has an important role in the prevention of behavioural issues, which have a better prognosis if they are identified early (Jogdand & Naik, 2014). Adolescents with strong adaptability and cohesiveness demonstrated minimal problem behaviours (Joh et al., 2013). Poorly formed family behaviour patterns contribute to externalising, internalising and total behaviour problems in boys and girls (Ma et al., 2012). Adolescent suicide attempters have lower self-reported mother and paternal bonding as well as less familial flexibility and cohesion (Sheftall et al., 2013). According to studies, adaptive and cohesive families contribute better Introduction adolescent growth (Henggler et al., 1991; Gaughan, 1995). Similarly, life events and relationships within the family significantly influence life satisfaction during adolescence (Gohm et al., 1998; Rask et al., 2003). To get a complete knowledge of behavioural problems among adolescents in their environmental context, it is crucial to consider school adjustment in addition to temperament and family dimensions. The school plays a significant and vital role in a pupil's environment. It offers a vast area of contact in which personality is powerfully displayed and potentially moulded. A pupil's level of adjustment at school has a significant impact on him and others in his life in a variety of ways (Bhagia, 1966). But, school adjustment refers to the process of adjusting to a student's role as well as many components of the school environment; an inability to adjust may result in mental health problems, school rejection, or dropout, and the need for school counselling (Lakhani et al., 2017). It refers to the process of adjusting to scholastic obligations in a school environment (Devi, 2015). Bhagia (1966) developed a method for assessing students' adjustment to various aspects of school life in terms of their typical behaviour and feelings in and about school. It involves all of the major components of school life, such as academics, schoolmates, teachers, school organisation or the overall school environment, and self-adjustment at school. The adjustment to school is determined by how well the student performed on the above measures. Introduction Factors influencing school adjustment Studies identified numerous elements that affect the school adjustment of children and adolescents, such as school management, teacher-student relationships, abilities. School features such as the class in which they are enrolled, the medium of instruction, and the type of school management all have an impact on students' adjustment (Raju & Rahamtulla, 2007). Children with good relationships with their teachers and peers have a higher level of school adjustment ( -Zorbaz & Ergene, 2019). Similarly, adolescents who live with their families perform much better in school than those who live in orphanages, and gender variations may influence adjustment levels (Kaur & Chawla, 2018). Parental education and occupation as well as children's abilities, skills, adjustment characteristics, and interpersonal environment significantly influence children's school adjustment and their school adjustment process (Raju & Rahamtulla, 2007; Mathur, 1999). The alignment between students' competencies and needs with school demands affects school adjustment (Reich & Flanagan, 2010). Importance of school adjustment in adolescent behaviour School adjustment plays a vital role in helping students overcome and discard antisocial tendencies that can hinder their academic activities and interpersonal relationships. (Onyekuru & Zuru, 2017). When schools effectively compete for students' affiliation, children may show greater dedication to academic achievement and are less likely to engage in behavioural problems both within and outside of school (Simons-Morton et al., 1999).Further, adolescents who utilized maladaptive Introduction attainment tactics showed poorer school adjustment and were more likely to internalize and externalize behaviour problems in non-academic settings (Aunola et al., 2000). Therefore, school adjustment is critical in a child's life, acting as a pillar upon which the child's entire life is built. It is related not just to a child's growth and accomplishment but also to their attitudes towards school, fears, loneliness, social support, and academic motivation (Newman, 2000). How well a child adjusts to school can have an impact on their future social, emotional, behavioural, and intellectual growth (Joussemet et al., 2005). Introduction There is a significant negative relationship between peer pressure and self-efficacy expectations (both social and moral) among adolescents. Additionally, adolescents who experienced lower levels of peer pressure Introduction likely to have greater levels of academic self-efficacy (Kiran-Esen, 2012). Introduction Introduction Stages of adolescence Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Various models are utilized to explain behavioural attributes among adolescents, including the psychodynamic, behaviourist, cognitive, ecological, and transactional models. Freud's psychodynamic model explains the underlying psychological forces behind human behaviour, feelings, and emotions, with a focus on their connection to early experiences (Santrock, 2011). Skinner's behaviourist model utilizes reinforcement schedules to shape behaviour approach emphasizes behaviour changes resulting from associations formed between stimuli and responses. (Baron, 2006 -cognitive theory highlight the importance of observation and modelling in acquiring behaviour, thoughts, and feelings. They identify three influential factors: the characteristics of models, the characteristics of observers, and the rewards linked to behaviours. Erikson's psychosocial theory describes eight stages of human development, with adolescence centered on the identity vs. role confusion stage. Adolescents must explore and establish their identity, leading to either a positive identity or role confusion (Santrock, 2011). While there are numerous theoretical explanations for behaviour development, the researcher emphasised two prominent models Bronfenbrenner's ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and Sameroff's transactional model (Sameroff, 1991) in explaining how psychosocial factors influence child development and thus contribute to behavioural problems. Both perspectives acknowledge that a child exists within a complex system of variables that can potentially impact their development. Introduction Bronfenbrenner's perspective emphasizes that the developing individual is situated within a complex network of environmental systems, ranging from the innermost core of the individual to the broader universe. These systems are interconnected and have the potential to influence and shape development. The relationships between these levels can be bidirectional or reciprocal, indicating that influences can flow in multiple directions. This concept distinguishes five environmental systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Santrock, 2011). The microsystem comprises the immediate environment of an individual, including family, peers, school, teachers, and neighbours who actively influence and mould the child's development. The Mesosystem involves the connections and interactions between different microsystems or contexts in a child's life. It connects children to parents, students to teachers, friends to friends, peers to peers etc. The Exosystem includes connections between the individual's immediate context and social settings in which they may not have an active role. The macrosystem refers to the larger society in which the child lives, including culture, government, legislation, and policies that can impact the child's development. The Chronosystem encompasses environmental events and transitions throughout the lifespan, including socio historical circumstances. It represents immediate, lifetime, and generational changes across time. (Santrock, 2011; . Bronfenbrenner's research and his model of child development have significantly influenced developmental psychology by emphasizing additional Introduction influences and interconnectedness among subsystems. His dynamic model recognizes that changes in one system impact others. He also emphasized the function of sociocultural influences in enabling individuals' transitions through these levels. Sameroff's Transactional Model highlights the interplay between the child's traits and family circumstances, along with broader environmental factors, in shaping developmental outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of considering both the individual and the context in understanding development. The interaction between an individual and their environmental setting is reciprocal, with both influencing and being influenced by each other (Sameroff, 1975). The model distinguishes between proximal influences, which have a more direct impact on the child such as interactions with parents, and distal influences, which have a more indirect effect such as family income or community characteristics. As infants and young children, the primary influences on their development are their parents and caregivers, making proximal influences more significant. However, as children grow older, they become more influenced by factors outside their immediate environment, such as peers, school, and the broader community, leading to a greater impact from distal factors on their development. Distal factors are external influences that are beyond our immediate control but can still have an impact on us. This applies not only to individuals themselves but also to their caregivers or parents and the variables that influence their ability to provide for their children. These distal factors can shape the environment in which children are raised and ultimately influence their development. Sometimes, these factors can be negative, such as family unemployment, which in turn creates additional risks to the development of a child. These risks are often assessed based on their cumulative impact rather than individual measurements of negative outcomes. Introduction This theoretical perspective highlights the dynamic interaction between nature and nurture in shaping children's development and outcomes. It emphasizes the mutual influence between children and adults in modifying behaviour. The model recognizes that children actively contribute to their own development through interactions with others. Additionally, it underscores the significance of the social environment in shaping children's development. Overall, this model gives a comprehensive structure for recognizing the complex influences on children's development. The ecological model stresses the individual's connection to their environment, whereas the transactional model focuses on the interactions between the individual and their surroundings. Both models provide insights into how various variables, such as temperament, family, school and peer can contribute to behavioural issues. In the context of this study on psychosocial factors in child development, these models enhance our understanding of the challenges faced by adolescents. They offer valuable frameworks for examining the complex interplay between individuals and their social contexts. Introduction Adolescents and behavioural problems Temperament and behavioural problems Family and behavioural problems School adjustment and behavioural problems Peer pressure and behavioural problems Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction Peer pressure can exert a powerful influence on behavioural problems in adolescents, leading to engagement in risky or maladaptive behaviours. Recent studies identified a significant correlation exist between peer pressure and the mental well- being of high school students and professional students (Cruz et al., 2022; Bhattacharya, 2017). Al-Sheyab et al. (2018) assessed the relationship between the risk of eating disorders and peer pressure among adolescents. The results indicated a significant difference in the overall mean of the Inventory of Peer Influence on Eating Concerns (I-PIEC) between adolescents with disordered eating behaviours and those with normal eating behaviours. Specifically, girls had statistically higher scores for interaction peer pressure compared to boys, whereas boys had statistically higher scores for likeability. Introduction Yüksel- playing violent computer games, watching violent movies, and participation in social activities as significant predictors of peer pressure levels among adolescents. However, gender was not found to be a significant predictor in this study. Chan and Chan (2011) examined pressure is related to their relationships with mothers and emotional autonomy from parents. The results revealed that mothers' behavioural control had a negative impact, while psychological control had a positive impact on adolescents' susceptibility to peer pressure. Similarly, maternal warmth negatively predicted adolescents' susceptibility to peer pressure in various areas, such as peer activities, family Introduction activities, school activities, and misconduct behaviours. This effect was mediated by the emotional autonomy of adolescents from their parents. Esen and the relationships between internet addiction, peer pressure, and social support among adolescents. They revealed that adolescents with lower levels of peer pressure were associated with decreased internet addiction. Additionally, higher levels of parental and teacher' support were linked to lower internet addiction scores. Gender differences were observed, with girls showing lower internet addiction scores compared to boys. However, no significant relationship was found between internet addiction and peer support. These literature highlights the significance of incorporating both psychological and social factors to attain a comprehensive understanding of behavioural problems. Therefore, the researcher is taking into account both psychological and social aspects in the current study. Introduction Introduction Introduction 1. How do various psychosocial factors (temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adaptability, and peer pressure) relate to adolescent behavioural problems? 