Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Cognitive Therapy for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

ALBERT ELLIS ; Psychotherapist who preached a rational, behavioural approach http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-


7533302.html
COUNSELING IN SCHOOLS. A RATIONAL EMOTIVE BEHAVIOR THERAPY (REBT) BASED INTERVENTION - A PILOT
STUDY –

Assessing self-concept in children: Variations


across self-concept domains
From:
Merrill - Palmer Quarterly
Date:
October 1, 1999
Author:
Ditner, Elise; LeMare, Lucy; Woody, Erik Z; Hymel, Shelley
More results for:
self esteem AND rebt OR self concept

Multidimensional models of self, emphasizing variations in self-perceptions


across areas of one's life, have led to new, domain-specific self-report
measures. Two of the most widely used multidimensional self-concept
questionnaires were compared in Study 1 in a sample of 277 preadolescents.
The two measures were highly correlated and comparable in reliability,
stability, subscale interrelations, and associations with others' evaluations. In
Study 2 a wider variety of self-assessments (interviews, questionnaires, self-
ratings) across domains were compared in a sample of 161 preadolescents.
Results indicated that the correspondence among different self-assessment
approaches as well as between self and others' perceptions varied as a
function of the domain tapped. The observed domain variation may relate to
the type of information children use to evaluate their competencies across
domains.

For decades, psychologists have attempted to devise reliable and valid


means of assessing childrens' concept of self. Despite these efforts, the
assessment of the self-system has remained an elusive task. In her critical
reviews of this literature, Wylie (1961; 1974; 1979; 1989) has repeatedly
cautioned researchers about the problems inherent in attempting to assess
the self. Nevertheless, efforts have continued in this regard.

With the resurgence of interest in the self-system in the late 1970s and early
1980s (see Harter, 1983; Leahy, 1985; Suls & Greenwald, 1985) came a
notable shift from emphasis on the self as a generalized, unitary construct to
increased recognition that self-perceptions vary across the domains of one's
life (Damon & Hart, 1982; Harter, 1982, 1983; Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983;
Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Consistent with a multidimensional
view of self, researchers devised a new wave of domain-specific self-report
instruments to assess children's self-concept within particular content
areas, in addition to general self-worth (e.g., Harter, 1982; 1985; Marsh et
al., 1983; see Byrne, 1996; Wylie, 1989, for reviews). The psychometric
quality of these multidimensional measures has been well documented
(Byrne, 1996; Wylie, 1989), but the area is still plagued with concerns about
how to best tap children's self-perceptions and what different measures tell
us about children's self-knowledge.

In particular, little is known about the correspondence among domain-specific


self-concept data gathered with different methods and measures. Although
a few studies (to be reviewed) have compared the most commonly used
multidimensional self-concept measures, data are lacking on the stability of
domain-specific measures of self and on the relations between domain-
specific self-assessments and others' impressions of the child within those
domains. Such information has practical implications for researchers
concerned with instrument selection as well as conceptual implications
regarding the nature of children's self-knowledge. Do children see
themselves as others see them or are their self-perceptions distorted or
idiosyncratic? Are inconsistencies more likely in some domains than in
others? Is there a systematic pattern to these inconsistencies?

To address these issues, two studies were conducted to evaluate the utility
and comparability of domain-specific evaluations of self among
preadolescent, elementary school-age children. In the first study, two of the
most widely used multidimensional measures of children's self-concept were
compared in terms of reliability, validity, and stability, as well as
correspondence across common domains. In the second study, children's
self-perceptions in four major areas (peer relations, schoolwork, appearance,
and physical/athletic ability) were further examined to determine (a) the
correspondence among various types of domain-specific, self-report
approaches (questionnaires, ratings, interview data), (b) the correspondence
between self and others' perceptions of the child's performance in those
domains, and (c) the information children report using to evaluate
themselves in each domain.

STUDY 1

Two of the most widely used multidimensional measures of children's self-


concept are the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1) developed by Marsh
and his colleagues (Marsh, 1988; Marsh et al., 1983) and the Self-Perception
Profile for Children (SPPC) developed by Harter (1982, 1985). Both were
created for use with middle to later elementary children, Grades 3/4 to 6,
ages 8-12 years. In addition, both scales demonstrate excellent psychometric
qualities (see Byrne, 1996; Wylie, 1989). There is considerable overlap
regarding the areas tapped by the two scales, with each assessing the
domains of academic competence, physical/athletic competence, peer
relations, and appearance, as well as overall self-worth. In addition, the SPPC
assesses perceived behavioral conduct, whereas the SDQ-1 assesses parent
relations and provides for separate evaluations of competence in
mathematics and reading.
An important distinction between the two measures involves the wording of
items and the response format employed. The SDQ-1 provides children with a
series of statements (76 items) about their competency (abilities) and affect
(liking, interest) in various domains (e.g., "t am good at school subjects," "I
look forward to all school subjects," see Marsh, this volume, for a discussion
of the competence/affect distinction). For each statement children indicate on
a 5-point scale the degree to which the statement is true of themselves.
Although one negatively-- worded item is included for each domain as a
response check, each subscale score is based on a sum of eight positively-
worded items. The SPPC provides students with a series of logically-opposed
statements (36 items, 6 items per subscale) regarding competency in a
particular domain (e.g., "Some kids feel that they are very good at their
school work, BUT other kids worry about whether or not they can do the
schoolwork assigned to them"). The child must decide (a) which statement
best describes him/herself and (b) whether the chosen statement is sort of or
really true for them. The format was designed to minimize socially desirable
responding.

In at least three studies children's responses to the SDQ-1 and the SPPC have
been compared (Byrne & Schneider, 1988; Marsh, 1990; Marsh & MacDonald-
Holmes, 1990). Across studies, the construct validity of both measures was
verified by confirmatory factor analyses. Marsh and MacDonald-Holmes
(1990) also provide support for the convergent and discriminant validity of
both instruments using multitrait, multimethod analyses and found the scales
to be comparable in terms of internal consistency (coefficient alpha = .82 to
.93 for SDQ-1 subscales, and .81 to .86 for SPPC subscales). With regard to
concurrent validity, significant correlations were found between social self-
concept on the SPPC and peer assessments of sociability/leadership (Byrne
& Schneider, 1988) and between academic self-concept on both the SDQ-1
and the SPPC and teacher evaluations of achievement (Marsh & MacDonald--
Holmes, 1990). Importantly, significant, positive correlations were observed
across the SPPC and SDQ-1 for scores in comparable domains, ranging from
.54 to .86 for Grade 5 to 8 students (Byrne & Schneider, 1988) and from .56
to .68 for Grade 5 students (Marsh & MacDonald-- Holmes, 1990).

These data support previous reports of the psychometric quality of the two
scales and further suggest that, despite format and item variations, these two
measures yield similar estimates of self-concept in specific (comparable)
domains. Study 1 is a replication and extension of these findings regarding
the comparability of the scales in a Canadian sample of fifth and sixth
graders. As in prior studies, the two instruments were compared in terms of
(a) subscale interrelations, (b) internal reliability (Cronbach a), and (c)
correspondence between scores obtained on comparable subscales.
Extending previous research, we examined the stability or test-retest
reliability of subscale scores over a 1-week period, and evaluated the
correspondence of self-reports with teacher and peer assessments in each
domain. Although peer and teacher evaluations are often used as relevant
validity criteria, such comparisons generally have not been conducted across
numerous domains.
Method

Participants. Participants included 217 fifth- and sixth-grade children (107


males, 110 females) from two public schools in southern Ontario, which
serviced predominantly Caucasian middle-class communities. All students
received parental permission for participation in the study.

Procedures. Students participated in two group testing sessions, 1 week


apart, conducted in the classroom setting by female research assistants.
During the first session, students completed subscales of both the SDQ-1 and
the SPPC (order counterbalanced). Students also rated each participating
classmate in terms of four different areas of competence (athletics,
academics, peer relations, and appearance) and in terms of how much they
liked to be with that person at school (sociometric evaluation), with the order
of rating scales counterbalanced. Teachers were also asked to rate
participants in the same four areas of competence. One week later, students
completed either the SPPC or the SDQ-1, with half of the classrooms
randomly assigned to each instrument, providing an evaluation of the
stability of each measure over a brief period.

Materials. Student self-concept was assessed using selected subscales of


the SDQ-1 and SPPC. The five domains that are included in both instruments
were considered: athletic competence, academic competence, peer relations,
appearance, and overall self-worth. For the SPPC, students responded to six
items for each subscale, half of which were worded in a positive direction and
half in a negative direction. For the SDQ-1, students responded to eight
positive and one negative item in each domain, although negatively-worded
items were not included for scoring purposes. The response format for the
SDQ-1 was also simplified, from true, mostly true, sometimes
false/sometimes true, mostly false, false to YES, yes, sometimes, no, NO.
Following procedures recommended by the scale developers, total scores in
each domain were computed as an average of relevant subscale items, with
higher scores reflecting more positive self-concepts.

Others' evaluations of competence were obtained by having teachers and


peers rate each participant on a 5-point scale in each of the four domains.
Because many teachers were uncomfortable rating student appearance, this
evaluation was subsequently dropped. For both academic and athletic
competence ("How well does this person do in schoolwork?" and "How well
does this person do in sports or other outdoor activities?"), response
alternatives ranged from (doesn't do well at all) to 5 (does really weld. Peer
relations ("How well does this person get along with classmates at school?")
were rated from 1 (doesn't get along at all) to 5 (gets along really well). For
the appearance domain ("How good looking or attractive is this person?"),
which was rated by peers but not teachers, responses ranged from 1 (not
good looking at all) to 5 (really good looking). Teacher evaluations reflected
the ratings of a single teacher: peer evaluations were computed as the
average rating received from peers. In both cases, higher scores indicated
greater competence in each domain.
Peer evaluations of liking or popularity were assessed using a rating scale
sociometric measure. Participants rated each classmate in terms of "How
much do you like to be with this person at school?" on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (don't like to) to 5 (like to a lot). The average rating received from
peers was computed, with higher scores indicating greater peer acceptance.

Results

Comparisons of the SDQ-1 and the SPPC were made on the basis of (a)
reliability (internal consistency, test-retest stability), (b) subscale
interrelations, and (c) validity (correlations with teacher and peer ratings).
The correspondence of the two instruments was examined through
correlations between scores obtained in comparable domains.

Reliability. Internal consistency (Cronbach a) for each subscale, as presented


in the first two columns of Table 1, was high for both the SDQ-1 and the SPPC.
Stability estimates (test-retest correlations over I week), presented in the last
two columns of Table 1, were also high and comparable across instruments
(all correlations significant at p <.01).

Subscale interrelations. Pearson product moment correlations (onetailed)


were computed to examine the interrelations among the four subscales
within both the SDQ-1 and SPPC. As shown in Table 2, significant but modest
correlations were observed among the four subscales for both instruments.
The only exception to this was the nonsignificant correlation observed
between athletic and academic self-concept on the SDQ-1. These rather low
subscale intercorrelations suggest that the various subscales are tapping
different aspects of the self, although there is some overlap in self-
perceptions across domains. In addition, positive and significant correlations
were observed between domain-specific scores and reported overall self-
worth or self-esteem, suggesting that each domain of self-concept is
related to overall feelings of self-worth. Particularly noteworthy, however, is
the strikingly similar pattern of subscale interrelations observed for the SDQ-
1 and SPPC.

Correspondence with teacher and peer assessments. Pearson product


moment correlations (one-tailed), computed between domain scores and
relevant teacher and peer ratings, are reported in Table 3. Significant
correlations were observed in all cases, and were comparable across the two
instruments. Although significant, the magnitude of these correlations was
moderate to low and varied somewhat across domains. Particularly
noteworthy are the very low correlations observed between self and other
evaluations of peer relations and appearance.

Correlations across self report instruments. Pearson correlations (one-tailed)


were computed between comparable domain scores on the two instruments.
Disattenuated correlations, representing the degree of correspondence
between the two measures once the reliability of each measure is taken into
account, were also computed. As shown in Table 4, the correlations between
comparable subscales were quite high, approaching a ceiling once the
reliability of the measures was taken into account (disattenuated
correlations). Thus, the SDQ-1 and SPPC appear to provide similar, if not
identical, assessments of self-concept, at least for the domains evaluated
here.

Discussion

Data from over 200 fifth- and sixth-grade students revealed an impressive
pattern of consistency across two of the most widely used multidimensional
measures of self-concept. Comparable estimates of internal consistency and
test-retest reliability were obtained, along with highly similar patterns of
correlations across subscales, and across evaluations of self and other. Not
surprisingly, then, self-concept scores in comparable domains were highly
correlated across the two measures. Consistent with prior studies, these data
do not favor one measure over the other, and instead support the conclusion
that the SDQ-1 and SPPC provide comparable and psychometrically similar
assessments of self-concept.

Accordingly, selection of an appropriate self-concept instrument must be


based on considerations other than psychometric quality. For example,
selection may depend on the particular domains of interest. Although both
scales provide for the assessment of self-concept in the areas of academics,
athletics, peer relations, appearance, and general selfworth/esteem, the
SDQ-1 also provides for an assessment of one's relations with parents and for
separate evaluations of competence in math and reading, whereas the SPPC
provides for a self-assessment of one's behavioral conduct at school. Format
differences also may be an important consideration. The SPPC's logical-
alternative format is designed to reduce socially desirable responding, but
our experience suggests that the format is quite confusing for some children.
In addition, the SPPC format implicitly encourages relative comparisons with
others that is characteristic of some, but not all, of the items of the SDQ-1
(e.g., "I can do things as well as most other people" vs. "When I do
something, I do it well"). Finally, there is some variation in item content
across the two measures, with the SDQ-1 including items tapping both
competence and affect, and the SPPC almost exclusively assessing
perceptions of competence (not affect) in an implicit social-comparison
format.

Despite the overall comparability of these two instruments, questions remain


regarding the assessment of self-concept in children. For example, in this
sample, the correspondence between self and other perceptions varied
across domains, with less correspondence observed in the social and
appearance domains. Thus, regardless of the self-concept questionnaire
employed, social self-concept was only weakly related to actual social
status, and self-perceptions of one's appearance were only weakly
associated with peer evaluations of appearance, leading to questions
regarding how children determine their self-perceptions within these
domains. In addition, only well-established self-concept instruments were
compared. How might children's self-evaluations differ if tapped in other
ways, as in the case of open-ended interviews and/or self-ratings?
STUDY 2

In Study 2, our evaluation of the assessment of childhood self-concept was


expanded to consider a wider variety of assessment approaches, based on an
intriguing distinction made by McGuire and McGuire (1987, 1988) between
the "spontaneous" and the "reactive" self. The spontaneous self, as tapped
by open-ended self-descriptions, allows the respondent to determine the
salient features of the self, as a "natural, as-is experience of self" (McGuire &
McGuire, 1987, p. 134). In contrast, the reactive self, as assessed by
experimenter-created questionnaires or ratings, limits the respondent to
consideration of other-derived self-concept domains, and dictates the scope
and focus of one's self-evaluations. With this distinction in mind, we
considered a wider variety of approaches to the assessment of self, while
maintaining our interest in self-concept variations across multiple domains.
Specifically, children's self-assessments in the areas of academics, athletics,
peer relations, and appearance, were assessed by (a) two different types of
self-ratings, (b) verbal self-descriptions derived from open-ended interviews,
and (c) a psychometrically sound, self-report questionnaire tapping
multidimensional aspects of the self (SPPC, Harter, 1982, 1985).

As in Study 1, we were interested in the degree of correspondence observed


among self-assessments derived from various measurement approaches,
and in the degree to which self-assessments reflect the perceptions of
others. If, as symbolic interactionists suggest (see Harter, this issue), the self
emerges as a result of interactions and exchanges with others, children's
self-perceptions should reflect the perceptions of significant others in their
lives. Moreover, as in previous studies (e.g., Byrne & Schneider, 1988; Marsh
& MacDonald-Holmes, 1990, Study 1), others' evaluations are employed often
as an index of convergent validity for self-perceptions. Accordingly, we
compared children's self-assessments across domains with the perceptions
of parents, teachers, and peers, three of the primary significant others in
children's lives at this age.

Finally, the children were asked to describe the "cues" they used to develop
their own self-appraisals, by asking them to explain "how they knew" how
competent they were in each domain. Our focus on children's views of the
"data" used to determine self-assessments constitutes a unique focus within
the literature. Previous efforts have been largely attempts to validate
statistically multidimensional and hierarchical models of the self on the basis
of responses to questionnaires. Although useful, such procedures reveal little
about how individuals (especially children) themselves form their constructs
of self within specific domains.

Method

Participants. The sample was comprised of 161 children (76 females, 85


males) enrolled in Grades 3 to 6 in a single public school in a moderate-sized
city in southern Ontario. The children were predominantly Caucasian and
living in a middle class area. All children had received parental consent for
the study. Parent ratings were obtained for 134 of the 161 students
(approximately 84%).

Procedure. Letters of invitation, including a description of the study and


consent forms, were sent home to parents. On the consent form, parents
were asked to evaluate how satisfied they were with their child's
competencies in each of four domains (academics, athletics, peer relations,
appearance).

The children participated in one group testing session and one individual
interview over a 2-3 week period (order counterbalanced across classrooms),
and were assured of the confidentiality of their responses in both sessions.
During group testing, children completed the SPPC as well as a series of
rating scales on which they evaluated participating classmates and
themselves along several dimensions (described later). Teachers were asked
to complete a similar series of ratings on participating children. During the
interview, children were asked to (a) respond to a series of open-ended
questions about themselves, (b) rate how well they perceived themselves to
perform in each of four domains, and (c) explain how they determined their
own competencies in each domain.

Measures. Self-concept in four domains (athletics, academics, peer


relations, appearance) was assessed using the Self-Perception Profile for
Children (SPPC), as described in Study 1.

Children also completed a series of five peer rating scales, providing peer
assessments of overall liking or popularity (sociometric measure) and of each
participant's competence in each of four domains (schoolwork, athletic
ability, peer relations, appearance), identical to those completed for Study 1.
The sociometric measure was administered first, with the order of the
remaining four scales counterbalanced across classrooms. Children's ratings
of their own competence in each of the four domains (completed along with
peer evaluations) provided an additional index of children's self-perceptions
of competence in each domain, one embedded in a context that likely
enhanced social comparisons.

As in Study 1, classroom teachers were asked to rate each child's


competence in each of four domains using the same 5-point rating scales.
Two teachers were reluctant to evaluate children's appearance, reducing the
sample size for some analyses. Again, higher scores were indicative of more
positive ratings in each domain.

Spontaneous self-descriptions were obtained during individual interviews


when children were asked a series of open-ended questions about the self.
The questions were worded such that particular domains or aspects of the
self were not highlighted, permitting children to emphasize various aspects
of their lives as they deemed appropriate. Effort was made, however, to elicit
both positive and negative self-descriptions. Specific interview questions,
adapted from a self-report interview developed by Damon and Hart (1982),
were:
1 .Tell me about yourself. What are you like? What kind of a person are you?

2. Tell me some things about yourself that you think are good.

3. Tell me some things about yourself that you think are not so good.

4. What are you especially proud of about yourself?

5. Tell me the things about yourself that you are not really proud of.

6. What are the things that you do best?

7. What are the things that you do the worst?

Responses were audio-recorded and later transcribed. For coding purposes,


responses were first separated into distinct idea units by independent coders
(two of the authors, interrater reliability = 92%). Each response unit was then
categorized by independent coders (the authors) in terms of domain
addressed (academic, peer, athletic, and appearance domains and "other"),
as well as valence (positive, neutral, or negative). Discrepancies were
resolved through discussion and/or the decision of a third coder. Interrater
reliability for these judgments was high, for both domain (overall, 96%,
academic, 96%, athletic, 98%, peer, 95%, appearance, 90%) and valence
codes (overall, 97.5%, positive 98%, neutral, 88%, negative, 98%). From
these coded responses two indices were computed: (a) percentage of self-
statements within a domain over all self-statements made (% domain
statements), reflecting the degree to which the child emphasized a given
domain over other domains, and (b) percentage of positive self-statements
made within a domain over all domain statements (% positive statements),
reflecting the degree to which self-statements in a given domain were
positive or self-enhancing.

Next, children rated on a 10-point response wheel how well they perceived
themselves to perform in each domain. Response wheels were made from
two circles of interlocking cardboard, each a different color. On the face of
each circle were lines that create 10 equal "pie slices" and the interlocking
circles could be rotated to reveal any number of "slices" of either color. Each
colored circle was labeled with either a positive or negative self-description
for a particular domain (e.g., "I get along really well with other kids" and "I
don't get along well at all with other kids" for the peer relations domain; "I do
really well in my schoolwork" and "I don't do well at all in my schoolwork" for
the academic domain). These response wheels, easily understood by the
children, corresponded to 10-point rating scales, allowing for greater
response variability, with higher scores indicating more positive self-
perceptions. They differed from other self-ratings in that (a) they provided a
visual representation of one's self-assessments that may have been more
meaningful for some students and (b) they did not highlight social
comparison (as did self-ratings embedded in the peer evaluations). The
response wheels provided a final set of self-evaluations, completed on a
different day.
Finally, children were asked "how they could tell" if they were doing well or
not doing well in each domain, in an attempt to identify the sources of
information the children used to evaluate their performance in each domain.
Responses were recorded verbatim and later categorized in terms of the type
of "cues" used to determine their self-assessments. Six major types of cues
were described by the participants, although many of the categories only
occurred in particular domains: objective outcomes (grades, test scores,
goals, wins/losses, etc.); direct feedback from others ("__ tells me I am
good"); direct affect or liking (e.g., "They tell me that they like me");
friendship (e.g., "because I have friends"); self-observations (interpretations
of one's own behavior); and performance inferred from the behavior of others
(evaluations of self based on how one is treated by others). The latter two
categories were further divided into several subcategories. Specifically, self-
observations included (a) general self-observations (e.g., "I look at myself in
the mirror," "When I get all dressed up"); (b) self-descriptions of
psychological states (e.g., "I feel good/pretty"); (c) work-related behavior
(references to completion of work, speed of performance, neatness, etc.); (d)
ability/inability to perform tasks (e.g., "I could do it perfectly the first time I
tried"); (e) interpretations of one's own performance (references to ready
understanding, task ease/difficulty, enjoyment, etc.). Performance inferred
from the behavior of others included the subcategories of (a) general
statements (e.g., "The way teachers/coaches treat you"); (b) positive social
behaviors or absence of negative behaviors (e.g., "They invite me to parties,"
"They don't tease me," or "They choose me as captain"); (c) negative social
behaviors or absence of positive behaviors (e.g., "They never include me
when they play"); (d) shared or mutual affect/cooperation (e.g., "We laugh a
lot when we get together," "We have fun together"); (e) communication (e.g.,
"We talk to each other"); (f) intimacy/loyalty/acceptance (e.g., "I can tell my
friends anything," "I can trust her not to tell secrets"); (g) similarity/ shared
values (e.g., "We like the same things"). Unclassifiable and "don't know"
responses were coded separately (see Table 8 for a list of categories).
Interrater reliability, obtained for a random sample of 25% of the children,
was computed across categories and was consistently high across domains
(agreement = 89% for academics; 90%, peer relations; 91%, athletics; and
95%, appearance).

Parents of participating children were asked to rate on a 5-point scale ranging


from 1 (very happy to 5 (not at all happy how satisfied they were with their
child's performance in each of the four domains (schoolwork, getting along
with peers, physical activities or sports, and appearance).

Results and Discussion

First examined were the correlations among the various self-perceptions


within each domain. As shown in Table 5, the correspondence between
different types of self-assessments varied considerably as a function of the
domain tapped. The greatest coherence among self-perception measures
was found in the athletic domain in which correlations of .6 were obtained for
the Harter scale and both self-ratings. The two self-rating measures,
although administered on different days, also were strongly correlated (.56),
which could reflect the stability of self-ratings over a 2- to 3-week period.
Questionnaire and rating assessments of athletic competence also showed
significant associations with self-descriptions spontaneously offered in an
interview, with correlations ranging from .21 to .40. Thus, children who
described themselves as athletically competent on the SPPC also rated
themselves positively in athletic ability on two separate occasions using
different formats, emphasized the athletic domain in their interviews, and
described themselves positively in terms of athletics and other physical
activities. This degree of coherence among measures was not observed in the
other domains.

in the academic and appearance domains, there was somewhat less


correspondence among self-perceptions as assessed by various methods.
Self-report questionnaire and self-ratings, for example, correlated from .45
to .59 in the academic domain and from .39 to .45 in the appearance domain.
In both of these domains, however, there was little, if any, correspondence
between self-ratings/questionnaires and spontaneous self-descriptions
(interview data), with correlations in the .1 to .2 range.

Most surprising were results obtained in the peer relations domain. There was
little correspondence among self-report questionnaire and selfratings and no
relationship between interview measures and self-assessments derived from
questionnaires or rating scales (see Table 5).

It is interesting to compare these findings with those of Study 1. In Study 1,


comparing two multi-item, self-report questionnaires with wellestablished
psychometric properties, minimal variation was observed across domains,
and relations between comparable subscales were consistently high. In
contrast, the results of Study 2 suggest that the correspondence among
different types of self-assessments varies as a function of the domain
considered, especially when single-item and nonstandardized measures are
used, and hence one cannot assume correspondence across measures in all
domains. Subsequent analyses considered factors that might contribute to
this interdomain variation.

First considered was the convergent validity of children's self-perceptions as


a function of domain. Specifically, we examined the relations between self-
assessments and the evaluations of teachers, peers, and parents within each
of the four domains. As shown in Table 6, the greatest correspondence
between self- and other-evaluations was obtained in the academic and
athletic domains, where self-assessments were significantly correlated with
teacher, parent, and peer evaluations, with a few exceptions. Specifically, in
the athletic domain, teacher and peer, but not parent, ratings were
significantly related to children's spontaneous self-descriptions. In the
academic domain, teacher, parent, and peer evaluations were not
significantly related to the degree to which children generally emphasized
academics in their self-descriptions (% domain statements).

In clear contrast, relations between self- and other evaluations were virtually
nonexistent in the domains of peer relations and, especially, appearance. In
the social domain, the correlations between self and peer or teacher
evaluations were sometimes significant but very small in magnitude, and
almost nonexistent when parent evaluations or spontaneous self-descriptions
were considered. In the appearance domain, there were no significant
relations obtained between self- and other assessments, suggesting perhaps
that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

These results are highly similar to those reported by Marsh and his colleagues
(Marsh, 1988; Marsh & Craven, 1991). Across eight studies in which the SDQ-
1 was used to assess children's self-perceptions and a single-item rating
scale was used to assess teacher perceptions of these children, Marsh (1988)
found average self-other agreement correlations for academic, athletic, peer,
and appearance domains to be .37, .38, .29, and .16, respectively. Marsh and
Craven (1991) evaluated agreement between children's SDQ-1 subscale
scores and perceptions of teachers, mothers, and fathers. Self-other
correlations tended to be somewhat higher than those reported in Marsh
(1988) but the pattern of results was similar, with the highest agreement
observed in the academic and athletic domains and somewhat weaker
agreement observed in the peer domain. The consistency of our results with
those of previous studies supports the robustness of this differential pattern
of self-other agreement across domains.

If self-perceptions are derived to a large extent from feedback from


significant others, as symbolic interactionists suggest, it seems important to
determine whether the feedback obtained from others is more or less
consistent across domains. Accordingly, we examined the correlations among
teacher, peer, and parent evaluations within each domain. The results,
presented in Table 7, indicated that others' evaluations of a child's
performance or competence were, with few exceptions, significantly
correlated across domains. Marsh and Craven (1991) also found few
differences among the perceptions of teachers, mothers, and fathers in any
domain. Although the magnitude of the correlations was somewhat larger in
the athletic and academic domains than in the social (peer) and, especially,
appearance domains, the discrepancies were not sufficiently large to suggest
that a child's performance in the latter two domains was perceived in a less
cohesive or consistent manner by significant others in the child's life. It is
important to note, however, that others' evaluations were least consistent in
the appearance domain, a point to which we will return shortly.

Another possibility, not unrelated to the issue of consistency of feedback,


comes from an argument by Bohrnstedt and Felson (1983) that the feedback
one receives about performance in some domains may be more ambiguous
or less verifiable than the feedback one receives in other domains. In
particular, they suggested that feedback in the social domain is more
ambiguous than in the academic or athletic domains. In an attempt to
address this issue, we examined the cues or sources of information which the
children claimed to utilize in evaluating their own competence across
domains. These cues were derived from children's responses to the question
"How can you tell?" if you're doing well or not doing well in each domain. The
proportion of children who mentioned each of the 18 different types of cues
across domains is presented in Table 8.

In both the academic and athletic domains, children most often relied on
rather direct sources of information, such as that obtained from academic or
athletic outcomes including references to goals, scores, winning, losing, etc.,
in the athletic domain (mentioned by 55% of the children) and references to
grades, test scores, marks, etc., in the academic domain (mentioned by 82%
of the children). In addition, a substantial number of children relied on direct
feedback from others, with 42% and 33% of the children mentioning this
source of information in the athletic and academic domains, respectively. It is
important to recall here that in these two domains in particular, direct
feedback from others is likely to be a consistent source of information, given
our earlier findings of a rather high correspondence across teachers, parents,
and peers with regard to children's performance in these two domains.

Another frequently mentioned source of information was self-observations of


own performance. In the academic domain, self-observations included such
things as completing work, speed of performance, neatness, etc. under the
category "work-related behavior," or effort expended, ease of understanding,
task difficulty, and enjoyment under the category "interpretations of own
performance." In the athletic domain, self-observations included self-
perceptions of the ability or inability to perform a task and, under the
category "interpretations of own performance," references to effort, speed of
acquisition, enjoyment, etc. These self-observation categories were
mentioned by a little over a third of the children. In the academic and athletic
domains, few children reported reliance on more indirect cues such as
inferring their performance from the behavior of others or such things as
special privileges offered, tutoring others, being chosen leader, etc.

In the appearance domain, the majority of children (nearly 60%) mentioned


self-observation as a major cue, including such responses as "I look in the
mirror," or "When I'm all clean and neat and my hair is combed," etc. Another
source of information for over half of the children (55%) was direct feedback
from others, most notably parents and peers. Although others' feedback
seems to be a primary source of information regarding appearance, the
feedback received from others in the appearance domain may be somewhat
unique, given earlier findings that the appearance domain demonstrated the
least consistency across parent, peer, and teacher evaluations, and that self-
assessments of appearance were totally unrelated to others' evaluations of
appearance. Moreover, almost one third of the children relied on more
indirect cues in evaluating their appearance, particularly inferences derived
from the behavior of others, including such things as having friends, having a
boyfriend or girlfriend, being whistled at, etc. In the appearance domain,
then, most children relied on their own judgments of their appearance and/or
on direct (as well as indirect) feedback from others, which according to
previous findings may have been inconsistent and ultimately unrelated to
self-evaluations.
Finally, in the social domain, where our previous data indicated considerably
less correspondence among self-assessments and between self and other
evaluations, we found that children relied almost exclusively on less direct
and more inferential sources of information. Specifically, 83% and 90% of the
children in this sample mentioned positive and negative social behavior by
others as a primary cue in the social domain, including such things as
fighting, sharing, helping, being ignored, etc. A few children also relied on
even more indirect cues such as shared affect, intimacy and loyalty,
similarity, etc., as sources of information about how well they were getting
along with others. More direct sources of information in the form of direct
feedback from others or direct affect or liking were seldom mentioned. In the
case of the peer domain, then, the cues utilized to evaluate competence are
more indirect and inferential than those cited in other domains. This may
account, in part, for the lack of correspondence observed across social self-
perceptions. As Bohrnstedt and Felson (1983) suggested, feedback in the
social domain may be indeed more ambiguous and less verifiable than in
other domains.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results of the present study suggest that the measurement
of the self remains a difficult task even when the focus is on domain-specific
assessment rather than a global or unitary construct of self. As we have
demonstrated, the correspondence among different self-perception
measures varies considerably as a function of the domain being tapped, with
a reasonable degree of coherence across self-measures observed in the
athletic domain but virtually no relationship across self-measures in the
social domain.

Further, the present results indicated that the correspondence between self
and others' perceptions also varied across domains, with significant
correlations observed between self and other assessments in the athletic and
academic domains, but little or no correlation between self and other
perceptions observed in the social and appearance domains. This pattern of
differential correspondence across domains is not readily attributable to
variations in the consistency of others' perceptions of one's competence
within domains, although the correlations obtained among others'
perceptions were slightly higher in the athletic and academic domains than in
the appearance and social domains.

The interdomain variation observed in the present study, however, may be in


part a function of the ambiguity of feedback utilized by children across
domains. in the athletic and academic domains, children relied on direct
sources of information such as academic or athletic outcomes as well as self-
observations in judging their own competence. In contrast, in the social
domain, most children relied on less direct, more inferential sources of
information, particularly those from social interactions with others, which are
often quite ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. In the
appearance domain, most children relied on self-observations and direct
feedback from others, although our earlier data suggested little
correspondence between self and other assessments in the appearance
domain. Replication of these findings with other samples is needed, and
future research may benefit from examination of whether the pattern of
results obtained in the present study is evident across samples differing in
terms of various characteristics (e.g., age, sex, SES, ethnic or racial
composition, etc.).

In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that the recent shift
within the self literature from more general to domain-specific
selfassessments has led to the finding that children may process information
about the self quite differently across domains. Thinking of these domains as
parallel has been primarily a matter of convenience in previous research, but
on closer inspection such an assumption breaks down. In the present study,
for example, we have demonstrated that the consistency of self-
assessments, the correspondence between self and other evaluations, and to
some extent the consistency of others' evaluation varies considerably across
domains, as do the sources of information children utilize as feedback
concerning their own performance or competence. It would be beneficial to
consider in the future the unique ways in which children process information
regarding themselves as a function of the domain assessed and the
implications of such processing differences for subsequent behavior, as well
as self-evaluation.

[Reference]

REFERENCES

[Reference]

BOHRNSTEDT, G. W., & FELSON, R. B. (1983). Explaining the relations among


children's actual and perceived performances and self-esteem: A companion
of several causal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 43-
56.

BYRNE, B. M. (1996). Measuring self concept across the life span: Issues and
instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
BYRNE, B. M., & SCHNEIDER, B. H. (1988). Perceived competence scale for

children: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across age and ability.
Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 171-187.

DAMON, W., & HART, D. (1982). The development of self-understanding from


infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 53, 841-864.

HARTER, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child


Development, 53, 87-97.

HARTER, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H.


Mussen (Series Ed.), & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization and personality development (4th ed.). New
York: Wiley.
HARTER, S. (1985). Manual for the Self Perception Profile for Children.
University of Denver.

LEAHY, R. L. (1985). The development of self. New York: Academic.

MARSH, H. W. (1988). The Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1): A theoreti

[Reference]

cal and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of


preadolescent self concept: A test manual and research monograph. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

MARSH, H. W. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod


data: The construct validation of multidimensional self-concept responses.
Journal of Personality, 58, 661-692.

MARSH, H. W., & CRAVEN, R. (1991 ). Self-other agreement on dimensions of


preadolescent self-concepts: Inferences by teachers, mothers, and fathers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 393-404.

MARSH, H. W., & MACDONALD-HOLMES, I. W. (1990). Multidimensional


selfconcepts: Construct validation of responses by children. American
Educational Research Journal, 27, 89-117.

MARSH, H. W., SMITH, I. E., & BARNES, ). (1983). Multitrait, multimethod


analyses of the Self-Description Questionnaire: Student-teacher agreement
on multidimensional ratings of student self-concept. American Educational
Research Journal, 20, 333-357.

McGUIRE, W. J., & MCGUIRE, C. V. (1987). Developmental trends and gender


differences in the subjective experience of self. In T. Honess & K. Yardley
(Eds.), Self and identity. New York: Routledge & Kegan-Paul.

MCGUIRE, W. )., & MCGUIRE, C. V. (1988). Content and process in the


experience of self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 97-144.

SHAVELSON, R. )., HUBNER, ). )., & STANTON, G. C. (1976). Self-concept:

Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46,


407-441.

SULS, )., & GREENWALD, A. (1985). Psychological perspectives on the self


(Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

WYLIE, R. C. (1961 ). The self concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

WYLIE, R. C. (1974). The self concept: A review of methodological


considerations and measuring instruments (Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
WYLIE, R. C. (1979). The self concept (Vol. 2). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.

WYLIE, R. C. (1989). Measures of self concept. Lincoln: University of


Nebraska Press.

[Author Affiliation]

Shelley Hymel, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and


Special Education; Lucy LeMare, Faculty of Education; Erik Z. Woody,
Department of Psychology; Elise Ditner, Peel Board of Education, Mississauga,
ON.

This research was supported by grants from the University of Waterloo and
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Portions of
this paper were presented at the University of Waterloo Conference on Child
Development, Waterloo, ON, May 1988. Some of the data were collected as
part of an unpublished undergraduate honors thesis by Vanessa Ploc, and as
a pilot study for an unpublished doctoral thesis by Dr. Annie Steinhauer. We
thank the participating staff, parents and students at Alpine, Crestview, and
Southridge public schools in Kitchener-Waterloo, ON, for their cooperation in
this research, and Vanessa Ploc and Annie Steinhauer for their assistance in
data collection.

Correspondence may be sent to Shelley Hymel, Department of Educational


and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, Faculty of Education,
University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4,
Canada. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to shelley.hymel@ubc.ca.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, October 1999, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 602-623. Copyright
1999 by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201

Copyright Wayne State University Press Oct 1999. Provided by ProQuest LLC. For permission to reuse this
article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi