Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and

Development

ISSN: 0748-1756 (Print) 1947-6302 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uecd20

The Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report (SES-S)

Version: Studies of Reliability and Validity

Bradley T. Erford, Gerta Bardhoshi, Kelly Duncan, Stephanie Voucas & Emily
Dewlin

To cite this article: Bradley T. Erford, Gerta Bardhoshi, Kelly Duncan, Stephanie Voucas & Emily
Dewlin (2017) The Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report (SES-S) Version: Studies of Reliability
and Validity, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50:1-2, 27-34, DOI:
10.1080/07481756.2017.1321921

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1321921

Published online: 16 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 153

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uecd20
MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT
, VOL. , NOS. -, –
https://doi.org/./..

ASSESSMENT, DEVELOPMENT, AND VALIDATION

The Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report (SES-S) Version: Studies of

Reliability and Validity
Bradley T. Erforda , Gerta Bardhoshib , Kelly Duncanc , Stephanie Voucasa , and Emily Dewlina
a
Loyola University Maryland, Timonium, MD, USA; b University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; c Northern State University,
Aberdeen, SD

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report version was designed to assess self- Self-concept; self-esteem;
concept in students aged 10 to 17 years. Coefficient α was .94, and test-retest reliability; validity;
was .87. A unidimensional construct emerged with strong convergent validity personality assessment
with scores on the Piers–Harris 2 (r = .77) and Self-Efficacy Self-Report Scale
(r = .70).

The study of self-concept has been of clinical and research interest for decades. Self-concept is a mul-
tidimensional psychological construct that describes how people think about themselves in relation to
their attributes and abilities (Meggert, 2004). Self-concept is a central component of a child’s psycho-
logical health and development (Miyahara & Piek, 2006), particularly given the active role children’s
self-perceptions play in shaping their behavior. Understanding self-concept can assist educators and par-
ents in improving students’ thoughts and feelings about themselves and may also aid in preventing the
occurrence of future behavioral and emotional difficulties in students.
Although there is quite a robust debate in the professional literature on whether self-constructs such
as self-concept and self-esteem are interchangeable or meaningfully distinct, there is little distinction in
these constructs as currently measured (Bracken, Bunch, Keith, & Keith, 2000). The range and variety
among self-concept scales are vast. Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) reported that more than 200 mea-
sures of self-concept had been developed by that period in time, yet most tend to be short-lived and
of debatable quality, failing to meet minimum criteria and lacking credibility (Hattie & Marsh, 1996;
Keith & Bracken, 1996). At least four commonly used, commercially sold, self-esteem scales are avail-
able, including the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSCS; Piers & Herzberg, 2002), which
covers a full spectrum of childhood ranging from 7 to 18 years, and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
(2nd ed.; Fitts & Warren, 1996), which focuses primarily on the adolescent years with an extension into
adulthood, ranging from 13 to 68 years. The Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is used in
both adolescent and adult populations and is among the shortest scales. The Bracken (1992) Multidi-
mensional Self Concept Scale covers ages 9 to 18 years and remains the longest in terms of item number.
Self-concept refers to a student’s perceptions of competence or adequacy and is best represented by
a profile of self-perceptions across spheres of influence regarding one’s personal attributes and the roles
they fulfill in life (Manning, 2007; Meggert, 2004). Taylor, Davis-Kean, and Malanchuk (2007) explained
self-concept as “the cognitive representation an individual has of him or herself ” (p. 131). Self-concept
is seen as a student’s overall evaluation of self, including feelings of general happiness and satisfaction.
These beliefs and expectations of one’s abilities are derived from reflections of interactions with the envi-
ronment and significant individuals in one’s life (Huitt, 2004). Self-estimates of abilities have been found

CONTACT Bradley T. Erford berford@loyola.edu Timonium Graduate Center, Loyola University Maryland,  Greenspring
Drive, Timonium, MD , USA.
©  Bradley T. Erford, Gerta Bardhoshi, Kelly Duncan, Stephanie Voucas, and Emily Dewlin
28 B. T. ERFORD ET AL.

