SONIA MENDOZA

CARLO MAGNO

Self-disclosure is the process of making the

self known to another person (Jourard,
1958)

One makes him/herself manifest in thinking

and feeling through actions (Chelune,
Skiffington &Williams, 1981).

1. Personal matters
2. Thoughts and ideas
3. Religion
4. Work, study & accomplishments
5. Sex

6. Interpersonal relationship
7. Emotional state
8. Tastes
9. Problems

Jourard (1971) noted that persons need it:

1.
To get in touch with real selves
2.
To have intimate relationship with people
3.
To bond with others in pursuit of the trust
of ones being
4.
To direct the destiny on the basis of
knowledge

1.

2.

3.

We learn the extent to which we are

similar, and the extent to which we differ
from one another in thoughts, feelings,
hopes and reactions to the past.
We learn of other persons needs
enabling us to help him/her to ensure
that his/her needs will be met.
We learn the extent to which a person
accords with or deviates from moral and
ethical standards.

To develop an instrument for self-disclosure

which is important:
1.
2.

In the counseling process

For individual to find out what areas in
his/her life have been easy to share and
what areas need more revelations

Participants were 55 females, 16-22 years

old students from different colleges of DLSU
Search for Content Domain
it indicated the person to whom one usually
discloses
the topic disclosed
the situation where one discloses
how one discloses
Characteristics while disclosing
The rate of their own self disclosing habit

The self-disclosure questionnaire by

Sydney Jourard and Rubin and Shenkers
intimacy of self-disclosure was reviewed on
how they came up with their items and
factors for the present scale.

Based on the survey, 114 items under nine

factors were constructed and the verbal
frequency scale was used. Three
professionals reviewed the items, deleted
and added more before the pre-try out form
was constructed.

Ten selected respondents (6 females and 4

males) used the pre-try out forms and were
asked to provide feedback for further
revisions.
The form consisted of 110 item w/ nine
factors, 6 were negative and the rest were
positive items. The scaling used was the
verbal frequency scale because the test was
a measure of a habit. The order of item were
randomly arranged.

The factors were sex (5 items),

problems, (21 items) interpersonal
relationship (17 items),
accomplishments/work/study (14 items),
tastes (8items) and personal matters (20
items). The scaling used was the verbal
frequency scale (always, often, sometimes,
rarely, never).

To develop the main tryout form,

comments on the pre-tryout form were
considered. The main tryout form is now
112 items. The scale was intended for
adolescents since items were empirically
based on adolescent respondents and
reflected their usual activities. There were
six negative items. The scaling used was
verbal frequency scale.

There were 100 respondents from private

school. 48 male and female, 4th year high
school, ages ranged from 15-16.The rest of
participants were college students from
DLSU. The sampling design was purposive.
During the administration of scale, the
researcher explained the purpose of study.
It took 20 minutes to answer the scale. The
data were reviewed after the collection.
Each test was scored and encoded.

The 112 items were intercorrelated and

the factors were extracted using the
principal components analysis. A correlation
matrix was made among the factors. The
reliability was obtained using the
Cronbachs alpha. The items were grouped
using Principal Components Analysis.

In the final form, there were 60 items

accepted; 62 items deleted in the item
analysis due to low factor loadings (below .
40). There were 5 factors extracted in the
Principal Components Analysis: beliefs,
relationships, personal matters, interests,
and intimate feelings.

A norm was used to interpret the scores.

The test was scored based on the
corresponding answer on each item. A score
was arrived at a particular factor. The raw
score had an equivalent percentile based in
the norm, and a corresponding percentile
had a remark.

There was no allotted time to answer the

scale. The respondents were instructed to
shade their answers. No right or wrong
answers, just respond as honestly as
possible.

The answer Always was equivalent to 5

points, Often is 4points, Sometimes is 3,
Rarely is 2 and Never is 1 point. All items
were positive because all the negatrive
items were removed during the item
analysis due to low factor loadings. The
score on each item was summated and
there was an equivalent percentile for a
particular score.

The garnered percentile had a remark of high

frequency, average frequency and low frequency.
A low disclosing individual would mean that the
particular person never or rarely opens up to others
on the particular topic.
An average self-disclosing individual would mean that
the particular person has opened up in general terms
about a particular matter only when necessary and
on selected others on a particular topic.
A high self-disclosing individual would mean that the
person has opened up, shared fully and gave
complete details to others about a particular
topic. The individual has the tendency to let self be
known in all dimensions of his/her being.

The corrected item-total correlation of the

62 items as a total correlation is above .30.
The item total correlation of accepted items
range from .48 to .30, the item correlation
of the deleted items ranges from -.01 to .29.
The coefficient alpha reliability is .91, the
standard item alpha is .91

A correlation matrix was made on the 112

items, the mean for the inter-item correlation
is .34, the variance is 1821.38, and the
standard deviation is 42.68. The highest intercorrelation of items is .65 that occurred
between item numbers 51 and 74.
In the process of factor analysis, the
hypothesized 9 factors were extracted into 18
factors with an eigenvalue of 1.08 the
researchers considered 4% of variance which
offers 5 factors.

200

Confiden Confid
Standar
Mean
ce
ence Std.Dev.
d
-95.00% 95.00%
Error
3.26
3.19
3.32
0.48
0.03

200

3.29

3.22

3.35

0.46

0.03

200

3.26

3.20

3.32

0.41

0.03

200

3.34

3.27

3.40

0.48

0.03

200

3.26

3.20

3.33

0.47

0.03

Valid N
Beliefs
Relation
ships
Persona
l
Matters
Interest
s
Intimate
feelings

Cronbachs alpha whole scale =.94

Beliefs = .76
Relationships = .71
Interest = .65
Personal Matters = .77
Intimate Feelings =.61

Persona
Intimat
Relatio l
Interest e
Beliefs nships Matters s
feelings
Beliefs
Relatio
nships
Persona
l
Matters
Interest
s
Intimat

0.41
0.46

0.65

0.32

0.73

0.63

(relations)-121(Beliefs)
(interest)-122(Beliefs)
(persMat)-123(Beliefs)
(intfeel)-124(Beliefs)
(interest)-125(relations)
(persMat)-126(relations)
(intfeel)-127(relations)
(persMat)-128(interest)
(intfeel)-129(interest)
(intfeel)-130(persMat)

Parameter
Estimate

Standard
Error

T
Statistic

Prob.
Level

0.87

0.07

13.36

0.00

0.69

0.08

9.10

0.00

1.00

0.00

25.00

0.00

0.94

0.06

14.92

0.00

1.00

0.00

25.00

0.00

0.90

0.05

19.67

0.00

0.85

0.05

16.22

0.00

0.99

0.04

22.73

0.00

0.89

0.05

16.70

0.00

0.97

0.05

21.23

0.00

Value
Discrepancy
Function
Maximum
Residual Cosine
Maximum
Absolute
Gradient
ICSF Criterion
ICS Criterion
ML Chi-Square
Degrees of
Freedom
p-level
RMS
Standardized
Residual

15.112
0
0.13
0
0
3007.322
1700
0
0.086

Population
Noncentrality
Parameter
Steiger-Lind
RMSEA Index
McDonald
Noncentrality
Index
Population
Gamma Index
Adjusted
Population
Gamma Index

Lower 90%
Conf. Bound

Point
Estimate

Upper 90%
Conf. Bound

8.368

9.205

10.08

0.07

0.074

0.077

0.006

0.01

0.015

0.748

0.965

0.782

0.729

0.947

0.765

After the step by step processes were analyzed

and considered, new factors were arrived at after
factor analysis. The items were re-classified and
were given new names. Only 5 factors were
accepted following the 4% rating of the eigen
value. These factors were Beliefs, Relationships,
Interests, Personal Matters, and Intimate Feelings.
The test developed was intended to measure the
self-disclosure each person made on different
areas or factors.

The test has been reviewed by experts and

factor analyzed. It has internal consistency
of .91 which is high.

Since the scale has just underwent its initial

stages, further validation study should be
done to conduct further validation and
reliability studies. Norming and
interpretation for the test needs further
establishment. There is a need to
administer this to a larger sample size.

An intensive study should be made with

considerable and appropriate number of
respondents. In terms of sampling, a
probabilistic technique is suggested to
account for further generalization in the
study because the current test only used a
purposive non-probabilistic sampling.

Have a nice day!