5
2
2024
1711615833137_4266
403-412
https://submissions.qlantic.com/index.php/qjssh/article/download/460/1157
https://submissions.qlantic.com/index.php/qjssh/article/view/460
Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSES) Weighted Least of Squares (DWLS) Psychometrics Pakistan University Students Private Institutions Education
|
|
|
|
| |
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access | |
|
| Psychometrics of the RSES Scale in Pakistan | |
Syeda Baseera Zahra 1 Muhammad Kamran 2 Waqar Un Nisa Faizi 3 Karla Patricia Valdés-García 4 | ||
| ||
Abstract: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSES) was developed in 1965 to measure self-esteem, and it has been used and translated into different languages to be applied to different samples. A quantitative instrumental research design, looking for the psychometric properties of the RSES scale, was conducted in Pakistan with University students (N= 455) enrolled in different public and private institutions. A single-factor model that included all the items was determined with the Dependent Weighted Least of Squares (DWLS) estimator and pairwise missing data handling because the distribution was not normal and identified missing values, considering that some items' response options were significantly underrepresented. This instrument may not be adequate for the psychosocial characteristics of Pakistan university students, and future research must be done to analyze the psychometric properties of the RSES. | ||
Key Words: Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSES), Weighted Least of Squares (DWLS), Psychometrics, Pakistan, University Students, Private Institutions, Education | ||
Introduction
High positive self-esteem is considered a positive state that can produce well-being for an individual and positively impact society (Avila & Cañas, 2023; Alejandra & Alexandra, 2023).
A historical review of self-esteem and the use of this instrument is presented to generate a more profound understanding of the relevance, use, and theoretical relations of the concept and the instrument.
(Flynn, 2007)states that William James used the concept of self-esteem in the 19th century based on the theories of self. The Rosenberg idea about self-esteem is how a person sees himself/herself compared to how they consider significant people see them (Flynn, 2007)
Self-esteem has been studied and conceptualized in different ways through time. For example, we can mention Gecas & Schwalbe (1983), who proposed two dimensions of self-esteem explanation: competence and self-worth.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem (RSES) was developed in 1965 to measure self-esteem (Swenson, 2003). Initially, it was developed for adolescents, but researchers have used it for different samples.
For many years, researchers have had favourable opinions about the RSES. For example, Gray-Little et al. (1997) have stated that The RSES is easy to administer and takes a few minutes to complete. The RSES has five positive and five negative statements mixed to minimize respondents' bias. Negatively worded items are reverse-scored for meaningful interpretation. The greater the score on the RSES shows, the greater the person's self-esteem level and vice versa.
It is the most famous scale and has been extensively used in past studies at a vast scale. A review study found that nearly 1,285 self-esteem studies used RSES (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1993). Around the globe, the RSES has been used and translated into different languages. This scale has also assessed the self-esteem of samples such as adolescents (Avila & Cañas, 2023; Alejandra & Alexandra, 2023) or patients with different conditions such as cancer (Adriana et al., 2023) or cleft lip and palate (Glaeser et al., 2018) having disorders in various areas of their life. It also explored elite and high achievers' self-esteem (Alhumaid & Ahmed, 2023; Fekih-Romdhane et al., 2023).
The past literature has shown that self-esteem has been linked with different variables, for example, self-esteem and social support and life satisfaction (Avila & Cañas, 2023), social skills ((Alejandra & Alexandra, 2023), with depression, anxiety, and hostility (Cast & Burke, 2002), suicidal ideation Wang & Qiao, 2022; Vélez-Grau & Lindsey, 2022), drug use (Wang et al., 2001) academic performance (Lopes et al., 2013); and the acceptance in sports classes (Estévez et al., 2015).
The RSES scale has shown reliability for all age groups, as proven by past literature. In 1965, RSES was established (Swenson, 2003) for high school adolescents (N=5024) in New York State (Bracken & Mills, 1994). Since the scale is not restricted to specific age groups, therefore the scale has been used for diverse age groups (Bracken & Mills, 1994). High levels of reliabilities through internal consistency and test-retest have been reported (Swenson, 2003) for adolescents. Studies have shown different reliabilities, but most were in the acceptable range. So, RESE can be used for any age group of students and other people.
Here, we will give evidence of the reliability of the RSES scale in two directions (internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability method) from previous literature regarding age-wise.
From the 10 to 19 years sample, the RSES showed an internal consistency of .76 to .90 Cronbach alpha reliability in different studies (Bagley et al., 1997; Lane et al., 2002; Vaughan & Halpern, 2010; Verkuyten, 2003; Yarcheski et al., 2003).
Grade-wise, from fifth to grade 11, the RSES showed an internal consistency of .83 to .84 Cronbach alpha reliability (Feather, 1991; Hagborg, 1996). For undergraduate students and adults, the RSES showed an internal consistency of .62 to .91 Cronbach alpha reliability (Brems & Lloyd, 1995; Feather, 1998; Gray-Little et al., 1997; Henriques & Calhoun, 1999; Hojat & Lyons, 1998; Pullman & Allik, 2000; Robins et al., 2001; Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 1997; Salyers et al., 2001). For adults, the RSES showed an internal consistency of .84 to .96 Cronbach Alpha reliability (Billa et al., 2023; Henriques & Calhoun, 1999; Monteiro et al., 2022; Park & Park, 2019; Robins et al., 2001; Salyers et al., 2001; Vispoel et al., 2001).
From a previous discussion about the reliability of the RSES scale (internal consistency and test-retest reliability), it was proved with the past literature references that the RSES scale had shown a greater range of Cronbach Alpha reliability values (.76 to .96), which strongly proves that RSES scale is reliable for any age group. So, it could be used for people of all ages after evidence of its reliability. One of the important studies that were carried out was the comparative study of the factorial structure of the Whiteside-Mansell & Corwyn (2003); they compared adolescents (aged 12-17 years; N=414) to adults (aged 18-82; N=900), and both groups revealed that the factorial structure of the RSES was the same regarding mean scores having no significant differences (Whiteside-Mansell & Corwyn, 2003), showing that the scale could be used for all different age groups.
Factor analysis (exploratory and confirmatory) supports the unidimensional model of the RSES scale, according to past research studies (Bagley et al., 1997; Góngora & Casullo, 2009; Pullman & Allik, 2000; Shevlin et al., 1995; Tomas & Oliver, 1999). Hence, RSES measures the single characteristic of the person because high correlations among the items of the RSES prove the uni-dimensionality of the RSES (Crocker & Algina, 1986).
Ceballos-Ospino et al. (2017) propose the bi-factorial model of the RSES, with direct items in one factor and inverse items in the other. Some studies even tried to test the bi-factorial design with a general factor and reported excellent psychometric properties of the RSES.
Recent research has proposed different factorial models, including three factorial designs, a uni-factorial, bi-factorial, and bi-factorial with a general factor (Valdés García et al., 2022).
Strong positive correlations have been found between the scores of RSES and other measures examining the self-esteem construct, proving correlations between RSES scores and scores of other instruments examining self-esteem, which proves the convergent validity of the RSES (Brems & Lloyd, 1995; Brumfitt & Sheeran, 1999; Francis & Wilcox, 1995; Griffiths et al., 1999; Silber & Tippett, 1965).
Convergent validity evidence of the RSES was also shown by comparing the scores of RSES to the scores of other scales, for example, the think worthy of self-scale, which measures a similar construct finding positive correlations; therefore, it can be inferred that RSES has proven convergent validity in essence (Cheng & Furnham, 2003; Hale et al., 1992; Hojat & Lyons, 1998; Lorr & Wunderlich, 1986; Schimmack & Diener, 2003; Yaniko & Lu, 2000).
Contrary to this, to prove the convergent validity of the RSES, it was compared to dissimilar scales (e.g., depression scale). Strong negative correlations were found between the scores of RSES and other scales (Brumfitt & Sheeran, 1999; Griffiths et al., 1999; Hojat & Lyons, 1998; Schimmack & Diener, 2003; Thompson et al., 1995; Westaway & Walmarans, 1992; Wilson & Lavelle, 1989; Yaniko & Lu, 2000).
RSES has shown scores regarding gender differences, finding that male and female respondents' scores do not vary (Abu-Saad, 1999; Banos & Gullen, 2000; Hagborg, 1996; McCurdy & Kelly, 1997; Pullmann & Allik, 2000; Swanson & Lease, 1990; White & Schweitzer, 2000).
Other studies reported that when males and females were compared in the scores of RSES, males were found to score higher than females (Moksnes & Reidunsdatter, 2019).
In the analysis regarding age, correlations have been reported between self-esteem and mental health in adolescents–level and stability during a school year, considering the age as the main reason for the variation, and other reasons were differences in cultures (Kawabata et al., 1999; Harper & Marshall, 1991; Moran & Eckemode, 1991; Dukes & Martinez, 1994; Kingree, 1995; Bagley et al., 1997; Kendler et al., 1998; Leonardi et al., 1998; Henriques & Calhoun, 1999; Kawabata et al., 1999; Vaughan & Halpern, 2010; Verkuyken, 2003).
Different versions of the original RSES have been adapted, retested, and revalidated in more than 50 countries by different researchers to ensure its usability and applicability (Flynn, 2007; Ceballos-Ospino et al., 2017). In the original version of the RSES, all ten items have only one dimension in which a single score represents the low or high self-esteem score.
Based on the literature review, we extracted various gaps from the previous studies, based on which we aimed many objectives. The previous studies were mainly conducted in contexts other than Pakistani context. For example, the previous studies had shown strong reliability, but all those studies were out of Pakistani context. Similarly, the previous studies also showed construct validity by running the confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed that the RSES had one-dimensionality.
We also aim to do the same in the Pakistani context by bringing the phenomenon under research. Previous studies mainly compared the gender scores on the RSES and showed that males and females had no significant differences in RSES scores; in some studies, the males had higher scores than females. We compared the gender analysis and other demographic variables (area, marital status, etc.) to see if the same case happened in Pakistan.
Methodology
Design
The study adopted the instrumental design because we have to examine whether the RSES scale shows validity and reliability in Pakistan. Such a type of design has already been reported and supported in the research literature by different researchers (Valdés García et al., 2022). In such a design, the authors have to critically review the papers about the specific phenomenon (e.g., RSES scale) and then collect primary data from the respondents and run the psychometric analysis. We used this type because it was deemed better for achieving the objective we designed for our study.
Participants
The sample was composed of 455 university students from Pakistan; 178 were men and 277 women enrolled in different public and private institutions.
The age of the sample was classified as 18 to 22, with most participants in this range (43.7%), followed by 23 to 26 years (34.5%), 27 to 30 years (11.4%), and over 30 years (10.3%). The majority had a single marital status (79.8%), the rest were married, and the majority resided in an urban area (64.2%) compared to residents in rural areas.
Instrument
RSES is a ten-item self-administered instrument intended to measure global self-esteem. The RSES includes five positively worded items and five negatively worded items. Positive and negative items are mixed to minimize respondent sets. For this study, items were administered in the order presented in Figure 1. Each item had four possible response choices: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) disagree, and (4) strongly disagree. For each item, respondents were asked to choose the one response most closely resembling themselves.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed from the JASP 0.17.3 platform (Intel) with the original idea of contrasting three fit models; however, it was not possible due to the data distribution, and only a single-factor model that included all the items was determined; this was done with the Dependent Weighted Least of Squares (DWLS) estimator and with Pairwise missing data handling because the distribution was not normal and identified missing values, considering that some items' response options were significantly underrepresented.
To determine the model fit, X2 and the indices (CFI) and Tucker Lewis (TLI) were used; the residuals were analyzed through the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (Kline, 2015).
Results
The results were first analyzed by considering the descriptive statistics per item and reviewing the mean, standard deviation, skewness, Shapiro-Wilk kurtosis, and probability. The data showed no normal distribution in the responses (Curran et al., 1996), as seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics by reagent
| It_1 | It_2 | It_3 | It_4 | It_5 | It_6 | It_7 | It_8 | It_9 | It_10 | ||
Mean | 1.681 | 2.360 | 2.640 | 1.736 | 2.510 | 2.527 | 1.958 | 2.473 | 3.169 | 2.119 | ||
Std. Deviation | 0.610 | 0.787 | 0.787 | 0.620 | 0.820 | 0.820 | 0.623 | 0.820 | 0.751 | 0.807 | ||
Skewness | 0.362 | 0.086 | -0.086 | 0.523 | 0.063 | -0.161 | 0.303 | 0.161 | -0.665 | 0.539 | ||
Kurtosis | -0.327 | -0.419 | -0.419 | 0.770 | -0.537 | -0.497 | 0.546 | -0.497 | 0.173 | 0.014 | ||
Shapiro-Wilk | 0.756 | 0.859 | 0.859 | 0.750 | 0.868 | 0.864 | 0.774 | 0.864 | 0.809 | 0.837 | ||
P-value of Shapiro-Wilk | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | ||
Note: It= item. Own elaboration
Levene's
test of equality of variances was used to identify differences
between men and women, finding that only three items showed
significant differences between the responses of both groups.
