The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used psychological assessment tool that has been the subject of ongoing debate among researchers regarding its dimensionality. Using datasets collected from longitudinal panel studies, this study examined the factor structure of the scale and the presence of method effects, possibly due to item wording. This study employed a circumplex model to explore the dimensionality of the RSES in addition to traditional approaches based on factor analytic models. We found empirical evidence that the RSES measures a single factor of general self-esteem, but also observed a multidimensional structure due to method effects resulting from negatively worded items. Moreover, one negatively worded item did not align with the other items on the scale. The findings suggest that researchers should be aware of the potential risks associated with method effects and strategies to appropriately address them, which would enable a more accurate interpretation of an individual’s characteristics.
AlessandriG.VecchioneM.EisenbergN.ŁagunaM. (2015). On the factor structure of the Rosenberg (1965) general self-esteem scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000073
2.
AndersonT. W. (1960). Some stochastic process models for intelligence test scores. In ArrowK. J.KarlinS.SuppesP. (Eds.), Mathematical methods in the social sciences (pp. 205–220). Stanford University Press.
CarminesE. G.ZellerR. A. (1974). On establishing the empirical dimensionality of theoretical terms: An analytical example. Political Methodology, 1, 75–96.
6.
ChengS. T.HamidP. N. (1995). An error in the use of translated scales: The Rosenberg self-esteem scale for Chinese. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81(2), 431–434. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.2.431
7.
ConteH. R.PlutchikR. (1981). A circumplex model for interpersonal personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.701
8.
CronbachL. J. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445001000101
9.
DeVellisR. F. (1991) Scale development: theory and applications applied social research methods series (26). Sage Publications.
DiStefanoC.MotlR. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(3), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6
12.
FabrigarL. R.VisserP. S.BrowneM. W. (1997). Conceptual and methodological issues in testing the circumplex structure of data in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 1(3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_1
13.
FarruggiaS. P.ChenC.GreenbergerE.DmitrievaJ.MacekP. (2004). Adolescent self-esteem in cross-cultural perspective: Testing measurement equivalence and a mediation model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 719–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104270114
14.
FranckE.de RaedtR.BarbezC.RosseelY. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Dutch Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Psychologica Belgica, 48(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-48-1-25
15.
GrassiM.LuccioR.Di BlasL. (2010). CircE: An R implementation of Browne’s circular stochastic process model. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.55
16.
GuptaS.TraceyT. J.Gore JrP. A. (2008). Structural examination of RIASEC scales in high school students: Variation across ethnicity and method. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.013
17.
GuttmanL. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In LazarsfeldP. F. (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Columbia University Press.
HofsteeW.de RaadB.GoldbergL. R. (1992). Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146
20.
HongS.NoU.JungS. (2011). Factor structure of scale containing negatively-worded items: A case of self-esteem scale. The Korean Journal of Educational Evaluation, 24(3), 713–732.
21.
JohnsonJ. A.OstendorfF. (1993). Clarification of the five-factor model with the abridged big five dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.563
22.
LarsenR. J.DienerE. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In ClarkM. S. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion (13, pp. 25–29). Sage Publications.
23.
LeeD.LeeH. S.NaW.HwangM. H. (2022). Gender differences in the structure of Holland’s personality model in South Korea. Journal of Career Development, 49(4), 875–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211004780
24.
LeeH.JoK.HongS. (2019). An investigation of methods effects associated with positively- and negatively–worded items in self-report psychological tests. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 31(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.17927/tkjems.2019.31.1.147
25.
LeeJ.NamS.LeeM.LeeJ.LeeS. (2009). Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Analysis of item-level validity. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 21(1), 173–189.
26.
LimaT. J. S. D.SouzaL. E. C. D. (2019). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Method effect and gender invariance. Psico-USF, 24(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712019240309
27.
LoM. T.ChenS. K.O'ConnellA. A. (2018). Psychometric properties and convergent validity of the Chinese version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 19(4), 413–427. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30433883/
28.
MimuraC.GriffithsP. (2007). A Japanese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and equivalence assessment. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 62(5), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.11.004
29.
MotlR. W.DiStefanoC. (2002). Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_6
30.
NunnallyJ. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
31.
OwensT. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of positive self-worth and self-deprecation on adolescent problems. American Sociological Review, 59(3), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095940
32.
PosnerJ.RussellJ. A.PetersonB. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340
33.
QuiltyL. C.OakmanJ. M.RiskoE. (2006). Correlates of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale method effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_5
34.
RosenbergM. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
35.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
36.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714
37.
SchmittD. P.AllikJ. (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(4), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623
38.
SchweizerK. (2020). Method effects in psychological assessment. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(3), 337–343.
39.
SuppleA. J.SuJ.PlunkettS. W.PetersonG. W.BushK. R. (2013). Factor structure of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(5), 748–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112468942
40.
TomásJ. M.OliverA. (1999). Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540120
41.
Van VaerenberghY.ThomasT. D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds021
42.
VispoelW. P.LeeH.HongH. (2024). Analyzing multivariate generalizability theory designs for psychological assessments within structural equation modeling frameworks [Teacher’s corner]. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31(3), 552–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2023.2222913
43.
WuY.ZuoB.WenF.YanL. (2017). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Method effects, factorial structure and scale invariance across migrant child and urban child populations in China. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1217420
44.
XiaY.YangY. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
