The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was administered with a 1–4, 1–5, or 0–100 scale to 819 participants, to compare score interpretations across the different versions. A rating scale utility analysis revealed that the categories in the 101-point scale were used inconsistently; based on the analysis, adjacent categories were collapsed resulting in a 7-point scale with almost identical psychometric properties as the original. The interpretations based on the 101-point scale could lead to misinterpretations when compared with the 4- and 5-point versions.
Gray-LittleB.WilliamsV. S.HancockT. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 443–451.
2.
HeathertonT. F.PolivyJ. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895–910.
3.
LinacreJ. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 103–122.
4.
LinacreJ. M. (2014). Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement (Version 3.71.4). Winsteps.com.
5.
MaurerT. J.PierceH. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 324–329.
6.
PajaresF.HartleyJ.ValianteG. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(4), 214–221.
7.
RosenbergM. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
8.
TolandM. D.UsherE. L. (2016). Assessing mathematics self-efficacy: How many categories do we really need?Journal of Early Adolescence, 36(7), 932–960.