2. How do various psychosocial factors (temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment, and peer pressure) predict adolescent behavioural problems? Introduction Behavioural Problem A behavioural problem is empirically defined as an action that significantly adversely affects one's own and others' quality of life or causes a great risk to the health and safety of oneself or others Two-dimensional frameworks like internalizing and externalizing behavioural problems have been used to define adolescent behavioural problems in the current study. Introduction 1. To understand the levels and nature of behavioural problems while considering demographic variables in higher secondary adolescents 2. To understand the nature of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect and affiliativeness), family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshed, rigid, communication and satisfaction), school adjustment and peer pressure among adolescents. 3. To examine whether there is any significant difference in behavioural problems on the basis of levels of temperamental aspects (effortful control, Introduction surgency, negative affect and affiliativeness), levels of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshed, rigid, communication and satisfaction), levels of school adjustment and levels of peer pressure among adolescents. 4. To find out the relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect and affiliativeness), family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshed, rigid, communication and satisfaction), peer pressure, school adjustment and dimensions of behavioural problems 5. To identify the predictors (temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment and peer pressure) of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing and overall). 1. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 2. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 3. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 4. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 5. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 6. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. Introduction 7. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 8. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 9. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 10. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 11. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 12. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 13. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of gender among participants. 14. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of gender among participants. 15. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of gender among participants. 16. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of gender among participants. 17. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of the type of family among participants. Introduction 18. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of type of family among participants. 19. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of type of family among participants. 20. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of type of family among participants. 21. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of birth order among participants. 22. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of birth order among participants. 23. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of birth order among participants. 24. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of birth order among participants. 25. There is no significant difference in temperamental characteristics (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 26. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 27. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Introduction 28. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 29. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 30. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 31. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 32. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 33. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 34. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Introduction 35. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 36. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 37. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 38. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 39. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 40. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 41. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 42. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 43. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Introduction 44. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 45. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 46. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 47. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 48. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 49. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and overall behavioural problems among participants. 50. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 51. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 52. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and overall behavioural problems among participants. 53. Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict internalizing behavioural problems among participants. Introduction 54. Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 55. Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict overall behavioural problems among participants. Method Research is commonly described as the process of finding information. It may also be defined as the methodical and scientific quest for knowledge on a certain issue. In reality, research is a form of scientific examination. According to Singh (2004), controlled observation, which may lead to the development of theories, concepts, generalizations, and principles resulting in the prediction and control of those activities that may have some cause-and-effect relationship'' and is a systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical investigation of propositions about the presumed relationships about various the research methods can be defined as the various approaches, techniques, and procedures utilized by researchers to conduct research. These methods encompass the systematic and organized steps employed to collect, analyze, and interpret data related to a specific subject or topic. In essence, research methods outline the strategies and techniques employed by researchers to investigate and explore their research questions or hypotheses (Kothari, 2004). RESEARCH DESIGN The research design serves as a comprehensive framework for the investigation, similar to a blueprint defining the specific procedures utilized to test hypotheses and analyze the obtained data (Singh, 2004). The researcher employed a quantitative-descriptive research design. Through quantitative descriptive research design, the researcher typically utilizes structured data collection instruments, such as questionnaires, to gather data from a large sample size. The collected data is then analyzed using statistical methods to draw conclusions and make inferences about the target population. Also possible is the scientific understanding of the research topic in a systematic and objective manner. Method This chapter provides the study's overall framework and strategies, focusing on four key components: participant selection, instruments utilized, data collection procedures, and the statistical analysis technique employed. These sections offer a comprehensive outline of the methods devised for the current study. PARTICIPANTS Method To study the role of other extraneous variables, various demographic characteristics were also collected. It includes sex, birth order, type of family, and socioeconomic status. The distribution of characteristics within the data is detailed below. Table 1 Split up of the participants based on the sex Variables No. of Adolescents Percentage Male 477 47.04 Female 537 52.96 Total 1014 100 Table 1 represents the division of participants with regard to sex. The table indicates that 47 percentage of the participants are male and approximately 53 percentage of the participants are female. Table 2 Split up of the participants based on the birth order Variables No. of Adolescents Percentage First born 472 46.55 Middle born 120 11.83 Last born 347 34.22 Single born 75 7.40 Total 1014 100 Table 2 displays the distribution of participants based on birth order, categorized into four groups: first-born, middle-born, last-born, and single-born. Method Approximately half of the participants belong to the first-born category, while approximately one-third of the participants fall into the last-born category. Table 3 Classification of the participants based on type of family Variables No. of Adolescents Percentage Nuclear 850 83.83 Joint 164 16.17 Total 1014 100 Table 3 shows the classification of the participants according to type of family. In the table representation, it is explained that the majority of the participants are from nuclear families. Table 4 Breakup of the participants with regard to socioeconomic status Variables No. of Adolescents Percentage High 88 8.68 Middle 788 77.71 Low 138 13.61 Total 1014 100 Table 4 outlines the distribution of participants according to socioeconomic status. Approximately 75% of the participants fall within the middle socioeconomic status category. Around 10% of participants belong to both the high and low socioeconomic status categories, respectively. INSTRUMENTS In this section, the research instruments utilized in the study are discussed. Various tools were employed to assess selected variables. Questionnaires were predominantly used as a means of data collection. The section provides a Method comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of each questionnaire, including details on its reliability and validity. Additionally, it outlines the specific variables that were assessed by each questionnaire, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the research constructs. The measures used for the present study are: 1. Problem Behaviour Rating Scale- Adolescent Version (PBRS developed by Radhika et al. (2005) for parental assessment of children, standardized for adolescents by Jisha and Francis (2022)). 2. The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (EATQ-R)- Revised (developed by Capaldi and Rothbart (1992), first revised by Ellis and Rothbart (2001), translated into Malayalam, and standardized by Anto and Jayan (2014)) 3. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES- IV)- Revised (developed by Olson et al. (2011), translated into Malayalam, and standardized by Jisha and Francis (2022)) 4. - Revised (developed by Bhagia (1966), first revised by Rishi and Verma (2006), translated into Malayalam, and standardized by Jisha and Francis (2022)) 5. Peer Pressure Scale- Revised (developed by Singh and Saini (2010), translated into Malayalam, and standardized by Jisha and Francis (2022)) 6. Personal Data Sheet (Prepared by Jisha and Francis (2022)) TOOL STANDARDIZATION In the present study, all tools were standardized except for the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire, which was translated into Malayalam and standardized by Anto and Jayan in 2014. The standardization procedures are outlined below: Method 1. PROBLEM BEHAVIOUR RATING SCALE- ADOLESCENT VERSION The Problem Behaviour Rating Scale (PBRS), originally developed by Radhika et al. (2005), comprises 72 items and is designed to assess the most prevalent problem behaviours in children aged 5 to 15, based on parental perceptions. Drawing inspiration from this scale, the researcher intends to develop an adolescent version. In the process of creating the adolescent version of the PBRS, all 72 items from the original PBRS, which was used for parental assessment of children, were considered. Subsequently, a self-reported scale was devised to evaluate two main aspects of behaviour problems among adolescents: internalizing and externalizing behaviours. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the appendix B. The standardization procedures are as follows: Experimental Try-out In the standardization process, conducting a pilot study is essential. The test consisted of 72 items. Following the rule of thumb for sample size, which suggests a ratio of 1:5 (test items to number of participants), a total of 365 samples were collected for the pilot study. Participants A sample consisting of both male and female adolescents was selected from various schools in Kerala. The age range of participants was between 12 and 18 years. Procedure and Administration School visits were scheduled with the approval of the school principals. The investigator then approached the selected students, building a good relationship before requesting informed consent to participate in the study. The privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality of the participants were consistently ensured throughout the study. The Method researcher also discussed the significance of assessing problem behaviour in adolescents, and the required information was shared. The Problem Behaviour Rating Scale was distributed to the participants, who were instructed to carefully read the instructions provided on the scale. Clarifications were provided to the participants before they began filling out the scale. Upon completion, the filled-in scales were collected and verified. Incomplete or incorrect scales were excluded from the analysis to maintain data accuracy and reliability. The researcher employed the following procedures to establish the psychometric properties of the research instrument, utilizing various standardized statistical methods: Item Selection After entering the data in an Excel sheet, the responses were coded. Then the data was checked for missing values. Then the total score for each sample of 72 items was found. Then the total score was arranged in ascending order. Twenty-seven percentage of low scorers and 27% of high scorers were selected as low and high groups, respectively, and the remaining samples were regarded as middle scorers. Ninety-nine samples as low scorers and 99 samples as high scorers were selected. Based on the assumed criteria, high scorers would have a mean greater than low scorers for each item. It was found that all items met this criterion. As a result, none of the items were deleted. Item discrimination It means the ability of an item to discriminate between a low-scorer and a high- equality of variance for each item. If the significance value is less than 0.05, group Method variance is treated as unequal. For the majority of items, the assumption of equality of variance was not followed. So unequal variance was considered, and the discriminating power, and all such items were selected. At this stage, none of the items were deleted. Corrected item total correlation Corrected item-total correlation (point-biserial correlation) was also found using SPSS. The criteria include an item in the test that has a corrected item total correlation of 0.25 or above. Based on the above criteria, all items except 52 and 63 followed the criteria, so 52 and 63 were rejected. Thus, a total of two items were marked for deletion at this stage. Table 5 Mean, SD and t value, corrected item total correlation of items in the problem behaviour rating scale High score group Low score group Corrected Item no t value item total Mean SD Mean SD correlation Item 1 3.43 1.179 2.17 0.869 8.574 0.402 Item 2 3.05 1.402 1.60 0.891 8.710 0.414 Item 3 2.93 1.264 1.66 0.894 8.181 0.401 Item 4 2.95 1.320 1.59 0.796 8.804 0.430 Item 5 3.06 1.276 1.58 0.797 9.820 0.470 Item 6 3.07 1.372 1.43 0.785 10.301 0.503 Item 7 2.49 1.232 1.33 0.742 8.036 0.423 Item 8 3.18 1.494 1.66 0.917 8.659 0.432 Item 9 2.81 1.267 1.35 0.628 10.234 0.499 Item 10 2.81 1.569 1.39 0.818 7.950 0.343 Item 11 2.37 1.516 1.16 0.566 7.454 0.409 Item 12 2.72 1.559 1.32 0.712 8.094 0.454 Item 13 3.38 1.291 1.65 0.861 11.139 0.528 Method High score group Low score group Corrected Item no t value item total Mean SD Mean SD correlation Item 14 1.97 1.199 1.04 0.198 7.950 0.489 Item 15 2.23 1.376 1.15 0.460 7.410 0.457 Item 16 2.44 1.451 1.12 0.480 8.613 0.457 Item 17 2.75 1.190 1.53 1.376 8.842 0.451 Item 18 3.31 0.460 1.66 1.451 9.334 0.430 Item 19 2.77 0.480 1.31 1.190 9.911 0.489 Item 20 3.29 1.256 1.67 0.881 10.551 0.493 Item 21 2.80 1.629 1.24 0.608 8.904 0.393 Item 22 1.93 1.342 1.02 0.201 6.666 0.444 Item 23 2.29 1.327 1.11 0.375 8.529 0.545 Item 24 2.68 1.177 1.24 0.573 10.905 0.555 Item 25 2.59 1.519 1.26 0.486 8.257 0.431 Item 26 2.20 1.143 1.14 0.515 8.419 0.450 Item 27 2.14 1.392 1.10 0.364 7.192 0.465 Item 28 2.18 1.281 1.12 0.480 7.717 0.521 Item 29 2.49 1.281 1.28 0.475 8.830 0.524 Item 30 2.98 1.443 1.29 0.659 10.584 0.489 Item 31 2.52 1.452 1.15 0.413 8.985 0.532 Item 32 3.13 1.314 1.78 0.875 8.528 0.440 Item 33 2.47 1.350 1.05 0.220 10.358 0.566 Item 34 3.36 1.460 1.61 0.843 10.373 0.470 Item 35 2.94 1.316 1.60 0.947 8.247 0.434 Item 36 1.94 1.211 1.02 0.141 7.503 0.430 Item 37 1.36 0.920 1.00 0.000 3.934 0.368 Item 38 2.45 1.534 1.15 0.388 8.195 0.490 Item 39 3.17 1.400 1.43 0.810 10.687 0.451 Item 40 2.14 1.370 1.04 0.198 7.912 0.463 Item 41 2.26 1.529 1.30 0.839 5.475 0.341 Item 42 2.22 1.454 1.22 0.615 6.303 0.292 Item 43 2.78 1.418 1.34 0.717 8.982 0.483 Method High score group Low score group Corrected Item no t value item total Mean SD Mean SD correlation Item 44 2.77 1.583 1.13 0.420 9.940 0.533 Item 45 3.22 1.344 1.45 0.718 11.540 0.509 Item 46 3.80 1.407 1.68 0.935 12.495 0.489 Item 47 2.72 1.385 1.27 0.697 9.267 0.537 Item 48 2.44 1.533 1.13 0.444 8.185 0.496 Item 49 2.81 1.419 1.24 0.624 10.048 0.481 Item 50 2.74 1.475 1.17 0.475 10.054 0.531 Item 51 2.69 1.375 1.24 0.555 9.692 0.529 Item 52* 3.17 1.565 2.40 1.392 5.475 0.139 Item 53 2.47 1.409 1.26 0.564 6.303 0.422 Item 54 2.74 1.418 1.17 0.516 8.982 0.511 Item 55 2.94 1.497 1.13 0.368 9.940 0.572 Item 56 3.03 1.439 1.21 0.500 11.540 0.523 Item 57 2.55 1.387 1.22 0.526 8.875 0.506 Item 58 2.91 1.393 1.31 0.600 10.469 0.513 Item 59 2.49 1.487 1.25 0.660 7.598 0.478 Item 60 2.35 1.264 1.29 0.627 7.479 0.444 Item 61 2.44 1.486 1.22 0.632 7.531 0.418 Item 62 2.63 1.404 1.28 0.655 8.627 0.460 Item 63* 3.04 1.414 2.55 1.394 2.480 0.091 Item 64 1.99 1.432 1.05 0.262 6.420 0.373 Item 65 2.41 1.348 1.13 0.508 8.862 0.505 Item 66 2.08 1.486 1.14 0.632 6.620 0.443 Item 67 2.08 1.299 1.14 0.553 7.563 0.394 Item 68 2.16 1.307 1.11 0.449 7.454 0.379 Item 69 2.34 1.239 1.36 0.686 6.818 0.332 Item 70 3.18 1.417 1.19 0.528 13.094 0.549 Item 71 3.00 1.436 1.39 0.603 10.262 0.473 Item 72 2.49 1.438 1.54 0.962 5.518 0.255 Note:* Items which are rejected based on different criterion. Method Exploratory analysis Following the computation of the mean, SD, t-value, and corrected item total correlation of items in the problem behaviour rating scale, the researcher conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by using the SPSS V20.0 software package. EFA provides the theoretical structure of the rating scale. At first, sampling adequacy was tested. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkine (KMO) is 0.906. So, the sample size is adequate. If the sphericity examines whether the R matrix is an identity matrix. Here, the p value of Bart between items is sufficiently large for factor analysis. Table 6 shows KMO and Table 6 Figure 1 Scree plot for problem behaviour rating scale Method Method Method Method Method Method Following the standardization process, a significant number of items were eliminated, possibly because adolescents may not perceive many of their behaviours as problematic in the same way their parents do. This suggests that assessing behaviour problems solely through parental reports, without considering adolescents' self-perceptions, may limit the detection of behaviour problems at an evolutionary stage (Saura-Garre et al., 2022). Moreover, during adolescence, specifically between 12 and 18 years, teenagers acquire the ability to think systematically about all logical relationships within a problem. The gradual transition from concrete thinking to formal logical operations facilitated thinking in more complex ways (Cincinnati Children's Hospital Method Medical Center, April 2023). Additionally, adolescents, typically aged between 13 and 17 years, undergo growth and exploration, enhancing their ability to recognize and interpret emotions, both in themselves and others (Salmela-Aro, 2011). Furthermore, a study by Pierce and Klein (1982) highlighted discrepancies between parental and child perceptions of behaviour. In their research, which involved both children and parents completing behavioural description forms, only 7 out of 52 items showed significant agreement (p < 0.05), indicating that parents and children often perceive behaviour differently. It is noteworthy that the adolescent version of PBRS retains 29 items specifically related to emotional-behavioural problems, making it suitable for measuring the comprehensive range of behavioural problems experienced by adolescents. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY To assess the internal which represents the internal consistency of a test or scale as shown in Table 10. Method Table 10 Reliability statistics for total scale and factor wise Dimensions N of items Total scale 0.911 29 Factor 1 0.900 17 Factor 2 0.868 12 Based on the reliability standards established by Hair et al. (2003), the coefficient of alpha for the total scale, consisting of 29 items, was found to be 0.911, indicating excellent reliability. Factor F1, which includes 17 items, exhibited an alpha coefficient of 0.900, also indicating excellent reliability. Similarly, Factor F2, comprising 12 items, demonstrated a coefficient of alpha of 0.868, indicating very good reliability. The expert agrees that the scale has good face validity. The scale's construct validity is established by employing EFA and CFA as two-factor latent structures. SCORING The scoring was similar to the original scale. For calculating the factor-wise score, the calculation is as follows: Add the score of the items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 = Internalising factor F1 Add the score of the items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 = Externalising factor F2 2. THE EARLY ADOLESCENT TEMPERAMENT QUESTIONNAIRE- REVISED (EATQ- R) The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire-Revised (EATQ-R) (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001) was originally constructed by Capaldi and Rothbart (1992). The Method updated questionnaire has 65 items and assesses 10 temperamental elements of self- regulation in adolescents. Four super scales or factors, namely Effortful Control (EC), Surgency (SU), Negative Affect (NA), and Affiliativeness (AF), are formed by the categorization of these temperamental aspects. The EATQ-R questionnaire translated into Malayalam, and standardized by Anto and Jayan (2014) had 56 items and was standardized for the age range of 13 17 years used for the current study. The items were scored on a 5- A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the appendix C RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY To assess reliability, Cronbach's alpha was calculated, indicating the internal consistency of the test or scale, as presented in Table 11. Table 11 Reliability statistics for total scale and factor wise Dimensions N of items Total scale 0.811 56 Effortful Control 0.77 13 Surgency 0.75 13 Negative Affect 0.80 16 Affiliativeness 0.69 14 According to the reliability standards of alpha for the total EATQ-R scale was determined to be 0.811, indicating very good reliability. Among the super scales, Effortful Control (0.77), Surgency (0.75), and Negative Affect (0.80) demonstrated good reliability, while Affiliativeness (0.69) exhibited moderate reliability. Method According to the opinion of subject experts, the scale used in the study demonstrates good face validity. SCORING The item scores were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the reversed score items were 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. For the study, the major super scales/ factors were used. Total scores for super scales like effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness were computed. 3. FAMILY ADAPTABILITY AND COHESION EVALUATION SCALE (FACES IV) - REVISED Olson et al. (2010) updated the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACE-IV). The revised questionnaire incorporates six measures of family dynamics, including two balanced and four unbalanced dimensions: cohesion, adaptability, disengagement, enmeshment, rigidity, and chaos (42 items). Additionally, the updated scale includes a Family Communication Scale (10 items) and a Family Satisfaction Scale (10 items). A total of 62 items are included on this scale. The responses range from strongly disagree-1, generally disagree-2, undecided- 3, generally agree-4, and strongly agree-5. For satisfaction, the responses range from very dissatisfied-1, generally satisfied-2, somewhat dissatisfied-3, very satisfied-4, and extremely satisfied-5. In the present study, the researcher translated into Malayalam and standardized the FACES-IV scale to make it appropriate for the Kerala context. The scale was administered in both English and Malayalam. The Malayalam translation of the questionnaire was standardized to ensure its accuracy and appropriateness for the study population. Method To ensure the quality of the translation process, subject experts translated the English questionnaire into Malayalam. Subsequently, the Malayalam-translated questionnaire was back-translated into English by English professors. This back- translation process helps validate the accuracy and consistency of the translation, ensuring that the meaning and intent of the original questionnaire are accurately conveyed in the translated version. A copy of the questionnaire attached in the appendix D. The standardization procedure as follows: Experimental Try-out To standardize the scale, a pilot study was carried out with a sample size of 320 participants, following the item-participant ratio of 1:5. This pilot study allowed for the assessment and refinement of the scale's psychometric properties before its implementation in the main study. Participants A sample consisting of 320 participants was drawn from various parts of Kerala. The sample included both male and female participants, whose ages ranged from 16 to 20. Procedure and Administration School visits were scheduled with the prior permission of the principals. The researcher then approached the students to establish rapport and get informed consent for their involvement in the study. Throughout the study, the privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality of the participants were ensured. The researcher provided a required explanation of the concept of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES IV) and outlined the objectives of the study. The FACES IV scale was distributed to the selected participants, accompanied by clear instructions at the top of Method the scale. Any questions or clarifications regarding the scale were addressed before participants began filling it out. After completion, the filled-in scales were collected and checked for accuracy and completeness. Any scales that were found to be incorrect or incomplete were disregarded in the analysis. The researcher utilized the following procedures to establish the psychometric properties of the research instrument, employing various standardized statistical methods: Item Selection The total score for each sample for 62 items was found. Then the total score was arranged in ascending order. Twenty-seven percentage of low scorers and 27% of high scorers were selected as low and high groups, respectively, and the remaining samples were regarded as middle scorers. One hundred and twenty-three samples were selected as low scorers and high scorers. Based on the criteria that each item's high scorers mean would be greater than the low scorers mean. From table no. 12, after cross-checking, those items that had the capability to discriminate between high scorers and low scorers were selected, and others were discarded. So the items 3, 6, 9, 18, 27, 33, and 42 did not meet the criteria, as the mean value of high scorers was lower than that of low scorers. So, all these items were deleted. Item discrimination It refers to the item's capacity to distinguish between a low and a high scorer. An independent sample t-test was used. Output is given by SPSSV. 21. The of variance for each item. If the significance value is less than 0.05, group variance is treated as unequal. If the significance value is greater than 0.05, group variance is Method treated as equal. Both the assumptions of equality and non-equality were observed, is less than 2.58, the items have no discriminating power. Such items were deleted. These items are 12, 15, 24, 34, and 42. Table 12 Mean, SD and t value of items in the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale FACES IV High score group Low score group Item No t value Mean SD Mean SD Item 1 4.27 1.034 3.09 1.316 6.507 Item 2 4.26 0.910 2.95 1.255 7.792 Item 3* 2.10 1.293 2.35 1.253 1.258 Item 4 4.40 1.021 3.26 1.190 6.740 Item 5 3.66 1.144 2.33 1.163 7.603 Item 6* 1.27 0.860 2.05 1.177 4.956 Item 7 4.84 0.550 3.72 1.233 7.665 Item 8 4.86 0.381 3.26 1.481 9.733 Item 9* 1.78 1.250 1.83 1.054 0.264 Item 10 3.16 1.446 2.38 1.330 3.678 Item 11 3.72 1.092 2.71 1.177 5.844 Item 12* 2.14 1.407 1,98 1.040 .863 Item 13 4.52 1.060 3.42 1.341 5.993 Item 14 4.83 0.411 3.48 1.244 9.550 Item 15* 3.05 1.301 2.67 1.152 1.986 Item 16 4.50 0.891 2.93 1.244 9.512 Item 17 4.16 1.016 2.65 1.146 9.186 Item 18* 1.71 1.157 2.16 1.039 2.705 Item 19 3.91 1.436 2.85 1.393 4.904 Item 20 4.53 0.663 3.17 1.285 8.724 Method High score group Low score group Item No t value Mean SD Mean SD Item 21 4.50 0.955 3.27 1.202 7.445 Item 22 2.93 1.421 2.31 1.021 3.267 Item 23 4.87 0.527 3.44 1.214 10.024 Item 24* 2.86 1.382 2.42 1.212 2.229 Item 25 4.81 0.520 3.26 1.321 10.176 Item 26 4.45 0.777 3.00 1.265 9.080 Item 27* 3.02 1.557 3.08 1.190 0.275 Item 28 4.86 0.349 3.28 1.175 11.968 Item 29 3.77 1.145 2.65 1.244 6.124 Item 30 3.19 1.684 2.66 1.325 2.265 Item 31 4.62 0.617 3.22 1.182 9.704 Item 32 4.48 0.904 2.88 1.202 9.822 Item 33* 2.19 1.222 2.20 1.115 0.065 Item 34* 2.33 1.193 2.43 1.101 0.598 Item 35 3.88 1.192 2.57 1.324 6.838 Item 36 2.99 1.467 2.24 1.084 3.783 Item 37 4.55 0.714 2.93 1.215 10.633 Item 38 4.56 0.776 3.40 1.055 8.234 Item 39 3.79 1.179 2.95 1.126 4.761 Item 40 3.21 1.219 2.69 1.109 2.945 Item 41* 2.92 1.258 2.50 1.103 2.320 Item 42* 1.99 1.173 2.52 1.387 2.731 Item 43 4.58 0.860 3.14 1.266 8.733 Item 44 4.63 0.736 3.33 1.269 8.232 Item 45 4.81 0.564 3.56 1.233 8.590 Item 46 4.72 0.607 3.33 1.241 9.368 Item 47 4.71 0.630 3.15 1.288 10.077 Item 48 4.74 0.513 3.19 1.306 10.297 Item 49 4.63 0.595 3.08 1.031 12.044 Item 50 4.70 0.510 3.12 1.222 11.077 Method High score group Low score group Item No t value Mean SD Mean SD Item 51 4.07 1.027 2.65 1.146 8.553 Item 52 4.35 0.732 2.87 1.291 9.230 Item 53 4.78 0.470 3.28 1.214 10.683 Item 54 4.43 0.712 3.03 1.121 9.742 Item 55 4.60 0.656 3.35 1.176 8.650 Item 56 4.83 0.382 3.27 1.296 10.692 Item 57 4.69 0.599 3.06 1.323 10.396 Item 58 4.57 0.605 3.22 1.231 9.120 Item 59 4.55 0.645 3.16 1.345 8.605 Item 60 4.47 0.715 3.09 1.113 9.622 Item 61 3.83 1.076 2.64 1.116 7.096 Item 62 4.76 0.484 3.34 1.214 10.069 * 0.01 level of significance Note: Items removed from the final draft scale are shown in star mark (*). RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY Table 13 Reliability statistics of FACES IV for total scale and dimensions wise Dimensions N of items Total scale 0.942 50 Family Cohesion 0.702 7 Family Adaptability 0.790 7 Rigid Family 0.695 6 Enmeshed Family 0.465 6 Disengaged Family 0.391 2* Chaotic Family 0.143 2* Family Communication 0.891 10 Family Satisfaction 0.907 10 *items excluded for the final study Method Upon examining the dimensions of disengaged family and chaotic family, it is evident that the reliability coefficients have values of 0.391 and 0.143, respectively. These values indicate poor reliability (below 0.6), which is considered unacceptable according to the standards set by Hair et al. (2003). Additionally, both dimensions consist of only two items, further compromising their reliability. Due to the inadequate reliability and lower number of items under the disengaged and chaotic family dimensions, the researcher made the decision to exclude these dimensions for the final study. This ensures that the analysis focuses on the dimensions with acceptable reliability and increases the validity and accuracy of the findings. Although the enmeshed family dimension has a reliability coefficient of 0.465, which is below the threshold of 0.6, it consists of six items. Despite the lower reliability, the researcher decided to include this dimension in the analysis due to the larger number of items. Including the dimension with a sufficient number of items could result in a more comprehensive assessment of the construct and potentially compensate for the lower reliability to some extent. However, it is important to interpret the findings of this dimension with caution and consider its limitations in terms of reliability. Based on expert suggestions, the scale used in this study has demonstrated good face validity. This indicates that the scale appears to be appropriate and relevant for measuring the intended construct. SCORING Scoring was similar to the original scale. FACES-IV is scored by adding all items to obtain the total score. Method Balanced Cohesion- the raw scores 7-24 (somewhat connected), 25-28 (connected), 29-35 (very connected) Balanced Flexibility- the raw scores 7-17 (somewhat flexible), 18-25 (flexible), 26 - 35 (very flexible) Unbalanced family (enmeshed and rigid) - the raw scores 7-16 (very low), 7-21 (low), 22-25 (moderate), 26-29 (high), 30-35 (very high) Family communication- the raw scores 10-28 (very low), 29-32 (low), 33-37 (moderate), 38-43 (high), 44-50 (very high) Family satisfaction- the raw scores 10-29 (very low), 30-35 (low), 36-39 (moderate), 40-44(high), 45-50 (very high) 4. - REVISED To ensure the quality of the translation process, subject experts translated the English questionnaire into Malayalam. Subsequently, English professors performed a back-translation of the Malayalam version into English. This rigorous back- translation process helps validate the accuracy and consistency of the translation, ensuring that the meaning and intent of the original questionnaire are accurately Method conveyed in the translated version. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the appendix E. The standardization procedure as follows: Experimental Try out The pilot study was directed to ensure the standardization of the tool. A sample of 400 participants took part in the preliminary administration of the inventory. Participants The sample comprises 400 participants, encompassing both males and females aged between 16 and 18 years. Procedure and administration After obtaining permission from the school principal, the researcher personally visited the participants and established a rapport with them. Informed consent was then received to ensure their voluntary participation in the study. Throughout the research process, the researcher emphasized the importance of maintaining privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. The participants were introduced to the concept of school adjustment and the purpose of assessing it among adolescents. The school adjustment inventory was then distributed to selected participants with clear instructions on how to respond to the questions. Participants were instructed to carefully read each question and select the appropriate response ("yes" for a positive answer, "no" for a negative answer, and "?" for an uncertain response). All statements in the inventory were mandatory to complete. After collecting the filled-out questionnaires, any incomplete or incorrect scales were excluded from the analysis. Method The researcher used the following procedures to establish the psychometric properties of the research instrument, using various standardized statistical methods: Item analysis The steps involved in Item Analysis are as follows: Total score of each item identified for the participants. The scores arranged in an ascending order. From the list, the initial twenty-seven percentage data was categorised as below average group, upper twenty-seven percentages (110 items) considered as above average group. t test was computed to compare and see whether there exists any significant difference between the low and high score group. discriminated between the high and low groups. Any t-value equal to or greater than 1.96 (at the 0.05 level of significance) and 2.58 (at the 0.01 level of significance) was assumed to indicate a significant difference. Those items that showed a significant difference mean that the item is able to discriminate between individuals on high and low school adjustment, which was included in the final form of the test. The mean, standard deviation of the low and high groups, t value, and significant levels between the groups are represented in Table 14. On this criterion, none of the items need to be deleted. Corrected item total correlation The criteria is that any item with a corrected item total correlation of 0.25 or above has the strength to be included in the test. Items 3, 6, 8, 11, and 25 in this test do not meet the criteria. Method Table 14 Mean, S.D, t value, significance level, corrected item total correlation of each items in the school adjustment inventory Item Low group High group t-value Significance Corrected Mean S. D. Mean S. D. level Item-Total Correlation 1 1.0818 0.30686 1.4909 0.80986 -4.954 0.000 0.313 2 1.0909 0.31899 1.7364 .091549 -6.983 0.000 0.384 3* 1.8727 0.38573 2.0545 0.52175 -2.939 0.004 0.186 4 1.3727 0.50428 2.1727 0.81115 -8.785 0.000 0.367 5 1.1000 0.33042 1.7545 0.92057 -7.019 0.000 0.363 6* 1.8091 0.39482 2.0364 0.44777 -3.993 0.000 0.240 7 1.3727 0.50428 2.0182 0.66335 -8.124 0.000 0.354 8* 1.0909 0.28880 1.2818 0.65149 -2.810 0.006 0.159 9 1.7364 0.44262 2.1455 0.55581 -6.039 0.000 0.362 10 1.6545 0.54917 2.1364 0.58226 -6.314 0.000 0.363 11* 1.7727 0.42099 2.0000 0.40637 -4.074 0.000 0.249 12 1.2545 0.51467 1.8636 0.92347 -6.043 0.000 0.334 13 1.3636 0.48325 2.2636 0.68640 -11.245 0.000 0.441 14 1.5909 0.54681 2.1000 0.69003 -6.065 0.000 0.299 15 1.1182 0.32430 1.5000 0.82116 -4.536 0.000 0.261 16 1.5545 0.53478 2.2091 0.63673 -8.256 0.000 0.319 17 1.7818 0.41490 2.0364 0.48703 -4.173 0.000 0.288 18 1.7182 0.47181 2.0455 0.53134 -4.831 0.000 0.288 19 1.3636 0.50187 1.9909 0.74803 -7.303 0.000 0.297 20 1.1273 0.33480 1.6182 0.85651 -5.599 0.000 0.268 21 1.1273 0.33480 1.5000 0.80992 -4.461 0.000 0.283 22 1.3545 0.49929 2.3182 0.75336 -11.183 0.000 0.435 23 1.8000 0.46531 2.1182 0.48333 -4.974 0.000 0.316 24 1.7364 0.44262 2.0909 0.43988 -5.959 0.000 0.377 25* 1.8455 0.38757 2.0273 0.39397 -3.451 0.001 0.201 * 0.01 level of significance Note: Items removed from the final draft scale are shown in star mark (*). Method On the basis of the t value, all the items can be retained. But items 3, 6, 8, 11, and 25 in the test are deleted during the standardization process on the basis of the corrected item correlation score. All other items have the ability to significantly differentiate between the low and high groups on the criterion score. Hence, all those items can be retained in the standardized tool. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY The test obtained a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.733, indicating good reliability, consistent with the reliability standards set by Hair et al. (2003). Experts believe the inventory has strong face validity, which means it appears to assess what it claims to measure based on its appearance and content. SCORING This is a three-point scale. A score of 3 represents "YES," a score of 2 corresponds to the symbol "?" and a score of 1 indicates "NO." The item scores were 1, 2, 3, and the reversed score items were 3, 2, 1. The total scoring range for the scale is between 20 and 60, with higher scores indicating better school adjustment and lower scores indicating poorer school adjustment. 5. PEER PRESSURE SCALE- REVISED The Peer Pressure Scale was developed by Singh and Saini (2010) to assess the level of peer pressure among adolescents. It contains 25 items. It is a self-reported 5-point Likert scale measured in five categories, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The s the . The minimum and maximum scores are 25 and 125, respectively. A high score implies high peer pressure, whereas a low score suggests low peer pressure. Method The researcher translated the original peer pressure scale into Malayalam, with the aim of making it accessible in the local language. The standardization process was undertaken to enhance its reliability and validity. To ensure the accuracy and consistency of the translation, subject experts translated the English questionnaire into Malayalam. Subsequently, English professors performed a rigorous back-translation of the Malayalam version into English. This process helps validate the accuracy of the translation and ensures that the original meaning and intent of the questionnaire are preserved in the translated version. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the appendix F. The standardization procedure is as follows: Experimental Try out The experimental tryout was required for the standardization of the questionnaire. For this, the scale was administered on the basis of a sample rule of thumb (25x5 = 125), i.e., 130 participants were included in the preliminary administration of the test. Participants A total of 130 participants, ranging in age from 16 to 20 years and including both males and females, were involved in the study. Procedure and administration After obtaining permission from the principal, the researcher built a good rapport with the participants and obtained their informed consent for participation. Privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality were maintained throughout the study. The concept of peer pressure was discussed, and the peer pressure scale was distributed to selected participants with instructions to carefully read and respond to all statements. Clarifications on the scale were provided before the participants began the test. Method Completed questionnaires were collected, and incomplete or improper scales were excluded from the analysis. The researcher utilized the following procedures to ascertain the psychometric properties of the research instrument, employing various standardized statistical methods: Item analysis The Steps involved in Item analysis are as follows Total score of each item identified for the participants. The scores arranged in an ascending order. From the list, the initial thirty percentage data was categorised as below average group, upper thirty-three percentages (54 items) considered as above average group. t test was computed to compare and see whether there exists any significant difference between the low and high score group. -value equal to or greater than 1.96 (at the 0.05 level of significance) and 2.58 (at the 0.01 level of significance) was regarded as a significance difference. Those items that showed a significant difference, which shows that the item is able to discriminate between individuals based on high and low peer pressure, were included in the final form of the test. The mean and standard deviation of the low and high groups, the t value, and the significant levels between the groups are represented in Table 15. Corrected item total correlation The criteria is that any item with a corrected item total correlation of 0.25 or above has the strength to be included in the test. All the items in this test meet the Method criteria. All the items in this test are being retained since each one meets the item discrimination score. So, the final version of the questionnaire consisted of 25 items. Table 15 Mean, S.D, t value, significance level, corrected item total correlation of each items in the peer pressure scale Low group High group Corrected Significance Item t-value Item-Total Mean S. D. Mean S. D. level Correlation 1 1.41 0.901 3.26 1.102 -9.559 0.000 0.596 2 1.09 0.351 2.20 1.016 -7.592 0.000 0.507 3 1.00 0.000 1.65 0.805 -5.919 0.000 0.464 4 1.35 0.555 2.22 0.793 -6.608 0.000 0.492 5 1.48 0.720 2.91 1.137 -7.785 0.000 0.495 6 1.31 0.507 2.59 1.037 -8.131 0.000 0.572 7 1.28 0.596 2.85 1.035 -9.682 0.000 0.587 8 1.09 0.401 2.00 0.869 -6.968 0.000 0.527 9 1.00 0.000 1.35 0.677 -3.817 0.000 0.328 10 1.00 0.000 1.43 0.570 -5.494 0.000 0.353 11 1.33 0.700 2.91 1.014 -9.383 0.000 0.581 12 3.46 1.356 3.93 0.723 -2.214 0.030 0.139 13 1.24 0.473 2.69 0.907 -10.371 0.000 0.670 14 1.17 0.423 2.69 0.886 -11.359 0.000 0.599 15 1.17 0.423 2.59 1.125 -8.720 0.000 0.566 16 1.04 0.191 2.28 0.878 -10.151 0.000 0.668 17 1.13 0.516 2.02 0.921 -6.187 0.000 0.445 18 1.35 0.781 2.46 0.985 -6.496 0.000 0.511 19 1.24 0.473 2.93 0.887 -12.317 0.000 0.584 20 1.57 0.838 2.69 0.987 -6.306 0.000 0.411 21 1.00 0.000 1.50 0.841 -4.368 0.000 0.257 22 1.02 0.136 1.63 0.653 -6.733 0.000 0.485 23 1.17 0.466 2.91 1.137 -10.409 0.000 0.606 24 1.37 0.784 2.69 1.210 -6.699 0.000 0.414 25 1.00 0.000 1.48 0.666 -5.316 0.000 0.476 * 0.01 level of significance Note: No item in the test is deleted during standardisation/adaptation process Method In this scale, all the items have the ability to significantly differentiate between the low and high groups on the criterion score. Hence, all the items are retained in the standardized tool. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY The Peer Pressure Scale obtained a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.899, indicating a very good level of reliability, which aligns with the reliability standards established by Hair et al. (2003). This suggests that the items within the scale are internally consistent and reliable in measuring peer pressure. Based on the opinion of subject experts who have vivid knowledge of test construction and the psychometric properties of the scale, all the items in the peer pressure scale have good face validity. SCORING The scoring was similar to the original scale, ranging from 25 to 125. The item scores were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the reversed score items were 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. A high score indicates higher levels of peer pressure, while a low score suggests lower levels of peer pressure. 6. PERSONAL DATA SHEET The Personal data Sheet used in the study collected general information about the participants, including their gender, birth order, type of family, and socio- economic status. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in the appendix A. PROCEDURE The study involved higher secondary students selected from government, aided, and private schools in different districts of Kerala, including Malappuram, Method Thrissur, Palakkad, and Ernakulam. The researcher contacted several schools, arranged meetings with school authorities, and sent formal request letters to the principals of the chosen schools. The school administration cooperated, and arrangements were made accordingly. All participants were given informed consent forms and obtained permission from their respective school principals. Anonymity was maintained throughout the research process. After establishing a good rapport, the investigator provided a brief overview of the importance and relevance of the study. The investigator distributed a questionnaire booklet among the participants, which was compiled for easy administration. Clear instructions for completing the questionnaires were provided at the top of each instrument. They were instructed that there are no right or wrong answers and to respond to the questions as they come to mind. The investigator ensured that all students understood the instructions, reading out each question and allowing them to mark their answers simultaneously at a consistent pace. Participants were instructed not to skip any questions, and the investigator actively encouraged their full participation. Subsequently, the completed questionnaire booklets were collected and carefully reviewed, with incomplete surveys being excluded from the analysis. STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES After collecting data using suitable tools, it needs to be summarized to f Analysis refers to the computation of certain measures along with searching for patterns of relationships that exist among data groups (Kothari, 1985) . Statistical analysis involves a series of interconnected procedures aimed at summarizing the collected data and synthesizing the results to address the Method research questions effectively. Each statistical approach utilized is based on specific assumptions regarding the sample, population, and research context. The data was analyzed using the following statistical techniques: Descriptive statistics t test Correlation Analysis of Variance Regression Descriptive Statistics sets of statistical procedures used to organize, summarize, and present the data collected in a research project (Runyon et al., 1996)". Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the data, providing insights into its central tendencies, variability, and distribution characteristics. A t-test is a parametric, inferential statistical test used to assess whether there is a significant difference between two sets of data. It is typically employed when the test statistic would approximate a normal distribution if the value of a scaling term in the test statistic were known. Correlation Correlation aims to establish relationships between two or more variables within the same population or between the same variables in two distinct populations (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The Pearson correlation coefficient, denoted as 'r', is utilized to quantify the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. Correlation can be positive or negative, simple, partial, or multiple, and linear or non-linear, depending on the nature of the relationship between the variables. Method One-Way Analysis of Variance to test the hypothesis that the means of several samples have a significant difference or not. Analysis of variance furnishes a technique for testing simultaneously the significance of differences among several means (Gupta, 1989)". Analysis of variance encompasses various forms, including one-way, two-way, and three-way ANOVA. The researcher employed a one-way ANOVA to compare means across multiple groups based on a single criterion. Regression Regression analysis comprises a set of statistical techniques designed to estimate relationships between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. It aids in evaluating the strength of these relationships between variables. Out of the various techniques in regression analysis, the researcher selected stepwise multiple regression analysis for the present study. This approach was chosen to identify the most suitable combination of independent (predictor) variables for predicting the dependent (predicted) variable. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The study obtained approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the institution, ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines and research protocols. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students, and consent from their respective principals was also sought and considered. Participants were informed that they had the freedom to leave the study at any point during its progression. Throughout the study, the investigator prioritized the maintenance of privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. These measures were implemented to protect Method the participants' identities and maintain the confidentiality of their personal information and responses. By adhering to these ethical concerns, the study aims to preserve the rights and welfare of participants while also maintaining the integrity of the research process. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Variables Mean Median Mode SD Skewness Kurtosis BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS Internalizing Behavioural Problems 32.68 30 21 12.784 1.044 0.783 Externalizing Behavioural Problems 23.89 22 20 8.663 0.948 0.846 Overall Behavioural Problems 56.58 53 41 18.299 0.775 0.385 TEMPERAMENT Effortful Control 42.40 42 44 6.551 0.174 0.431 Surgency 37.63 38 35 5.383 0.08 0.333 Negative Affect 44.17 44 42 8.604 0.116 0.109 Affiliativeness 49.87 50 48 8.308 -0.345 -0.065 FAMILY ENVIRONMENT Family Cohesion 27.25 28 28 4.876 -0.935 1.185 Family Adaptability 26.78 28 28 4.961 -0.87 0.979 Enmeshed Family 20.02 20 20 3.691 -0.412 0.758 Rigid Family 19.40 19 18 4.285 -0.08 -0.256 Family Communication 38.37 40 40 7.780 -0.788 0.439 Family Satisfaction 37.82 39 40 7.991 -0.859 0.837 SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT 47.76 49 56 7.506 -0.63 -0.301 PEER PRESSURE 52.23 51 56 15.001 0.544 0.271 Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. Result and Discussion Males Females Dimensions N=477 N= 537 t Mean SD Mean SD IBP 31.38 12.33 33.83 13.07 3.077** EBP 23.34 8.428 24.37 8.84 1.901 OBP 54.72 17.78 58.21 18.60 3.050** **Significant at the 0.01 level Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. Result and Discussion First born Middle born Last born Single born Dimensions N=472 N=120 N= 347 N=75 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD IBP 32.64 12.68 36.24 14.06 31.86 11.9 31.01 14.41 EBP 24.09 8.99 26.33 9.37 23.31 7.87 21.47 8.06 OBP 56.73 18.38 62.57 19.82 55.18 16.64 52.48 20.59 First vs. Middle 3.598 2.236 5.834* Middle vs. Last 4.377* 3.011* 7.388* Last vs. Single 0.851 1.847 2.699 First vs. Single 1.631 2.622 4.253 First vs. Last 0.780 0.775 1.554 Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Low Middle High Dimensions N=138 N=788 N= 88 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD IBP 31.71 11.80 32.57 12.80 35.23 13.90 EBP 23.95 9.54 23.82 8.51 24.44 8.65 OBP 55.66 18.30 56.39 18.25 59.67 18.68 Result and Discussion Between Group Within Groups Dimensions Sum of Mean Sum of Mean F Squares Squares Squares Squares IBP 710.588 355.294 164847.160 163.054 2.179 EBP 30.867 15.434 75992.842 75.166 0.205 OBP 985.233 492.616 338214.267 334.534 1.473 Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of gender among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of type of family among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of birth order among participants. Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of birth order among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion **significant at 0.01level; ***significant at 0.001level Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Result and Discussion Table 36 Mean and SD of behavioural problems and its dimensions on the basis of family dimensions problems Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Table 38 Multiple comparisons of mean differences (Scheffe Procedure) based on family dimensions Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Based on the results of the One-Way ANOVA, the hypothesis of no significant difference between low, moderate and high family characteristics (including cohesion, family communication, and family satisfaction) and internalizing, externalizing, as well as overall behavioural problems is not accepted. This means that these family dimensions do have a significant impact on behavioural problem outcomes. On the other hand, the hypothesis of no significant difference between family adaptability and internalizing or overall behavioural problems is not accepted. This indicates that family adaptability does play a significant role in influencing these behavioural problem dimensions. However, the hypothesis of no significant difference between family adaptability and externalizing behavioural problems is accepted, suggesting that family adaptability do not have a significant impact on externalizing behavioural problems. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that there is no significant difference between family characteristics such as enmeshed and rigid family, and internalizing, externalizing, as well as overall behavioural problems. This means that these family characteristics do not have a direct influence on behavioural problem outcomes, as indicated by the lack of significant differences observed. Overall, these findings emphasize the importance of certain family characteristics, such as cohesion, communication, satisfaction, and adaptability, in understanding and addressing behavioural problems in adolescents. Previous research indicates that adolescents who maintain a positive relationship with at least one parent are more inclined to report good physical and mental health (Hair et al., 2009). Positive relationships with parents, characterized by low conflict, high levels of support, and open communication (Hair et al., 2009), play a crucial role in fostering Result and Discussion mental and physical well-being during adolescence. These connections are particularly important as teenagers navigate the physical and emotional changes of this developmental period (Shaw et al., 2014). Result and Discussion Low, Moderate and High categories of school adjustment and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) Understanding the significance of varying levels of school adjustment, participants are divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high based on the mean and standard deviation obtained for school adjustment. The mean of school adjustment is 48, and the standard deviation is 7. The groups are classified using the criterion Mean +/- 1 S.D. Participants scoring above 56 are considered as high, those scoring below 41 as low, and those scoring between 42 and 55 as moderate. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems. Result and Discussion Table 39 Mean and SD of behavioural problems and its dimensions on the basis of school adjustment Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Low, Moderate and High categories of peer pressure and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) Understanding the significance of different levels of peer pressure, participants are divided into three groups: low, moderate, and high based on the mean and standard deviation attained for peer pressure. The mean of peer pressure is 52, with a standard deviation of 15. The groups are categorized using the criterion Mean Result and Discussion +/- 1 S.D. Participants who score above 68 are classified as high, those who score below 37 as low, and those who score between 38 and 67 as moderate. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems. Table 42 Behavioural problems IBP EBP OBP Variables Low Mean 19.48 27.04 46.52 SD 6.91 11.76 15.98 Moderate Mean 23.87 32.76 56.64 Peer Pressure SD 8.27 11.95 17.02 High Mean 28.81 38.53 67.34 SD 9.39 14.51 19.74 Result and Discussion Behavioural problems IBP EBP OBP Variables Low vs. Moderate 4.396* 5.720* 10.116* Peer Pressure Low vs. High 9.329* 11.485* 20.815* Moderate vs. High 4.933* 5.765* 10.699* Result and Discussion Result and Discussion (cohesion, family communication, and family satisfaction) There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems. Result and Discussion There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems. Effortful Negative Surgency Affiliativeness Control Affect Internalizing Behavioural Problems Externalizing Behavioural Problems Overall Behavioural Problems Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and externalizing behavioural problems. Result and Discussion There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and overall behavioural problems. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and internalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and externalizing behavioural problems. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and overall behavioural problems. Result and Discussion Table 48 Relationship between peer pressure and dimensions of behavioural problems (N=1014) Dimensions of Behavioural Problems Internalizing Externalizing Variables Overall behavioural behavioural behavioural problems problems problems Peer Pressure 0.296** 0.361** 0.378** **Significant at the 0.01 level Result and Discussion SECTION 5: IDENTIFYING PREDICTORS OF INTERNALIZING, EXTERNALIZING AND OVERALL BEHVAIOURAL PROBLEMS Result and Discussion Dimensions of behavioural problems as Dependent Variables Internalizing behavioural problems Externalizing behavioural problems Overall behavioural problems Dimensions of temperament as Independent Variables Effortful control Surgency Negative affect Affiliativeness Dimensions of family environment as Independent Variables School adjustment as Independent Variable Peer pressure as Independent Variables Temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict internalizing behavioural problems. Result and Discussion ***Significant at the 0.001 level Result and Discussion A multiple regression linear analysis (Step-wise) was conducted to validate the predictability of internalising behavioural problems (IBP) in the study, including effortful control, surgency, negative affect, affiliativeness, family cohesion, family adaptability, enmeshed family, rigid family, family communication, family satisfaction, peer pressure, and school adjustment. The corresponding results are summarised in Table 49. Negative affect is the first of the twelve independent variables to be analysed, which suggests that it is the most crucial factor predict internalising behavioural problems. The R value (0.496) for this variable suggests that the link between negative affect and internalising behavioural problems is 49.6% strong at this point and is significant at the p < 0.001 level (F= 330.073 for 1, 1012df). The R square value (0.246) demonstrates that the variable negative affect may account for 24.6% of the variation in internalising behavioural problems. The finding indicates that for every unit increase in negative affect, there will be 0.737 unit increases in internalising behavioural problems. The equation for this will be: IBP = 0.135 + 0.737 (negative affect) Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict externalizing behavioural problems. Result and Discussion To validate the predictability of externalising behavioural (EBP) by other independent variables in the study such as effortful control, surgency, negative affect, affiliativeness, family cohesion, family adaptability, enmeshed family, rigid family, family communication, family satisfaction, school adjustment, and peer pressure. A multiple regression linear analysis (stepwise) was conducted and the corresponding results were summarized in Table 50. Among the twelve independent variables, the first variable entered in the analysis, negative affect implies that it is the most important variable in the prediction of externalising behavioural problems. The R value (0.416) for this variable is significant at p < 0.001 level (F= 212.333 for 1, 1012 df) and indicates that the strength of the relationship between negative affect and Result and Discussion externalising behavioural problems is 41.6% at this stage. The value of R square (0.173) proves that 17% of variance in externalising behavioural problems can be contributed by the variable negative affect alone. Result shows that a unit increase in negative affect, there will be 0.419 unit increases in externalising behavioural problems. The equation for this will be: EBP = 5.373 + 0.419 (negative affect) The equation at this point will be: EBP = 2.671 + 0.325 (negative affect) +0 .132(peer pressure) Result and Discussion Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict overall behavioural problems. Result and Discussion Result and Discussion A multiple regression linear analysis (stepwise) was employed to validate the predictability of overall behavioural problems (OBP) by other independent variables in the study such as effortful control, surgency, negative affect, affiliativeness, family cohesion, family adaptability, enmeshed family, rigid family, family communication, family satisfaction, peer pressure, and school adjustment, and the corresponding results were summarised in Table 51. Negative affect is the first independent variable entered in the analysis, implying that it is the most important variable in predicting overall behavioural problems. This variable's R value (0.544) is significant at the p < 0.001 level (F= 274.625 for 1, 1012df) and suggests that the connection between negative affect and overall behavioural problems is 54.4% at this stage. The value of R square (0.296) demonstrates that the variable negative affect alone may account for 29.6% of the variance in overall behavioural problems. The results indicate that for every unit increase in negative affect, 1.156 units increase in overall behavioural problems. The equation for this will be: OBP = 5.508 + 1.156 (negative affect) The effortful control variable is the second significant variable in the study, with R value of 0.593 that is significant at the p < 0.001 level (F=274.625 for 2, 1011df). This indicates that the intensity of the interaction between two independent factors (negative emotion and effortful control) coupled together to the dependent variable is 59.3 %. R square (0.352) suggests that the variation accounted by negative affect and effortful control combined to overall behavioural problems is 35.2%. The value of B indicates the contribution of these variables to the criterion variable. That is, for every unit change in negative affect there will be 0.977 unit increase in overall Result and Discussion behavioural problems whereas every unit change in effortful control there will be - 0.705 unit decreases in overall behavioural problems. The equation at this point will be: OBP = 43.319 + 0.977 (negative affect) - 0.705 (effortful control) Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion Result and Discussion 4 Summary and Conclusions Adolescence marks the transition from childhood to adulthood. It is characterized by profound physical, psychological, and social changes as individuals navigate their way toward maturity. This formative period involves developing identity, values, and a sense of self, which are crucial for shaping future attitudes, behaviours, and life choices. Identity formation includes self-reflection, experimentation, and a search for purpose, often leading to risk-taking behaviours as adolescents seek independence. While experimentation is a normal part of identity exploration, it presents challenges, manifesting as complex behavioural problems influenced by numerous factors. A nurturing family environment, socioeconomic status, parental attachment, relationship quality, personal disposition, commitment to education, and community support all contribute to positive adolescent behaviour development. However, the desire for autonomy, peer pressure, sexual identity development, and increased technology use can contribute to stress during this stage. Determining whether adolescent behaviour falls within typical experiences or poses harm can be challenging. These vulnerabilities impact adolescent health and well-being, creating obstacles to overall growth and development. Notably, the more risk factors adolescents encounter, the greater the potential impact on their behavioural development. A comprehensive review of various studies focusing on adolescent behavioural issues reveals that students in mainstream schools often encounter emotional and behavioural challenges. Recognizing these issues and understanding the causes in a timely manner is crucial. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify the factors associated with behavioural problems among adolescents by incorporating Summary and Conclusions Factors Related to Behavioural Problems among Adolescents: An 1. To understand the levels and nature of behavioural problems while considering demographic variables in higher secondary adolescents 2. To understand the nature of temperamental dimensions (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness), family dimensions (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction), school adjustment, and peer pressure among adolescents. 3. To examine whether there is any significance to behavioural problems on the basis of levels of temperamental dimensions (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness), levels of family dimensions (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction), levels of school adjustment, and levels of peer pressure among adolescents. 4. To find out the relationship among temperamental dimensions (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness), family dimensions (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction), peer pressure, school adjustment, and dimensions of behavioural problems. 5. To identify the predictors (temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment, and peer pressure) of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall). Summary and Conclusions 1. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 2. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 3. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. 4. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 5. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 6. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 7. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 8. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 9. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 10. There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 11. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 12. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Summary and Conclusions 13. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of gender among participants. 14. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of gender among participants. 15. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of gender among participants. 16. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of gender among participants. 17. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of the type of family among participants. 18. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of type of family among participants. 19. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of type of family among participants. 20. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of type of family among participants. 21. There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of birth order among participants. Summary and Conclusions 22. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of birth order among participants. 23. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of birth order among participants. 24. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of birth order among participants. 25. There is no significant difference in temperamental characteristics (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 26. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 27. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 28. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 29. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 30. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 31. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 32. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 33. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 34. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 35. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 36. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 37. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 38. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 39. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 40. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 41. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 42. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 43. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 44. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 45. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 46. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 47. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 48. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 49. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and overall behavioural problems among participants. 50. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 51. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 52. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and overall behavioural problems among participants. 53. Temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict internalizing behavioural problems among participants. 54. Temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict externalizing behavioural problems among participants. 55. Temperamental aspects, family characteristics, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 1. Problem Behaviour Rating Scale-Adolescent Version 2. The Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire- Revised (EATQ- R) Summary and Conclusions 3. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES- IV)- Revised 4. - Revised 5. Peer Pressure Scale- Revised 6. Personal Data Sheet Descriptive statistics Correlation t test ANOVA Multiple Step wise Regression Summary and Conclusions 1. Gender on behavioural problems There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of gender among participants. To assess the tenability of these hypotheses, a t test was employed, and the results are listed below: The results revealed that males and females differ significantly in terms of internalizing and overall behavioural problems, but that these differences were not significant in terms of externalizing behavioural problems. Thus, the hypothesis was not accepted 2. Type of family on behavioural problems There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of type of family among participants. 3. Birth order on behavioural problems There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of birth order among participants. 4. Socioeconomic status on behavioural problems Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference in internalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in externalizing behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in overall behavioural problems on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. 5. Temperament, family, peer pressure, and school adjustment on the basis of gender There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of gender among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of gender among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of gender among participants. 6. Temperament, family, peer pressure, and school adjustment on the basis of type of family There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of the type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of type of family among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of type of family among participants. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of type of family among participants. 7. Temperament, family, peer pressure, and school adjustment on the basis of birth order There is no significant difference in temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of birth order among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of birth order among participants. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of birth order among participants. Summary and Conclusions 8. Temperament, family, peer pressure, and school adjustment on the basis of socioeconomic status There is no significant difference in temperamental characteristics (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in school adjustment on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. There is no significant difference in peer pressure on the basis of socioeconomic status among participants. Summary and Conclusions 9. Low, Moderate and High categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect and affiliativess) and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 10. Low, Moderate and High categories of family dimensions (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshed, rigid, communication and satisfaction) and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between low, moderate, and high categories of family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, Summary and Conclusions rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 11. Low, Moderate and High categories of school adjustment and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between levels of school adjustment (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. 12. Low, Moderate and High categories of peer pressure and dimensions of behavioural problems (internalizing, externalizing, and overall) There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant difference between levels of peer pressure (low, moderate, and high) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 13. Relationship between Temperament and Behavioural Problems There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between temperamental aspects (effortful control, surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 14. Relationship between Family and Behavioural Problems There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between family characteristics (cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction) and overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions 15. Relationship between school adjustment and behavioural problems There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between school adjustment and overall behavioural problems among participants. 16. Relationship between peer pressure and behavioural problems There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and internalizing behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and externalizing behavioural problems among participants. There is no significant relationship between peer pressure and overall behavioural problems among participants. 17. Multiple Regression Analysis (Step-wise): Internalizing, Externalizing and Overall behavioural problems as dependent variable Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict internalizing behavioural problems among participants. Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict externalizing behavioural problems among participants. Temperamental dimensions, family dimensions, school adjustment and peer pressure cannot predict overall behavioural problems among participants. Summary and Conclusions Only 2.5% of adolescents in the study reported having no behavioural issues, highlighting that the majority of the sampled adolescents faced some form of behavioural challenge. More than 50% of adolescents reported experiencing a mild level of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. Summary and Conclusions 3. Externalizing behaviour problems are common among males and females, but internalizing and overall behavioural problems are higher among females. 4. Adolescents who live in a joint family experience internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 5. Middle-born adolescents commonly exhibit internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 6. Socioeconomic status is irrelevant to internalizing, externalizing, or overall behavioural difficulties. 7. Gender differences were observed in the temperamental aspects of negative affect and affiliativeness. 8. The temperamental aspects of effortful control and surgency are common among male and female adolescents. 9. Gender differences were significant in family aspects such as cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, and communication. 10. The way male and female participants experience school adjustment and peer pressure significantly differs. 11. Adolescents in nuclear and joint families show differences in the temperamental aspect of effortful control. Summary and Conclusions 12. Adolescents living in nuclear and joint families share the temperamental aspects of surgency, negative affect, and affiliativeness. 13. Adolescents in nuclear and joint families demonstrate significant differences in family communication. 14. Adolescents from nuclear and joint families reported similar levels of family cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, and satisfaction. 15. Adolescents in nuclear and joint families exhibit significant differences in school adjustment and peer pressure. Adolescents from various birth order groups demonstrated variations in temperamental aspects such as effortful control, surgency, and negative affect. Single-born participants tend to exhibit a higher effortful control temperament. Middle-born participants show higher surgency and negative affect temperaments. Family dimensions, including cohesion, adaptability, enmeshment, rigidity, communication, and satisfaction, do not differ significantly among adolescents from different birth order groups. School adjustment varies significantly among different birth order groups, whereas peer pressure does not show significant differences among these groups. 21. Adolescents from low socioeconomic status groups demonstrated higher levels of effortful control. Summary and Conclusions 22. Adolescents from high socioeconomic status groups tend to exhibit higher levels of surgency. 23. Adolescents belonging to low socioeconomic status groups reported higher levels of family cohesion. 24. Adolescents from middle socioeconomic status groups reported high family adaptability. 25. Adolescents from low socioeconomic status groups tend to report higher levels of family communication and satisfaction. 26. Among various family dimensions, only the enmeshed family is significant in relation to different levels of socioeconomic status. 27. School adjustment is significantly different for adolescents from varying socioeconomic status levels, while peer pressure does not exhibit significant differences. 28. Adolescents with low effortful control temperaments have internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural issues. 29. Internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural difficulties are predominant in adolescents with a high surgency temperament. 30. Adolescents exhibiting a high negative affect temperament typically encounter increased levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural issues. 31. Internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural issues appear to be not significant in adolescents with low, moderate, or high affiliativeness temperaments. Summary and Conclusions 32. Adolescents residing in families with poor cohesion often exhibit higher levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 33. Adolescents residing in families with poor adaptability tend to demonstrate heightened levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 34. Adolescents in low-enmeshed families displayed externalizing behaviour problems, while those in high-enmeshed families exhibited internalizing and overall behavioural problems. 35. Externalizing behavioural problems are predominant in high-rigid families, while internalizing and overall behavioural problems are more prevalent in moderately rigid families. 36. Internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems are common among adolescents living in families with limited communication. 37. Internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems are typical among adolescents living in dissatisfying families. 38. Adolescents with poor school adjustment tend to exhibit heightened problematic behaviour, encompassing internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. Summary and Conclusions 39. Adolescents exposed to high levels of peer pressure demonstrated more problematic behaviour compared to those facing low or moderate levels of peer pressure. 40. A significant negative relationship was observed between the temperamental aspects of effortful control and internalizing and externalizing, as well as overall behavioural problems. 41. A significant positive relationship is evident between the temperamental aspect of surgency and internalizing, externalizing, as well as overall behavioural problems. 42. A significant positive relationship exists between the temperamental aspects of negative affect and internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 43. Better family cohesiveness correlates with reduced levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems in adolescents. 44. High family adaptability is linked to lower levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 45. While adolescents from enmeshed families may demonstrate lower levels of internalizing and overall behavioural problems, they also exhibit higher levels of externalizing behavioural issues. Summary and Conclusions 46. Adolescents residing in rigid family environments are more likely to display internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 47. Enhanced family communication correlates with decreased levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems in adolescents. 48. Increased family satisfaction is associated with reduced occurrences of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 49. Better school adjustment is linked to lower levels of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 50. Peer pressure exhibits a positive correlation with internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems in adolescents. 51. Negative affect and effortful control are significant predictors of internalizing, externalizing, and overall behavioural problems. 52. Surgency predicted internalizing and overall behavioural problems. Whereas, peer pressure predicted externalizing and overall behaviour problems. 53. School adjustment and family satisfaction predicted internalizing and overall behavioural problems. Summary and Conclusions 5 Recommendations Recommendations The reliance on self-report measures in the study introduces the potential for social desirability bias. Participant fatigueness due to the extensive assessment battery, which may have influenced the outcomes. The utilization of a quantitative descriptive research design in the study restricts the ability to establish causal relationships between the assessed variables. This study investigated the prediction of behavioural problems using temperamental characteristics, family dynamics, school adjustment, and peer pressure. However, not all variables studied were found to predict behavioural problems. This suggests the presence of additional unexplored variables that contribute to behavioural issues. Recommendations The study's scope was limited to identifying factors that predict behavioural problems in adolescents. The study focused only on higher secondary students in Kerala. This limitation suggests that the findings may not be readily generalizable to other populations, such as students at different educational levels or those belonging to different age groups. Future researchers might consider incorporating observational or interviewer- rated devices to collect data in order to overcome social desirability bias. The study recommends the utilization of a longitudinal design in future research endeavors. Such an approach would offer a more robust and reliable exploration of the phenomena under investigation over an extended period. Future research should consider designing assessment batteries that aim to minimize participant fatigue. This consideration is critical, as participant fatigue can potentially impact the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. Future research should investigate additional variables such as TV exposure, computer use, video gaming, virtual reality and social media influence that were not considered in the current study. It is essential to recognize that adolescent behavioural problems are influenced by a multitude of factors that cannot be adequately captured by a limited set of parameters. Recommendations The study points toward a potential avenue for future research endeavors, suggesting that researchers explore opportunities to replicate or extend the study by incorporating a more diverse sample. Also, develop techniques to enhance adolescent mental health, well-being, peer interactions, and teacher- student relationships. References Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The Two Faces Behavior. Child Development, 76(3), 747 760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x References References References Bone, K. D. (2015). The Bioecological Model: applications in holistic workplace well-being management. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 8(4), 256 271. doi:10.1108/ijwhm-04-2014-0010 Bronfenbrenner, u. (1989). Ecological system theory. Annals of child development, 6, 187-249 Cambridge University Dictionary. (2014). English definitions. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/americanenglish/peer-pressure References References Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Miller-Johnson, S., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Toward a Dynamic Developmental Model of the Role of Parents and Peers in Early Onset Substance Use. References References Farrington, D.P. (1987). Implications of biological findings for criminological research. In S.A. Mednick, T.E. Moffitt, & S.A. Stack (Eds.), The causes of crime: New biological approaches (pp. 42.64). New York: Cambridge University Press. References doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.06.003 Gutman, L. M., Eccles, J. S., Peck, S., & Malanchuk, O. (2011). The influence of family relations on trajectories of cigarette and alcohol use from early to late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34(1), 119 128. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01 References References References Kiran-Esen, B. (2012). Analyzing Peer Pressure and Self-Efficacy Expectations Among Adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1301 1309. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.8.1301 References References References References Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence- limited and life course- Persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological review, 100 (4), 674 References Olson, D.H., & Wilson, M.A. (1982). Family Satisfaction Scale. In D.H. Olson, H.I. McCubbin, H.L. Barnes, A.S. Larsen, M.J. Muxen, & M.A. Wilson (Eds.), Family Inventories. (pp. 25 31) St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. References Peterson, R. & Green, S. (2009) Families first: Keys to successful family functioning communication. Virginia Tech: Virginia State University References References References Sameroff, A. (1975). Transactional Models in Early Social Relations. Human Development, 18(1-2), 65 79. doi:10.1159/000271476 Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 297 312. References References References References References You, S. (2011). - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 829 835. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.311 Appendix A Personal Data Sheet Respondent Name: ----------------------------------------- Name of School: --------------------------------------------- Place: -------------------------------------- 1. Age: ( ) ------------- 2. Sex ( ): Male ( ) /Female ( ) 3. Birth order ( ): First born ( ) / Middle born ( ) / Last born ( ) /Single born ( ) 4. Class of study: Plus One / Plus Two / Other ----------------------------------- 5. Stream/Course Science / Commerce / Humanities / Computer Science / Other ------------------- 6. School management: Govt / Aided / Private 7. Syllabus ( ): State / CBSE 8. District ( ): ------------------------------ 9. Type of Family ( ) Nuclear Family ( ) / Joint Family ( ) 10. Socioeconomic Status ( ): Low / Middle / High 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293