Psychological Studies 1984, Vol. 29. No. 1

MEASUREMENT OF SELF-ESTEEM: AN INVENTORY FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS IMMANUEL THOMAS

&

H. SAM SANANDA RAJ

University of Kerala,

Trirandrum

A self esteem inventory was developed making use of the direct self-report method. There were 50 items in the draft scale. A sample of 400 secondary school pupils (211 boys and 189 girls) was used for item analysis. Forty seven items showed high discriminating power (significant at .01 level), of which, 25 items were selected for inclusion in the f i n a l scale. The final scale was administered on different samples for estimating its reliability and validity, and for developing the norms. The split-half reliability of the scale is found to be 0.95, after correction using Spearman-Brown formula (N = 100), and the retest reliability 0.90 (N= 120). The validity of the scale obtained with teacher rating as external criterion is 0.4l, which is significant at .01 level (N = 53). Separate centile norms have been developed for boys (N=218) and girls (N=202).

Attempts have been made by several investigators towards quantifying 'self esteem'. Of the several approaches to the measurement of the construct, the following are noteworthy: the direct self-report method (Coopersmith, 1967; Gough and Heilbrum, 1965; Bills, Vance, and McLean, 195J); the indirect method (Sears and Sherman. 1964; Ziller, 1969; Lesser and Abelson, 1959); unstructured interviews (Silber and Tippett, 1965); projective techniques (Machover, 1949; Spitzer, 1969), and ratings by others (Dittes, 1959a, b; Coopersmith, 1967). For the development of the present inventory, the direct self-report method is used. This technique is simple to administer and. at the same time, free from conceptual problems associated with indirect forms of measurement (Wells and Marwell, 1976). The draft scale

With a view to collect and consolidate the items for the draft scale, an exhaustive survey of literature related to the

conceptualization and measurement of self-esteem was conducted. At this stage, the need for an operational definition of the construct was felt, and the following description by Coopersmith (1967) was accepted: (Self - esteem is) ... the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval. ... It is a subjective experience which the individual conveys to others by verbal reports and other overt expressive behaviour. On the basis of this definition, 50 items were collecte d for the draft scale. Of these, 41 items were taken from other well-known scales, as detailed below: 28 items were from the Coopersmith Selfesteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967), 9 items from the Janis and Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (Hovland and Janis, 1959), and 4 items from the Rosenberg Self-esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965). The criteria for selection of these items were the following: simplicity in

30

IMMANUEL THOMAS

wording, unambiguity, cultural appropriateness, and non-repetition of the idea. These items were suitably m o d i f i e d for inclusion in the present scale. The r e m a i n i n g 9 items were s e l e c t e d from among a s e t of 20 i t e m s developed by t h e p r e s e n t authors . A l l the 50 i t e m s were in t h e form of s e l f e v a l u ative or self- descriptive sta te men ts . There were equal numbers of p o s i t i v e and nega t i v e i t e m s , arranged in a random order . The items were expected to tap self -e v a l u a t i o n from a wide variety of b e h a v i oural domains i n c l u d i n g academic, social, physical and emotional aspects. Standardization sample The sample on which the draft scale has been administered for the purpose of standardizing the test consisted of 400 ninth standard pupils (211 boys and 189 girls) studying in various schools in Trivandrum educational district of Kerala state. While selecting this sample, adequate representation was given to aspects like locale (rural/urban) and type of management (government / private) of school and sex of pupils (subjects were selected from boys’ girls’ and coeducation schools). The average/age of the subjects is 14 + . PROCEDURE Instructions to the subjects The test materials of the self-esteem inventory consisted of the test booklet in which the instructions and the 50 items were printed (both in English and in Malayalam) and the response sheet which contained the response categories A, B, C, D, and E, represented in circles for each of the 50 items. The following instructions were given to the subjects: Some statements are given below. Indicate in the response sheet g i v e n to you, how much you agree with e a c h statement. There are five res ponse categories, viz., A, B, C, D, and E. A denotes 'Strongly Agree'; B denotes 'Agree'; C denotes 'Undecided'; D denotes 'Disagree' and E denotes 'Strongly Disagree'.

& H. SAM SANANDA RAJ

After reading each statement, mark your answer with a 'X’ mark in the appropriate circle. Please note: select C only when you can't s a y clearly either you agree or disagree with a s tatement. Do not omit a n y statement. Your responses will b e kept confidential.

