Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 488–498 | Cite as

Global self-esteem and method effects: Competing factor structures, longitudinal invariance, and response styles in adolescents

  • Róbert Urbán
  • Réka Szigeti
  • Gyöngyi Kökönyei
  • Zsolt Demetrovics
Article

Abstract

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used measure for assessing self-esteem, but its factor structure is debated. Our goals were to compare 10 alternative models for the RSES and to quantify and predict the method effects. This sample involves two waves (N =2,513 9th-grade and 2,370 10th-grade students) from five waves of a school-based longitudinal study. The RSES was administered in each wave. The global self-esteem factor with two latent method factors yielded the best fit to the data. The global factor explained a large amount of the common variance (61% and 46%); however, a relatively large proportion of the common variance was attributed to the negative method factor (34 % and 41%), and a small proportion of the common variance was explained by the positive method factor (5% and 13%). We conceptualized the method effect as a response style and found that being a girl and having a higher number of depressive symptoms were associated with both low self-esteem and negative response style, as measured by the negative method factor. Our study supported the one global self-esteem construct and quantified the method effects in adolescents.

Keywords

Self-esteem Measurement model Method effect Response style 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This publication was supported by Grant 1 R01 TW007927-01 from the Fogarty International Center, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH. The project was also supported by the European Union and the European Social Fund under Grant Agreement TÁMOP 4.2.1./B-09/1/KMR-2010-0003. Zsolt Demetrovics and Gyöngyi Kökönyei acknowledge the financial support of the János Bolyai Research Fellowship, awarded by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. Aluja, A., Rolland, J. P., García, L. F., & Rossier, J. (2007). Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and its relationships with the three- and the five-factor personality models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 246–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74(1), 137–143.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berge, J. M. F., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M. V., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time: An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance structures analysis and multiple indicator latent growth modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 421–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway, J. M., Lievens, F., Scullen, S. E., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Bias in the correlated uniqueness model for MTMM data: A simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corwyn, R. F. (2000). The factor structure of global self-esteem among adolescents and adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 440–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2009). Personality correlates of method effects due to negatively worded items on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DuBois, D. L., & Flay, B. R. (2004). The healthy pursuit of self-esteem: Comment on and alternative to the Crocker and Park (2004) Formulation. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 415–420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunbar, M., Ford, G., Hunt, K., & Der, G. (2000). Question wording effects in the assessment of global self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elekes, Zs. (2009). Egy változó kor változó ifjúsága. Fiatalok alkohol- és egyéb drogfogyasztása Magyarországon – ESPAD 2007. [Changing youth in changing times. Alcohol and other substance use among school children in Hungary – ESPAD 2007] Budapest: L'Harmattan Kiadó.Google Scholar
  18. Fiske, D. W. (1982). Convergent–discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies. In D. Brinbirg & L. H. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 77–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Greenberger, E., Chen, C., Dmitrieva, J., & Farruggia, S. P. (2003). Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: do they matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2003). Wording effects in self-esteem scales: Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point average, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lance, C. E., Noble, C. L., & Scullen, S. E. (2002). A critique of the correlated trait-correlated method and correlated uniqueness models for multitrait-multimethod data. Psychological Methods, 7, 228–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindwall, M., Barkoukis, V., Grano, C., Lucidi, F., Raudsepp, L., Liukkonen, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). Method Effects: The Problem With Negatively Versus Positively Keyed Items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 196–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifacts? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., & Nagengast, B. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological Assessment, 22, 366–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martín-Albo, J., Núñez, J. L., Navarro, J. G., & Grijalvo, F. (2007). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: translation and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 458–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mimura, C., & Griffiths, P. (2007). A Japanese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: translation and equivalence assessment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 62, 589–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Motl, R. W., & DiStefano, C. (2002). Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus users guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociological Review, 59, 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M., & Risko, E. (2006). Correlates of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES–D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, M., Decker, O., Herzberg, P. Y., & Brähler, E. (2008). Dimensionality and norms of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in a German general population sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmitt, D. P., & Allik, J. (2005). Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: Exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 623–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stamatakis, K. A., Lynch, J., Everson, S. A., Raghunathan, T., Salonen, J. T., & Kaplan, G. A. (2004). Self-esteem and mortality: Prospective evidence from population-based study. Annals of Epidemiology, 14, 56–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swallen, K. C., Reither, E. N., Haas, S. A., & Meier, A. M. (2005). Overweight, obesity, and health-related quality of life among adolescents: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Pediatrics, 115, 340–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tafarodi, R. W., & Milne, A. B. (2002). Decomposing global self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 70, 443–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomás, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Urbán, R. (2010). Smoking outcome expectancies mediate the association between sensation seeking, peer smoking, and smoking among young adolescents. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 12, 59–68.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., Fernandes, H. M., Teixeira, C. M., & Bertelli, R. (2011). Factorial validity and invariance of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among Portuguese youngsters. Social Indicator Research, Advance online publication.. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9782-0 Google Scholar
  47. 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, 8, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods., 15, 96–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu, C.-H. (2008). An examination of the wording effect in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among culturally Chinese people. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 535–551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Róbert Urbán
    • 1
  • Réka Szigeti
    • 2
  • Gyöngyi Kökönyei
    • 1
  • Zsolt Demetrovics
    • 1
  1. 1.Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of PsychologyBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Eötvös Loránd University, Doctoral School of PsychologyBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations