A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Objective: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used instrument that has been tested for reliability and validity in many settings; however, some negative-worded items appear to have caused it to reveal low reliability in a number of studies. In this study, we revised one negative item...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tinakon W., Nahathai W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2014
Online Access:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3502482
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857949489&partnerID=40&md5=ee862d6226a28895eee9b41db4c845f4
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/3031
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
Language: English
id th-cmuir.6653943832-3031
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-30312014-08-30T02:25:41Z A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Tinakon W. Nahathai W. Objective: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used instrument that has been tested for reliability and validity in many settings; however, some negative-worded items appear to have caused it to reveal low reliability in a number of studies. In this study, we revised one negative item that had previously (from the previous studies) produced the worst outcome in terms of the structure of the scale, then re-analyzed the new version for its reliability and construct validity, comparing it to the original version with respect to fit indices. Methods: In total, 851 students from Chiang Mai University (mean age: 19.51±1.7, 57% of whom were female), participated in this study. Of these, 664 students completed the Thai version of the original RSES - containing five positively worded and five negatively worded items, while 187 students used the revised version containing six positively worded and four negatively worded items. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied, using a uni-dimensional model with method effects and a correlated uniqueness approach. Results: The revised version showed the same level of reliability (good) as the original, but yielded a better model fit. The revised RSES demonstrated excellent fit statistics, with χ 2=29.19 (df=19, n=187, p=0.063), GFI=0.970, TFI=0.969, NFI=0.964, CFI=0.987, SRMR=0.040 and RMSEA=0.054. Conclusion: The revised version of the Thai RSES demonstrated an equivalent level of reliability but a better construct validity when compared to the original. © 2012 Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. 2014-08-30T02:25:41Z 2014-08-30T02:25:41Z 2012 Article 17383684 10.4306/pi.2012.9.1.54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3502482 http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857949489&partnerID=40&md5=ee862d6226a28895eee9b41db4c845f4 http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/3031 English
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
language English
description Objective: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used instrument that has been tested for reliability and validity in many settings; however, some negative-worded items appear to have caused it to reveal low reliability in a number of studies. In this study, we revised one negative item that had previously (from the previous studies) produced the worst outcome in terms of the structure of the scale, then re-analyzed the new version for its reliability and construct validity, comparing it to the original version with respect to fit indices. Methods: In total, 851 students from Chiang Mai University (mean age: 19.51±1.7, 57% of whom were female), participated in this study. Of these, 664 students completed the Thai version of the original RSES - containing five positively worded and five negatively worded items, while 187 students used the revised version containing six positively worded and four negatively worded items. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied, using a uni-dimensional model with method effects and a correlated uniqueness approach. Results: The revised version showed the same level of reliability (good) as the original, but yielded a better model fit. The revised RSES demonstrated excellent fit statistics, with χ 2=29.19 (df=19, n=187, p=0.063), GFI=0.970, TFI=0.969, NFI=0.964, CFI=0.987, SRMR=0.040 and RMSEA=0.054. Conclusion: The revised version of the Thai RSES demonstrated an equivalent level of reliability but a better construct validity when compared to the original. © 2012 Korean Neuropsychiatric Association.
format Article
author Tinakon W.
Nahathai W.
spellingShingle Tinakon W.
Nahathai W.
A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
author_facet Tinakon W.
Nahathai W.
author_sort Tinakon W.
title A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
title_short A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
title_full A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
title_fullStr A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Reliability and Construct Validity between the Original and Revised Versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
title_sort comparison of reliability and construct validity between the original and revised versions of the rosenberg self-esteem scale
publishDate 2014
url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3502482
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84857949489&partnerID=40&md5=ee862d6226a28895eee9b41db4c845f4
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/handle/6653943832/3031
_version_ 1681419971648815104