Factor Structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Abstract

Abstract:This study evaluated the factor structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) with a diverse sample of 1,248 European American, Latino, Armenian, and Iranian adolescents. Adolescents completed the 10-item RSES during school as part of a larger study on parental influences and academic outcomes. Findings suggested that method effects in the RSES are more strongly associated with negatively worded items across three diverse groups but also more pronounced among ethnic minority adolescents. Findings also suggested that accounting for method effects is necessary to avoid biased conclusions regarding cultural differences in selfesteem and how predictors are related to the RSES. Moreover, the two RSES factors (positive self-esteem and negative self-esteem) were differentially predicted by parenting behaviors and academic motivation. Substantive and methodological implications of these findings for crosscultural research on adolescent self-esteem are discussed.Keywords: bidimensional | Rosenberg | self-esteem | two-factor | construct validity | crosscultural validity | Adolescents Article:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the factor structure and cross-cultural validity of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989). Numerous studies employ the RSES to examine the etiology of self-esteem and how self-esteem relates to a variety of mental health, academic, or social outcomes (Farruggia, Chen, Greenberger, Demitrieva, & Macek, 2004). Despite evidence from factor analysis studies suggesting that the RSES is bidimensional (i.e., having two factors), researchers continue to treat the RSES as a unidimensional scale. A current debate centers on whether or not bidimensional findings demonstrate that the RSES assesses two substantively distinct elements related to self-esteem or result from method effects that occur due to the inclusion of positively and negatively worded items in the same scale. Furthermore, while the RSES is commonly used in studies of adolescents from diverse cultural and ethnic groups, few studies have evaluated the cross-cultural construct validity of the RSES.For cross-cultural researchers, the issue of possible method effects-particularly those that vary across cultural groups-has the potential to create bias when assessing self-esteem. That is, some cross-cultural comparisons of mean levels of self-esteem may be biased if the RSES produces different scores across groups due to method effects and not due to culturally meaningful differences in self-esteem (van de Vijer & Tanzer, 2004). Moreover, to the extent that two RSES-related subdimensions may have substantive meaning across cultures, the use of the full RSES unidimensional scale may lead to concluding that differences exist in predictors of selfesteem across cultures that are due to measurement artifacts and not cultural differences. Factor Structure and Dimensionality of the RSESA number of factor analysis studies have suggested that, rather than simply assessing a unidimensional positive self-evaluation construct...

Neural Correlates of Biased Responses: The Negative Method Effect in the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale Is Associated with Right Amygdala Volume

“…It assesses global self‐esteem based on 10 items that are a mixture of positively and negatively worded items. However, there is an ongoing, heated debate regarding whether the positively and negatively worded items assess the same construct that affects the very meaning of self‐esteem (Marsh, ; Marsh, Scalas, & Nagengast, ; Owens, ; Supple, Su, Plunkett, Peterson, & Bush, ).…”

“…When compared with positive self‐esteem, negative self‐esteem did indeed show differential patterns of association with theoretically related constructs (Farruggia, Chen, Greenberger, Dmitrieva, & Macek, ; Owens, ). For example, negative self‐esteem is more strongly related to depressive symptoms (Farruggia et al, ; Owens, ) and psychological control than positive self‐esteem (Supple et al, ).…”

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A Bifactor Answer to a Two-Factor Question?

“…Specifically this disagreement centers on whether or not the scale assesses global self-esteem as one factor (as conceptualized by Rosenberg, 1965) based on a mixture of 10 positively and negatively worded items, or as two distinct constructs representing positive and negative aspects of self-esteem. Accordingly results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) on different versions of RSES (6, 7, and 10 items) across different populations have supported a one-factor, unidimensional solution (e.g., Shevlin, Bunting, and Lewis, 1995) and a two-factor solution representing positive and negative self-esteem (Ang, Neubronner, Oh, & Leong, 2006;Boduszek, Hyland, Dhingra, & Mallett, 2013;Quilty, Oakman, & Risko, 2006;Supple, Su, Plunkett, Peterson, & Bush, 2013).…”

“…A current debate regarding the RSES centers on whether or not bidimensional findings demonstrate that the RSES assesses two substantively distinct elements related to self-esteem that are the result of method effects (Supple et al, 2013). In fact, these authors reported a two-factor solution for the RSES in adolescents and that the two factors were differentially predicted by parenting behaviors and academic motivation.…”

Bifactorial structure of Locus of Control cross-culturally invariant across Spain, Chile and United Kingdom

“…Neither would it make sense to interpret the results of a test if its application in two contexts is associated with different measurement errors (Elosua, 2005). Both questions are contingent on checking factorial invariance (Byrne, 2008;Dimitrov, 2010;Elosua & Muñiz, 2010;Supple, Su, Plunkett, Peterson & Bush, 2012;Zecca et al, 2012). Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) proposed three forms of factorial equivalence: configural invariance, in which the underlying psychological process is the same in the different groups since all the factors are shaped by the same items; metric invariance, in which the scaling metrics are the same; and scalar invariance, in which the origin of the scale is also the same for the different groups.…”