دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 30434
عنوان فارسی مقاله

جمله بندی آیتم و ابعاد مقیاس عزت نفس روزنبرگ : آیا آنها اهمیت دارند؟

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
30434 2003 14 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: do they matter?
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 35, Issue 6, October 2003, Pages 1241–1254

کلمات کلیدی
عزت نفس - ابعاد - مورد - جمله بندی - اعتبار سازه - تحلیل عاملی تأییدی - مقیاس روزنبرگ -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله جمله بندی آیتم و ابعاد مقیاس عزت نفس روزنبرگ : آیا آنها اهمیت دارند؟

چکیده انگلیسی

Some researchers contend that the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale taps two dimensions of self-image, whereas others argue that the two dimensions (positive and negative) are merely an artifact of item wording. To directly test these competing views, we had 741 ethnically diverse university undergraduates take one of three versions of the 10-item Rosenberg Scale: the original version comprised of five positively worded and five negatively worded items, or one of two alternative versions comprised of 10 positively worded or 10 negatively worded items. Analyses indicated that the original version fit a two-factor model, whereas the reworded versions generally fit a one-factor model. All three versions had high validity for different ethnic groups, but the revised-positive version had less overlap with a measure of depression, and both revised versions had less overlap with a measure of self-deception.

مقدمه انگلیسی

.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

Using AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999), a two-factor model was compared to a single-factor model for the three versions of the Self-Esteem Scale. Table 2 shows that the original version of the scale, Original RSES, had a significantly better fit for the two-factor model than for the one-factor model, with Δχ2 (1)=150.16, P<0.001. The correlation between the factors was 0.69. In contrast, for the two Revised versions, the two-factor model did not fit significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2 (1)=2.05, P>0.05 and Δχ2 (1)=0.31, P>0.05, for Revised-negative and Revised-positive versions, respectively). The one-factor model for the two Revised versions had a better fit than that for Original RSES. However, the one-factor model fit was still not ideal for the two Revised versions, as indicated by significant chi-squares and out-of-range fit indices (see Table 2). These results suggest that the Revised-negative and Revised-positive versions might have an alternative factor structure that was not captured by our model specifications. Table 2. Summary of the fit statistics of the single-factor and two factor models Scale version Two-factor model (d.f.=34) Single-factor model (d.f.=35) Δχ2 χ2 CFI TLI GFI RMSEA χ2 CFI TLI GFI RMSEA The original RSES 91.34 0.951 0.935 0.928 0.081 241.50 0.823 0.773 0.793 0.152 150.16*** Revised-negative version 140.53 0.923 0.898 0.892 0.114 142.58 0.922 0.900 0.890 0.112 2.05 Revised-positive version 181.80 0.895 0.861 0.857 0.135 182.19 0.895 0.865 0.858 0.133 0.39 Table options To further explore the factor structure of the Revised-negative and Revised-positive versions, we performed exploratory factor analysis using principal components factor extraction. The results of this analysis, however, did not shed light on the alternative factor structure of the scales. For both Revised versions, a single factor was extracted, which accounted for 58% (Revised-negative version) and 59% (Revised-positive version) of item variance. In other words, a single-factor solution was accepted by the exploratory factor analysis but was rejected by our prior confirmatory factor analysis. The CFA two-factor and single-factor models for the Original RSES were compared across the three generations of immigrants (i.e. first-, second-, and third-generations of immigrants) and for students with high (“B” and above) and low grades. Results for these two indirect measures of verbal abilities did not show a consistent pattern. For all three generations, the two-factor model had a significantly better fit than a single-factor model. For the third generation of immigrants, the chi-square difference between the two-factor and single-factor models was much smaller (Δχ2 (1)=32.48) than was the case for the first- and second- generations of immigrants (Δχ2 (1)=62.25 and Δχ2 (1)=53.86, respectively). These results could indicate that third-generation students, who were presumably to higher verbal abilities, showed less of a method effect. However, results for grades led to the opposite conclusion: Students with higher grades showed a greater method effect, Δχ2 (1)=106.47, than students with lower grades, Δχ2 (1)=50.67. 2.1. Mean differences for the versions of the Self-Esteem Scale Mean scores on the three versions of the Self-Esteem Scale did not differ significantly: for Original RSES, M=4.65, S.D.=0.81; for Revised-negative version, M=4.61, S.D.=0.97; and for Revised-positive version, M=4.76, S.D.=0.73, F (2738)=1.87, ns. That is, item-wording did not influence mean self-esteem scores. 2.2. Construct validity Table 3 shows the correlations between total self-esteem scores and validity-related measures. As expected, total self-esteem scores derived from all three versions were correlated in the expected direction with parental warmth and acceptance (positively), depressive symptoms (negatively), optimism (positively), and life satisfaction (positively). In addition, self-esteem scores were positively related to self-deception (SDE), and to a lesser extent—perhaps due to the anonymous nature of the survey—impression management (IM). Pair-wise comparisons of the correlation coefficients were conducted, using Fisher's r-to-z transformations. With two exceptions, the wording of items did not seem to affect the magnitude of correlations between the total self-esteem score and other measures. One exception was a significantly lower correlation between total self-esteem and depressive symptoms when all self-esteem items were worded positively (Revised-positive version <Original RSES, z=2.76, P<0.01). Second, Original RSES showed a significantly stronger association with SDE than the association between SDE and either the Revised-positive version, z=2.05, P<0.05, or the Revised-negative version, z=4.05, P<0.001. Table 3. Construct validity of the three versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and their relations to socially desirable responding Self-esteem The original RSES Revised-negative version Revised-positive version Parental warmth 0.42*** 0.40*** 0.43*** Depressive symptoms −0.64*** −0.60*** −0.47*** Optimism 0.61*** 0.60*** 0.60*** Life satisfaction 0.61*** 0.55*** 0.54*** Self-deception 0.61*** 0.33*** 0.48*** Impression management 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.20** In calculating total self-esteem scores, negatively worded items were reverse-scored so that higher total scores reflect higher overall self-esteem. ∗∗ P<0.01. ∗∗∗ P<0.001. Table options To further examine whether the item-wording affects the validity of the self-esteem scale, we correlated the two subscales of self-esteem with the subscales of the validity-relevant variables (see Table 4). As expected, the correlations were all in the same direction and of similar magnitude for the subscales. The only evidence of item-wording effects was found for the correlations between the Original RSES and depressive symptoms: The correlations were higher when the wording was in the same direction (i.e. r=−0.56 between positively worded items of self-esteem and positive items of the CES-D, and r=−0.57 between negatively worded items of self-esteem and negative items of CES-D) than when the wording was in the opposite direction (i.e. r=−0.44 between positively worded items of self-esteem and negative items of CES-D and r=−0.48 between negatively worded items of self-esteem and positive items of CES-D). These differences, however, were not statistically significant. Overall, there was little evidence that the two self-esteem subscales had differential associations with the validity-relevant measures. Table 4. Correlations of the Negative and Positive Self-Image Scales with Positively- and Negatively-Worded Items of the CES-D, Optimism, and Parental Warmth Scales The original RSES Revised-negative version Revised-positive version Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Depressive symptoms Positive items −0.56*** −0.48*** −0.53*** −0.49*** −0.48*** −0.47*** Negative items −0.44*** −0.57*** −0.51*** −0.53*** −0.43*** −0.36*** Optimism Positive items 0.55*** 0.46*** 0.54*** 0.52*** 0.56*** 0.50*** Negative items 0.42*** 0.45*** 0.52*** 0.52*** 0.46*** 0.44*** Parental warmth Positive items 0.37*** 0.32*** 0.39*** 0.32*** 0.38*** 0.38*** Negative items 0.33*** 0.36*** 0.37*** 0.35*** 0.39*** 0.37*** ∗∗∗ P<0.001. Table options 2.3. Dimensionality and validity of self-esteem scores, by ethnicity and gender Multigroup comparisons were used to compare the factor structure of the Self-Esteem Scale for the Asian American and European American groups. The sample size for the rest of the ethnic groups was not large enough to allow a meaningful model fit. The Asian American group was comprised of the East Asians and Southeast Asians. Factor loadings for the two-factor model for Original RSES and a single-factor model for the two Revised versions were compared across the two ethnic groups. For all three versions, there were few ethnic differences in the magnitude of factor loadings [for Original RSES, Δχ2 (8)=12.34, n.s.; for Revised-negative version, Δχ2 (9)=18.60, P<0.05; and for Revised-positive version, Δχ2 (9)=10.01, n.s.]. Table 5 shows the correlations of self-esteem scores based on the three versions of the Self-Esteem Scale with other variables separately for each of three ethnic groups: European Americans, Latinos, and a group comprised of east and southeast Asian Americans [In addition to Asian and European Americans, we included Latinos, whose sample size (n=25–29, depending on the version) was too small for factor analysis but adequate for correlational analysis.] In general, similarities across groups were more notable than differences. Only three out of 54 possible ethnic differences in correlations (3 versions×3 groups×6 correlates) were significant. Using Fisher's r-to-z transformations to examine differences between pairs of correlations, we found that the correlation between self-esteem and life satisfaction was lower for Asian Americans than the other two groups on the Revised-positive version, with z=2.65, P<0.01 for the Asian-European American comparison, and z=2.00, P<0.05 for the Asian-Latino comparison. On the Original RSES, the correlation of self-esteem and impression management was significantly lower for European Americans than Latinos, z=2.01, P<0.05. Table 5. Convergent validity of the three versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and their relations to socially desirable responding by ethnicitya Variable The original RSES Revised-negative version Revised-positive version EA L AA EA L AA EA L AA Parental warmth 0.21 0.53** 0.36*** 0.41** 0.29 0.44*** 0.48*** 0.43* 0.35*** Depressive symptoms −0.69*** −0.67*** −0.58*** −0.69*** −0.73*** −0.58*** −0.53*** −0.67*** −0.39*** Optimism 0.69*** 0.65*** 0.57*** 0.79*** 0.66*** 0.59*** 0.69*** 0.67*** 0.52*** Life satisfaction 0.54*** 0.62*** 0.57*** 0.63*** 0.52** 0.55*** 0.72*** 0.71*** 0.42*** Self-deception 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.60*** 0.52*** 0.22 0.32** 0.33* 0.49** 0.50*** Impression management 0.06 0.52*** 0.23* 0.33* −0.07 0.23* 0.19 0.08 0.13 EA, European Americans; L, Latinos; AA, Asian Americans. a Sample sizes for each version of the self–esteem scale ranged from 45 to 51 for EA; 23–29 for L; and 115–131 for AA. ∗ P<0.05. ∗∗ P<0.01. ∗∗∗ P<0.001. Table options Similar analyses were performed to evaluate gender differences in the factor structure and construct validity of the three versions of the Self-Esteem Scale. For all three versions, there were few significant gender differences in the magnitude of factor loadings, Δχ2 (8)=7.97, n.s., Δχ2 (9)=8.06, n.s., and Δχ2 (9)=19.72, P<0.05, for Original RSES, Revised-negative, and Revised-positive versions respectively. Table 6 shows the correlations of the three versions of the Self-Esteem Scale with other variables (i.e. parental warmth, depressive symptoms, optimism, life satisfaction, self-deception, and impression management) by gender. There were no significant gender differences in the degree of association between self-esteem (for all three versions) and other variables. Table 6. Construct validity of the three versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and their relations to socially desirable responding by gendera Variable The original RSES Revised-negative version Revised-positive version Males Females Males Females Males Females Parental warmth 0.54*** 0.37*** 0.47*** 0.38*** 0.51*** 0.38*** Depressive symptoms −0.70*** −0.62*** −0.70*** −0.54*** −0.51*** −0.44*** Optimism 0.59*** 0.61*** 0.64*** 0.59*** 0.54*** 0.64*** Life satisfaction 0.64*** 0.60*** 0.58*** 0.56*** 0.50*** 0.57*** Self-deception 0.60*** 0.60*** 0.16 0.43*** 0.39*** 0.53*** Impression management 0.38*** 0.19* 0.43*** 0.26** 0.22* 0.21* a Sample sizes for each version of the self-esteem scale ranged from 84 to 99 for males and from 138 to 163 for females. ∗ P<0.05. ∗∗ P<0.01. ∗∗∗ P<0.001.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.