Administration The subjects were seated comfortably in groups of about 30. The response sheets were first distributed, and the subjects were asked to f i l l in the required general information. The test booklets were then distributed. When the subjects were ready to take the test, the administrator read aloud the printed instructions to the class while they were requested to follow the same in their booklets. After clearing doubts, if any, about the instructions, the subjects were signaled to start. The test took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Scoring The scoring was done as follows: A score of 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 was given to the category A, B, C, D. or E, for a positive item. The scoring was in the reverse order for a negative item. A response sheet was not scored if there were more than one response for an item or if there were three or more omitted items. If there are only one or two omitted items, a score of 3 was given for each. The maximum score obtainable is 250 and the minimum 50. Selection of items The self-esteem score obtained by the standardization sample varied from 112 to 222. The response sheets were arranged in the order of the scores, so as to select the top and bottom 100 subjects (25% of the sample) who represented the high and the low self-esteem groups, respectively. The scores obtained by them for each of the items were entered in a code sheet. Item analysis was done with the help of Likert's method given in Edward (1969). On the basis of this, the

SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY

t-values of the items w e r e obtained. These varied from 1.009 to 10.890. 47 of the items had t- values statistically significant at .01 level. After arranging them in the order of their t-values, 25 items (12 positive and 13 negative) were selected for the final scale. To have

31

more or less equal number of positive and negative items, they had to be selected from among the first 31 items. The selected items arranged in a random order are shown in Table 1 along with their t-values.

Table 1. t-Values of the twenty-five selected items

Items t- value 1. I am proud of my academic performance. 5.07 2 I have a very satisfactory home atmosphere. 6.15 3. Most people are better liked than I am. 6.66 4. If I have something to say, I usually say it. 5.77 5. I find it very difficult to talk in front of the class. 7.08 6. I can usually take care of myself. 5.63 7. I have a good opinion of myself. 4.68 8. When in a group of people, I often have trouble thinking about the right things to talk about. 7.57 9. I often feel that my life is not very useful. 10 89 10. My parents understand me well. 5 31 11. I don't have much to be proud of. 597 12. I often feel ashamed of myself. 5 77 13. I prefer to do things that are novel and difficult. 4.45 14. I am fully confident of my abilities. 6.70 15. I find it hard to talk when I meet new people. 5.71 16. Things are all mixed up in my life. 7.15 17. I can make up my mind and stick to it. 8.21 18. I often wish I were someone else. 8.71 19. I am not doing as well in the class as I would like to. 7.93 20. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 6.95 21. I get upset easily at home. 7.32 22. I am never shy. 6.55 23. I often get discouraged in the class. 6.20 24. There are many times when I'd like to leave home. 7.84 25. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5.94 THE FINAL SCALE There are 25 items in the final scale (given in Table 1). The instructions to the subjects are the same as those given in the draft scale. The items and the instructions are printed both in English and in Malayalam. The scale is named SELFESTEEM INVENTORY.

The format of the response sheet is also the same as that for the draft scale, with provision for answering the 25 items on the 5-point format. The final scale was administered on different samples for estimating the reliability and validity of the scale and for developing the norms.

32

IMMANUEL THOMAS

&

Reliability The 'Self-esteem Inventory' was administered to 100 subjects (55 male and 45 female ninth grade students), and their scores for odd and even items of the inventory obtained. The spilt half reliab i l i t y coefficient obtained is 0.95, after correction using Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula (Garrett, 1969). The retest reliability (after r e-administering the test w i t h an interval of two weeks) obtained on a sample of 120 secondary school pupils (67 boys and 53 girls) is 0.90. Both these coefficients are significant at .01 level. Validity As the inventory was modeled after a few well known inventories meant for measuring self-esteem, it may be said to possess content validity. In addition to this, validity is determined empirically, w i t h the help of self-esteem scores obtained by means of teacher rating technique.

