ترجمه هلندی از خودمیلی خودشایستگی در مقیاس اصلاح شده: تحلیل عاملی تأییدی از ساختار دو فاکتوری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29906||2007||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4710 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 157–167
In the present study, the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale – Revised (Tafarodi & Swann, 2001) was translated into Dutch and psychometric properties of the questionnaire were assessed. According to Tafarodi and Swann (2001), self-esteem is composed of two dimensions, and the questionnaire was constructed specifically to tap these two dimensions of self-esteem, namely self-competence and self-liking. Based on a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), results confirmed that a two-dimensional model with the factors self-competence and self-liking provided a superior fit to the data as compared to a unidimensional model of self-esteem. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire were appropriate.
For more than four decades, the concept of self-esteem has taken a central place in social psychology research. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of controversy concerning the definition of this concept: Over a hundred different definitions of self-esteem have been proposed (Mruk, 1999). Generally, self-esteem refers to an individual’s overall evaluation of the self (Gecas, 1982). Initially, self-esteem was conceived as an indivisible concept and within that framework the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) was developed. This ten-item questionnaire is considered a measure of an individual’s global perception of his or her self-worth, and endorses the view of self-esteem being a unidimensional construct. However, self-esteem’s unidimensionality has been debated from the beginning. Convincing evidence for a dualistic approach of self-esteem was found by Tafarodi and his colleagues (Tafarodi and Milne, 2002, Tafarodi and Swann, 1995 and Tafarodi and Swann, 2001). Investigating the underlying factor structure of the RSES, Tafarodi and Swann (1995) demonstrated that a two-factor model provided a superior fit compared to a one-factor global self-esteem model. According to their model, self-esteem is comprised of the dimensions self-competence and self-liking. Self-competence (SC) refers to the generalized sense of one’s own efficacy or power. Generally, self-competence is considered to depend on the correspondence of goals or intentions with the outcomes of actions aimed at realizing those goals or intentions. The competence dimension of the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale reflects the degree to which people see themselves as capable and efficacious (efficacy-based self-esteem). Conversely, Self-liking (SL) refers to the generalized sense of one’s own worth as a social object and it is considered to depend more on internalized positive regards from others. The liking dimension of the SLCS-R is a reflection of the degree to which individuals feel they are persons of value (worth-based self-esteem). Based on their findings, Tafarodi and Swann (1995) developed a questionnaire specifically designed to measure both dimensions of self-esteem, namely the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale (SLCS). The authors suggested that the self-competence and self-liking dimension should be considered as two correlated but distinct factors of global self-esteem (Tafarodi & Swann, 2001). Based on a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the questionnaire was revised and reduced to a sixteen-item questionnaire, consisting of eight items for each of the two subscales (SLCS-Revised; Tafarodi & Swann, 2001). Several studies demonstrated that discerning self-liking from self-competence can be valuable. For example, Bardone, Perez, Abramson, and Joiner (2003) conducted a study in which students completed the RSES and the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy, 1983) on two separate occasions. They demonstrated that self-competence related items of the RSES significantly predicted the amount of change in bulimic symptoms over time whereas this was not the case for the self-liking related items. Similarly, Sassaroli and Ruggiero (2005) studied the association between self-esteem (as measured by the SLCS) and eating disorder symptoms (as measured by the EDI). Results indicated that in a stressful situation both self-liking and self-competence predicted ‘Drive for thinness’, but that only self-liking was associated with the amount of ‘Body dissatisfaction’. Finally, Tafarodi and Vu (1997) presented their participants two sets of 20 anagrams, of which 10 were unsolvable. After receiving failure feedback, participants who had low self-liking – but not those who had low self-competence – persisted less in solving the puzzles. The aim of the present study was twofold. First, we developed a reliable and valid Dutch version of the SLCS-R (Tafarodi & Swann, 2001). The internal consistency of the questionnaire was examined. Next, convergent validity was assessed by correlating the self-competence and the self-liking subscale scores with scores on other well-established self-esteem questionnaires (RSES; Self-Attributes Questionnaire, SAQ). In addition, discriminant validity between self-competence and self-liking was addressed based on Steiger’s Z-tests, which examined the strength of the correlations between the scores on the SLCS-R subscales and the scores on the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Second, we assessed the factor structure of the SLCS-R. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test whether the underlying factor structure corresponds with the two-dimensional model proposed by Tafarodi and Swann (2001). It was predicted that the two-dimensional factor structure would provide a superior fit compared to a unidimensional structure. Aidman (1998) previously investigated the factor structure of this questionnaire. This study, however, made use of an exploratory, rather than a confirmatory factor analysis. Moreover, the twenty-item version of the SLCS was examined, instead of the revised sixteen-item version. Recently, an increasing number of studies use the SLCS(-R) as a measure of self-esteem, in experimental studies as well as clinical studies (e.g. predicting outcome in patients with a certain psychopathology). A reliable and valid Dutch version of the SLCS-R will undoubtedly be beneficial for future self-esteem research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3.1. Descriptive statistics Results about means, standard deviations and range of the observed scores of the self-esteem questionnaires are reported in Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the NEO-FFI subscales are reported in Table 2. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among SC, SL, RSES, and SAQ composite self-views Mean (SD) Range SC SL RSES SAQ SC 24.2 (4.1) 10–35 – .47⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ SL 25.4 (5.9) 10–39 – .74⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ RSES 28.9 (4.7) 13–40 – .37⁎⁎ SAQ 50.8 (11.2) 20.0–75.6 – Note. N = 341. SC = Self-competence; SL = Self-liking; RSES = Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale; SAQ = Self-attributes Questionnaire. ⁎⁎ p < .0001. Table options Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the NEO-FFI and discriminant validity Mean (SD) Range SC SL Z N 36.1 (8.3) 12–55 −.41⁎⁎ −.68⁎⁎ 4.98⁎⁎ E 43.0 (6.1) 22–58 .26⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ 1.90⁎ O 41.2 (5.3) 27–54 .07⁎⁎ .14⁎ 0.92 A 42.8 (5.0) 29–56 .08⁎⁎ .04⁎⁎ 0.50 C 40.5 (5.6) 26–56 .51⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ 4.75⁎⁎ Note. N = 307. NEO-FFI = NEO five factor inventory; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; SC = Self-competence; SL = Self-liking; Z = Steiger’s Z. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options 3.2. Internal consistency Internal consistency was assessed separately for the self-competence and the self-liking subscale of the SLCS-R by calculating both coefficient alpha and split-half reliability. According to the reliability standards of Barker, Pistrang, and Elliott (2002), Cronbach’s alpha can be considered acceptable for the self-competence subscale (α = .78), and good for the self-liking subscale (α = .89). Split-half reliabilities were also estimated, based on a first half versus second half split of all questionnaire items 2. Again, higher reliabilities were found for the self-liking subscale (r = .92) compared to those found for the self-competence subscale (r = .75). Reliabilities can be considered good for self-liking, and acceptable for self-competence ( Barker et al., 2002). 3.3. Convergent validity To assess convergent validity, scores on both subscales of the SLCS-R were compared to scores on the RSES and the SAQ, and zero-order correlations were performed using Pearson correlations (Table 1). A correlation of .53 was obtained between the scores on the self-competence scale and the scores on the RSES, indicating good convergent validity (Barker et al., 2002). Similarly, a correlation of .36 was obtained between the scores on the self-competence subscale and the ones on the SAQ, which demonstrates acceptable validity. Next, a correlation of .74 was found for the self-liking subscale of the SLCS-R with the RSES, and a correlation of .40 for self-liking with the SAQ. All correlations were highly significant (p’s < .0001), suggesting strong convergent validity for both self-competence and self-liking.