Exploring the Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Using Factor Analytic and Circumplex Approaches

Abstract

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.

Keywords

circular stochastic process model with a Fourier series correlation function circumplex model method effect Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alessandri

Vecchione

Eisenberg

Łaguna

(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

Anderson

T. W.

(1960). Some stochastic process models for intelligence test scores. In Arrow

K. J.

Karlin

Suppes

(Eds.), Mathematical methods in the social sciences (pp. 205–220). Stanford University Press.

Browne

M. W.

(1992). Circumplex models for correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 57(4), 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294416

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

Carmines

E. G.

Zeller

R. A.

(1974). On establishing the empirical dimensionality of theoretical terms: An analytical example. Political Methodology, 1, 75–96.

Cheng

S. T.

Hamid

P. 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

Conte

H. R.

Plutchik

(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

Cronbach

L. J.

(1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316445001000101

DeVellis

R. F.

(1991) Scale development: theory and applications applied social research methods series (26). Sage Publications.

10.

Di Blas

(2007). A circumplex model of interpersonal attributes in middle childhood. Journal of Personality, 75(4), 863–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00459.x

11.

DiStefano

Motl

R. 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.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Visser

P. S.

Browne

M. 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.

Farruggia

S. P.

Chen

Greenberger

Dmitrieva

Macek

(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.

Franck

de Raedt

Barbez

Rosseel

(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.

Grassi

Luccio

Di Blas

(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.

Gupta

Tracey

T. J.

Gore Jr

P. 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.

Guttman

(1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In Lazarsfeld

P. F.

(Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Columbia University Press.

18.

Hensley

W. E.

Roberts

M. K.

(1976). Dimensions of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale. Psychological Reports, 38(2), 583–584. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1976.38.2.583

19.

Hofstee

de Raad

Goldberg

L. 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.

Hong

Jung

(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.

Johnson

J. A.

Ostendorf

(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.

Larsen

R. J.

Diener

(1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In Clark

M. S.

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion (13, pp. 25–29). Sage Publications.

23.

Lee

H. S.

Hwang

M. 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.

Lee

Hong

(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.

Lee

Nam

Lee

(2009). Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale: Analysis of item-level validity. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 21(1), 173–189.

26.

Lima

T. J. S. D.

Souza

L. 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.

M. T.

Chen

S. K.

O'Connell

A. 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.

Mimura

Griffiths

(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.

Motl

R. W.

DiStefano

(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.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

31.

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(3), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095940

32.

Posner

Russell

J. A.

Peterson

B. 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.

Quilty

L. C.

Oakman

J. M.

Risko

(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.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

35.

Rosseel

(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.

Russell

J. A.

(1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

37.

Schmitt

D. P.

Allik

(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.

Schweizer

(2020). Method effects in psychological assessment. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 62(3), 337–343.

39.

Supple

A. J.

Plunkett

S. W.

Peterson

G. W.

Bush

K. 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.

Tomás

J. M.

Oliver

(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 Vaerenbergh

Thomas

T. 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.

Vispoel

W. P.

Lee

Hong

(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.

Zuo

Wen

Yan

(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.

Xia

Yang

(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.

0.00 MB

0.46 MB