H. SAM SANANDA RAJ

For this, the 13 item Behaviour Rating Form developed by Coopersmith (Cooper-smith, 1967) was adapted with slight modifications. Two class teachers were asked to rate the behaviour of their pupils on the basis of the 1 3 items which represent different aspects of self -esteem. The Behavioral esteem scores thus obtained for 53 ninth grade students (35 boys and 18 girls) were correlated with self-esteem Inventory. A correlation coefficient of +0.41 was obtained which is significant at .01 level. The inventory can thus be called a valid tool for measuring self -esteem. Norms Norms for the inventory were developed by administering the final form of the test to a sample of 420 secondary school children (218 boys and 202 girls) drawn from different subcategories as in the standardization sample. As significant tvalue was obtained for boys and girls, separate norms are prepared for them and presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Centile Norms for Boys and Girls Scores 110& above 109 108 106 105 104 103 102 101 99 97 96 95 93 92

Centile Ranks Boys Girls 99 99

Scores

98 94 94 93 92 89 88 84 80 77 75 73 70 65

99 98 97 97 95 95 94 92 90 90 88 87 85 84

Scores

91

Centile Ranks Boys Girls 63 81

90 89 88 87 86 85 84 82 81 80 79 77 75 76

59 57 53 49 45 38 37 34 31 28 26 21 18 15

72 71 70 69 68 67 66 64 61 60 59 & below

It is to be mentioned that the norms given in Table 2 may be used only for comparing the scores. When there is further statistical operations, the use of the raw scores may be preferred (Games and Klare, 1967).

CONCLUSION The inventory is easy to administer and

78 73 68 66 62 60 51 47 43 37 35 28 26 21

74

Centile Ranks Boys Girls 13 20 11 9 8 8 6 5 5 3 1 1 1

15 13 10 9 6 6 5 3 2 2 1

takes about 15 minutes to complete, including the instructions. It is more economical and less laborious than the teacher rating method. The inventory has all the advantages and disadvantages associated with a direct self-report method of indexing personality variables. It may be necessary to supplement it with some other methods in indexing self -esteem in some special instances such as a clinical situation or when one suspects that

SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY

the subject is deliberately f a l s i f y i n g . But in general, t he i n v e n t o r y may be of use to obtain a f a i r l y accurate measure of the subject's self-e s t e e m.

HOVLAND , C and JANIS, I. (Eds.) (1959), Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven: Yale University p ress .

REFERENCES

KUHN, M., and M cPART LAND, T. (1954) An Empirical Investigation of Self-attitudes, American Sociological Review 19, 6 8-76.

BILLS, R., VANCE, R., and M c LEAN, D. (1951) LESSER, G., and ABELSON , R. (1959) An Index of 'Adjustment and Values, Journal of Personality Correlates of Persuasibility in Consu lting Psychology15, 2 5 7-261. Children, pp. 187-206. In HOVLAND , C., and JAN1S, I., (Eds .), Personality and COOPERSM1TH, S. (1967) The Antecedents Persuasibility, New Haven: Yale of Self esteem , San Francisco: W.H . University p ress Freeman. MACHOVFR, K. (194 9) Personality DIT T ES, J. (1959a) Effect of Changes in SelfProjection in the Drawing of the Human esteem upon Impulsiveness and Figure: A Method of Personality Deliberation in Making Judgments , Investigation, Springfield. Ill: Charles C. Journal of Abnormal and Social Thomas Ps ychology, 58, 348 -356. ROSEN BERG, M . (1965) Society and DITTES, J. (1959b) Attractiveness of Group as Adolescent Self-image, Princeton : a Function of Self-est eem and Acceptance Princeton University Press. by Group, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 77-82. SILBER, E., and TIPPETT, J. S. (1965) Selfesteem: Clinical Assessment and MeasureEDWARDS, A.L. (1969) Techniques of ment Validation, Psychological Reports, Attitude Scale Construction, Bombay: 16, 1017-1071. Vakils, Feffer and Simons, Pvt. Ltd. SP1TZ ER, S. (1969) Test -Equivalence of GAMES, P. A. and KLARE, G. R. (1967) Unstructured Self-Evaluat ion Instruments Elementary Statistics: Data for the Sociological Quarterly 10, 204 215. Behavioural Sciences , New York: M cG raw -Hill Book Company Ltd. WELLS, E. L., and MARWELL, G. (1976) Self-esteem: Its Conceptualization and GARRETT, H. E. (1969 ), Statistics in Measurement, California: Sage Publishers, Psychology and Education, Bombay: Inc. Vakils, Feffer and Simons, Pvt. Ltd. ZILLER, R. (1969) The Alienation Syndrome: COUGH, H. and HEILBRUN, A. (1959), The A Triadic pattern of Self-other Orient ation, Adjective Check -List Manual, Palo Alt o, Sociometr y, 32, 287-300. Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press. Manus cript received on May 5, 1983; review received on Nov. 1 6, 1983.