However, in the analysis of the total result of the scale, there were
no differences by sex. The items with differences show that men
report higher scores on the item, and I
certainly feel useless at times
(men.
=
2.58, women 
=
2.49),
and I
take a positive attitude toward myself
(men
=
2.18, women
=
2.08);
women had higher on the item. I
wish I could have more respect for myself
(men.
=
2.41, women
=
2.50).
These data can be reviewed in Table 2.
Table 2
Levene's test of equality of variances by item and total between men and women
Item | F | Sig. | t |
1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself | 1.250 | .264 | -1.463 |
2. At times, I think I am no good at all | .244 | .621 | 1.325 |
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities | .244 | .621 | -1.325 |
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people | .077 | .781 | -.163 |
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of | 3.268 | .071 | .260 |
6. I certainly feel useless at times | 4.189 | .041 | 1.185 |
7. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others | 2.116 | .146 | -.550 |
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself | 4.189 | .041 | -1.185 |
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure | 3.533 | .061 | -.783 |
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself | 5.350 | .021 | 1.296 |
Total Scale | 1.713 | .191 | -.294 |
Note: Own elaboration
The instrument's internal consistency was obtained using Cronbach's alpha since the data distribution did not allow the use of another more robust estimator (Hayes & Coutts, 2020), which was -0.119, with a range in its confidence interval from -.264 to 0.013. which generates inappropriate values for determining internal consistency (Abad et al., 2011). We proceeded to analyze a general model with a single factor that integrated the ten items of the scale, finding acceptable indicators to determine the proposed factorial structure (X2 (1105.419), p = <.001) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
General factor model plot
Note: GNF = General Factor. Source: Author's elaboration using JASP.
This model was generated using the DWLS estimator and with Pairwise missing data handling, as the data distribution required. Regarding the Fit indices, the model presented acceptable data; the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) presented adjustments close to 1 (Moral, 2006). On the other hand, other adjustment indicators, such as the Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the Standardizes root mean square residual (SRMR), were not adequate since their values were higher than 0.08 and 0.05 respectively, which indicates that the level of error is too high. The Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) was adequate since its value was greater than .050 (Fábregas et al., 2018). These indicators can be seen in Table 2.
Table 3
Model fit indices
Model | General Factor |
X2 | 1105.419 |
Df | 35 |
p | <.001 |
CFI | 0.994 |
TLI | 0.992 |
RMSEA | 0.260 |
SRMR | 0.164 |
PNFI | 0.773 |
GFI | 0.994 |
Note: Author´s elaboration
Discussion and Conclusions
The use of instruments widely used in the world, and for many years, is not enough to guarantee that they adapt to the current needs and characteristics that allow measuring a specific variable.
Having valid and reliable instruments to measure self-esteem is relevant since this concept has been related to well-being, life satisfaction, and adequate academic performance (Avila & Cañas, 2023; Cast & Burke, 2002; Alejandra & Alexandra, 2023), as well as it has been negatively correlated with variables such as anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation (Wang & Qiao, 2022; Vélez-Grau & Lindsey, 2022). To this day, its psychometric properties continue to be studied (Billa et al., 2023; Monteiro et al., 2022; Park & Park, 2019). Therefore, measuring it can favour the development of interventions and actions to promote people's health and well-being.
In the sample studied, the instrument did not report adequate internal consistency, and in the generation of models, only a general model could be found with the ten items and had high error indicators; to use this instrument in the Pakistan university population, the analysis found need to be more robust.
Although some significant differences were found in three items between men and women, due to the lack of adequate psychometric criteria, it is not considered correct to analyze these differences, which, if taken in a general way, could indicate cultural differences between men and women and those most relevant aspects of the self-esteem for both sexes.
Although the scale has been adapted and studied in more than 50 countries (Ceballos-Ospino et al., 2017), there was no recent study for the university population of Pakistan. This study found that This instrument may not be adequate for the psychosocial characteristics of Pakistan university students. Future research must be done to analyze the psychometric properties of the RSES.
References
Abad, F., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales. Síntesis.
Abu-saad, I. (1999). Self-Esteem Among Arab Adolescents in Israel. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598407
Adriana, S., Alejandro, D., & Andrea. (2023). Autoestima en pacientes femeninas con diagnóstico oncológico: un estudio descriptivo. Ciencia Latina, 7(2), 9728–9739. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i2.6076
Alejandra, V., & Alexandra, G. (2023). Autoestima y Habilidades Sociales en Adolescentes. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v4i1.529
Alhumaid, M. M., & Said, M. A. (2023). Increased physical activity, higher educational attainment, and the use of mobility aids are associated with self-esteem in people with physical disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1072709
Avila, M., & Manuel Cañas Lucendo. (2023). NIVELES DE SATISFACCIÓN CON LA VIDA Y SU RELACIÓN CON LA AUTOESTIMA EN ADOLESCENTES. Psicología UNEMI, 7(12), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.29076/issn.2602-8379vol7iss12.2023pp23-34p
Bagley, C., Bolitho, F., & Bertrand, L. (1997). Norms and Construct Validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Canadian High School Populations: Implications for Counselling. Canadian Journal of Counselling/Revue Canadienne de Counseling, 31, 82–92. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ553572.pdf
Billa, A. L., Sukhabogi, J. R., Doshi, D., & S Jummala. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Telugu version of Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (RSES-T). PubMed, 35(5), 511–520. https://doi.org/10.7416/ai.2023.2564
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of Self-Esteem. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 1, 115–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50008-3
Bracken, B. A., & Mills, B. C. (1994). School Counselors’ Assessment of Self-Concept: A Comprehensive Review of 10 Instruments. The School Counselor, 42(1), 14–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23901707
Brumfitt, S. M., & Sheeran, P. (1999). The development and validation of the Visual Analogue Self-Esteem Scale (VASES)1. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466599162980
Cast, A. D., & Burke, P. J. (2002). A Theory of Self-Esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041–1068. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0003
Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality, self-esteem, and demographic predictions of happiness and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 921–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00078-8
Clauser, B. E., Mazor, K., & Hambleton, R. K. (1991). Influence of the Criterion Variable on the Identification of Differentially Functioning Test Items Using the Mantel-Haenszel Statistic. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(4), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169101500405
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical & modern test theory. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Curran, P. J., West, S. C., & Finch, J. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.1.1.16
Dukes, R. L., & Martinez, R. (1994). The impact of ethgender on self-esteem among adolescents. Adolescence, 29(113), 105–115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8036969/
Estévez, M., José Joaquín Muros, Torres, B., Pradas, F., Zurita, F., & Cepero, M. (2015). [Influence of body composition and acceptance of physical education classes on self-esteem of children aged 14-16 years from Alicante, Spain]. PubMed, 31(4), 1519–1524. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2015.31.4.8285
Fábregas, F. D., Ardura, I. R., & Artola, A. M. (2018). Modelos de ecuaciones estructurales en investigaciones de ciencias sociales: Experiencia de uso en Facebook. Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Ve), XXIV(1), 22–40. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/280/28059578003/html/
Feather, N. T. (1991). Human Values, Global Self-Esteem, and Belief in a Just World. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00769.x
Feather, N. T. (1998). Attitudes toward High Achievers, Self-Esteem, and Value Priorities for Australian, American, and Canadian Students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(6), 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198296005
Fekih-Romdhane, F., Sawma, T., Obeid, S., & Hallit, S. (2023). Self-critical perfectionism mediates the relationship between self-esteem and satisfaction with life in Lebanese university students. BMC Psychology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01040-6
Flynn, H. K. (2007). Self Esteem Theory and Measurement: A Critical Review. Thirdspace: A Journal of Feminist Theory and Culture, 3(1), 1–25. https://journals.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/thirdspace/article/view/kohler-flynn
Francis, L. J., & Wilcox, C. (1995). Self-Esteem: Coopersmith and Rosenberg Compared. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 1050–1050. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.1050
Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the Looking-Glass Self: Social Structure and Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033844
Glaeser, A., Costa, S., & Collares, M. (2001). Fissura labiopalatina: avaliação do impacto psicológico utilizando a Escala de Autoestima de Rosenberg. Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, 33(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-1235.2018RBCP0094
Góngora, VC & Casullo, MM (2009). Validation of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in the general population and in the clinical population of the City of Buenos Aires. Ibero-American Journal of Diagnosis and Evaluation/ e Avaliação Psicológica, 1 (27), 179-194. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/116055
Gray-Little, B., Williams, V. S. L., & Hancock, T. D. (1997). An Item Response Theory Analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297235001
Griffiths, R. A., Beumont, P. J., Giannakopoulos, E., Russell, J., Schotte, D., & Thornton, C., et al. (1999). Measuring self-esteem in dieting disordered patients: The validity of the Rosenberg and Coopersmith contrasted. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 25, 227-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199903)25:2%3C227::AID-EAT13%3E3.0.CO;2-4
Hagborg, W. J. (1996). Scores of Middle-School-Age Students on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Psychological Reports, 78(3_suppl), 1071–1074. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1071
Hale, W. D., Fiedler, L. R., & Cochran, C. D. (1992). The revised Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(4), 517–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199207)48:4%3C517::AID-JCLP2270480413%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
Harper, J. F., & Marshall, E. (1991). Adolescents’ problems and their relationship to self-esteem. Adolescence, 26(104), 799–808. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1789167/
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Henriques, G. R., & Calhoun, L. G. (1999). Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Relationship Between Body Esteem and Self-Esteem. The Journal of Psychology, 133(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599748
Hojat, M., & Lyons, K. (1998). Psychosocial characteristics of female students in the allied health and medical colleges: Psychometrics of the measures and personality profiles. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 3(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009733623166
Kawabata, T., Cross, D., Nishioka, N., & Shimai, S. (1999). Relationship Between Self-Esteem and Smoking Behavior Among Japanese Early Adolescents: Initial Results from a Three-Year Study. Journal of School Health, 69(7), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1999.tb06409.x
KENDLER, K. S., GARDNER, C. O., & PRESCOTT, C. A. (1998). A population-based twin study of self-esteem and gender. Psychological Medicine, 28(6), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291798007508
Kingree, J. B. (1995). Understanding Gender Differences in Psychosocial Functioning and Treatment Retention. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 21(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952999509002694
Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
Lane, A. M., Jones, L., & Stevens, M. J. (2002). Coping with failure: The effects of self-esteem and coping on changes in self efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(4), 331–345.
Li, J., Han, X., Wang, W., Sun, G., & Cheng, Z. (2018). How social support influences university students’ academic achievement and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of self-esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 61(1), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.016
Lopes, E. C., Prado, T., Siqueira, I., Prado, I., Hollanda, D., & Alves, D. (2013). Assessment of nursing students’ self-esteem at a university in the South of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Investigación y Educación en Enfermería, 31(2), 261 - 269. http://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.13067
Lorr, M., & Wunderlich, R. A. (1986). Two Objective Measures of Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_3
McCurdy, B. A., & Kelly, D. B. (1997). Correlations of the MMPI-2 Low Self-Esteem Scale with Two Self-Esteem Measures. Psychological Reports, 81(3), 826–826. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.81.3.826
Moksnes, U. K., & Reidunsdatter, R. J. (2019). Self-esteem and mental health in adolescents – level and stability during a school year. Norsk Epidemiologi, 28(1-2). https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v28i1-2.3052
Monteiro, R. P., Coelho, G. L. de H., Hanel, P. H. P., de Medeiros, E. D., & da Silva, P. D. G. (2021). The Efficient Assessment of Self-Esteem: Proposing the Brief Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(17), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09936-4
Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender Differences in the Costs and Benefits of Peer Relationships During Adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6(4), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489164002
Park, J.-Y., & Park, E.-Y. (2019). The Rasch Analysis of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01992
Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2000). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(4), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00132-4
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002
Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (1997). Goal Contents, Well-being, and Life Context During Transition to University: A Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502597385234
Salyers, M. P., McHugo, G. J., Cook, J. A., Razzano, L. A., Drake, R. E., & Mueser, K. T. (2001). Reliability of instruments in a cooperative, multisite study: Employment intervention demonstration program. Mental Health Services Research, 3(3), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011519514465
Schimmack, U., & Diener, E. (2003). Predictive validity of explicit and implicit self-esteem for subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00532-9
Shevlin, M. E., Bunting, B. P., & Lewis, C. A. (1995). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 707–710. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.707
Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-Esteem: Clinical Assessment and Measurement Validation. Psychological Reports, 16(3_suppl), 1017–1071. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.16.3c.1017
Swanson, J. L., & Lease, S. H. (1990). Gender Differences in Self-Ratings of Abilities and Skills. The Career Development Quarterly, 38(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1990.tb00224.x
Swenson, P. (2003). A PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF THE ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE: AN INVESTIGATION OF GENDER DIP THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY, AND SPECIAL EDUCATION With Specialization in MEASUREMENT, EVALUATION, AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/831/1.0053822/2
Thompson, J. K., Cattarin, J., Fowler, B., & Fisher, E. (1995). The Perception of Teasing Scale (POTS): A Revision and Extension of the Physical Appearance Related Teasing Scale (PARTS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6501_11
Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg’s self‐esteem scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540120
Valdés García, K. P., Reynoso-González, O. U., Santana-Campas, M. A., De Luna-Velasco, L. E., & Hermosillo-De la Torre, A. E. (2022). Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in Mexican university students. Acta Universitaria, 32(e3441), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2022.3441
Vaughan, C. A., & Halpern, C. T. (2010). Gender Differences in Depressive Symptoms During Adolescence: The Contributions of Weight-Related Concerns and Behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 389–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00646.x
Vélez-Grau, C., & Lindsey, M. A. (2022). Do connectedness and self-esteem play a role in the transition to future suicide attempts among Latina and Latino youth with suicide ideation? Children and Youth Services Review, 139, 106553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106553
Verkuyten, M. (2003). Positive and Negative Self-Esteem Among Ethnic Minority Early Adolescents: Social and Cultural Sources and Threats. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023032910627
Vispoel, W. P., Boo, J., & Bleiler, T. (2001). Computerized and Paper-and-Pencil Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A Comparison of Psychometric Features and Respondent Preferences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971329
Wang, J., Siegal, H. A., Falck, R. S., & Carlson, R. G. (2001). Factorial Structure of Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale Among Crack-Cocaine Drug Users. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0802_6
Wang, X., & Qiao, Y. (2022). Parental Phubbing, Self-Esteem, and Suicidal Ideation among Chinese Adolescents: A Longitudinal Mediational Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01655-9
Westaway, M. S., & Wolmarans, L. (1992). Depression and self-esteem: Rapid screening for depression in black, low literacy, hospitalized tuberculosis patients. Social Science & Medicine, 35(10), 1311–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90184-r
White, C., & Schweitzer, R. (2000). The role of personality in the development and perpetuation of chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 48(6), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(00)00087-8
Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Corwyn, R. F. (2003). Mean And Covariance Structures Analyses: An Examination Of The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Among Adolescents And Adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239323
Wilson, D., & Lavelle, S. (1990). Loneliness and General Psychological Distress among Zimbabwean Students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(2), 273–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924581
Yanico, B. J., & Lu, T. G. C. (2000). A Psychometric Evaluation of the Six-Factor Self-Concept Scale in a Sample of Racial/Ethnic Minority Women. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970385
Yarcheski, T. J., Mahon, N. E., & Yarcheski, A. (2003). Social Support, Self-Esteem, and Positive Health Practices of Early Adolescents. Psychological Reports, 92(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2003.92.1.99
1 Visiting Faculty Member, National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Education, University of Loralai, Loralai, Balochistan, Pakistan.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Islamia College, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
4 Researcher and Teacher, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, México.
|
|
| Id | Article Title | Authors | Vol Info | Year |
| Id | Article Title | Authors | Vol Info | Year |