to be generally reliable and stable (Ackerman & Wolman, 2007) and can be especially useful in examining
personal and academic decisions students may make based on their self-assessment.
It is important to note that individuals can make both global assessments of themselves and differ-
entiated assessments about their specific skills and abilities (Taylor et al., 2007). Ordinarily, self-concept
consists of several foundational components, including physical, academic, and social dimensions. Phys-
ical self-concept refers to one’s physical attributes and abilities (e.g., physical attractiveness, athletic abil-
ities). Academic self-concept refers to one’s performance in school (e.g., as a math or science student).
Social self-concept refers to how well one relates to family, peers, and other acquaintances. Students may
use both direct sources of information (e.g., grades, direct feedback from others) and indirect sources
(cues and inferences) in developing a domain-specific self-concept (Hymel, LeMare, Ditner, & Woody,
1999). As children develop, different events may affect their domain-specific self-concept in distinctive
ways (Piers & Herzberg, 2002), making the assessment of both global and domain-specific self-concept
of particular value to education and mental health professionals.
Self-concept has been widely related to school success and academic achievement. High academic self-
concept is associated not only with higher self-efficacy (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003) but also higher cognitive
and emotional engagement in school (Helmke, 1999). Students with high academic self-concept gen-
erally approach school-related tasks with confidence, and tend to devote higher academic effort (Guay,
Ratelle, Roy, & Litalien, 2010). Persistent low self-concept has been linked to depression, eating disor-
ders, suicide, adjustment problems (Harter & Marold, 1994; Harter & Monsour, 1992), and later alcohol
use (Swain & Wayman, 2004). Feeling good about oneself (i.e., high self-concept) is important for mak-
ing constructive life choices, helping prevent destructive behaviors, and can lead to higher academic
achievement (Ellis, 2001). Counselors and educators are in unique positions to implement interventions
that target promotion of student’s self-concept but must first assess and understand each student’s self-
evaluation on this construct.
This article summarizes results of score reliability and validity for a new, free access instrument, the
Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report (SES-S), designed to screen children and adolescents on overall and
specific facets of self-esteem. Parent, teacher, and other-report (e.g., spouse, close friend) versions of
the SES have also been developed; however, only self-report responses were analyzed in the studies that
follow. The various versions of the SES were developed to address three major challenges counselors
face when assessing student self-esteem: (a) cost, the SES is available free of charge; (b) triangulation,
the SES is unique in that it offers self-, teacher, and parent report versions; and (c) congruence, all three
versions use a highly similar set of item wordings so meanings of subscale interpretations should be
consistent across the three versions. Reliability of scores on the SES-S was determined through studies of
internal consistency and test–retest stability. Study of internal facets of validity was attempted through
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the number of dimensions that may underlie the SES-S
items. Study of external facets of validity was determined by correlating subscale scores on the SES-S
with another test that measures self-concept, The Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, 2nd edition
(Piers–Harris 2; Piers & Herzberg, 2002), and a theoretically related construct, the Self-Efficacy Self-
Report Scale (SESRS; Erford, Schein, & Duncan, 2011).

Method

Participants
Participants were volunteers recruited as samples of convenience from several Mid-Atlantic states.
Minor-status participants were recruited from public and private schools and provided assent, while
their parent provided informed consent. Institutional review board approval was obtained for the fol-
lowing two studies using two independent samples of convenience. Study 1 participants were 299 boys
and 353 girls (total n = 652) ages 10 to 17 years (M = 13.0; SD = 2.4). Regarding the residential status
of Study 1 participants, 21% lived in an urban residential area, 74% lived in a suburban residential area,
and 5% lived in a rural area; about 71% lived in a Northeastern U.S. state, 27% lived in a Southern U.S.
state, and about 2% lived in either a Midwestern or Western U.S. state. Regarding race/ethnicity, about
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 29

61% were White, 18% African American, 13% Hispanic American, 4% Asian American, and 4% “other.”
Parental education level of participants in Study 1 indicated 10% of participant fathers did not complete
high school, 34% had only a high school diploma, 25% completed some college, and 31% were college
graduates. Of the mothers, 6% did not complete high school, 26% had only a high school diploma, 36%
completed some college, and 32% were college graduates.
Participants in Study 2 were 41 boys and 40 girls (n = 81 total) aged 10 to 17 years (M = 13.6; SD =
2.2). Regarding race/ethnicity, about 77% of the students were White, 10% were African American, 5%
were Hispanic American, 4% were Asian American, and 4% were “other.” Residential status of partici-
pants in Study 2 indicated that approximately 92% were from urban or suburban settings (communities
larger than 2,500 people) and the remaining 8% were from rural settings. Of the parents of the partic-
ipants, 7% of the fathers did not complete high school, 39% had only a high school diploma, 20% had
completed some college, and 34% were college graduates. Approximately 6% of the mothers did not
complete high school, 49% had only a high school diploma, 26% completed some college, and 19% were
college graduates.

Instruments
Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report
The SES-S can be administered either individually or in groups of students aged 10 to 17 years and scored
in less than 15 minutes. The SES-S consists of 42 items yielding a total scale raw score. Items were ratio-
nally derived to assess four facets of self-esteem: Physical, Academic, Family, and Peer. These facets were
derived from previous research and are commonly found on measures of self-concept and self-esteem.
The rational derivations stemmed from reviews of items comprising previously existing inventories that
were selected for facet correlation, modified, and edited for concision and purpose. Participants respond
to each item on a 3-point scale (i.e., Usually [2], Sometimes [1], or Rarely [0] feel this way), and some
items are reversed scored. Simple sum of raw scores for the total scale is conducted and can be converted
into T scores (M = 50; SD = 10). Evidence of reliability and validity of scores is presented in the Results
section.

Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, nd edition

The Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, 2nd edition (Piers–Harris 2; Piers & Herzberg, 2002) is
a self-report questionnaire that can be individually or group administered and scored in about 15 min-
utes. The Piers–Harris 2 consists of 60 items to which students respond yes or no. A scoring form
for the Piers–Harris 2 indicates which responses receive a score of 0 and which responses receive a
score of 1. Items on the PHCSCS-2 are used to measure overall self-concept as well as distinct dimen-
sions of self-concept among six domain scales: Behavioral Adjustment, Intellectual and School Sta-
tus, Physical Appearance and Attributes, Freedom from Anxiety, Popularity, and Happiness and Sat-
isfaction. The overall self-concept and six domain scales make up the Piers–Harris 2 total score. Raw
scores for each subscale are determined by simple sum of score procedures and can be converted to
T scores (M = 50; SD = 10). Score reliability and validity were reported to be adequate for the total
test score and borderline to adequate for most subscale scores. The alpha for the total scale in this
sample was .93.

Self-Efficacy Self-Report Scale

The SESRS (Erford, Schein, & Duncan, 2011) can be individually or group administered and scored
in less than 10 minutes. The SESRS consists of 19 items with each item rated on a 3-point scale (i.e.,
U [Usually], S [Sometimes], or R [Rarely] feel this way; scored 2, 1, and 0, respectively). The total raw
score can be determined by summing all 19 items and then converting them to T scores (M = 50;
SD = 10) or percentile ranks. Coefficient alpha was reported to be α = .90 for the unidimensional
total score derived from confirmatory factor analysis procedures. Convergent and discriminant valid-
ity of the SESRS was reportedly adequate for a screening level test. The alpha for the total scale in this
sample was .97.
30 B. T. ERFORD ET AL.

Procedure
Study 
Participants were administered the SES-S and SESRS according to standardization specifications and
in a counterbalanced sequence to avoid order effects. Computation of internal consistency coefficients
(Coefficients α) for subscale scores, and EFA was conducted on SES-S scores specifying geomin rota-
tion. Finally, convergent validity was explored by correlating SES-S total scores with the SESRS total
score.

Study 
The SES-S was administered to the participants in Study 2, then administered again after exactly 14 days.
During the initial administration of the SES-S, the Piers–Harris 2 was also administered in a coun-
terbalanced order. All protocols were scored according to standardization specifications. Total scale
standard scores for each administration were used to compute test–retest and criterion-related validity
coefficients.

Results and Discussion

Internal Aspects of Validity

EFA was conducted on scores for the participants in Sample 1 (n = 652) using Mplus version 5.21
(Muthén & Muthén, 2007). EFA procedures were used to determine how many dimensions underlie
the SES-S data and how well the scores fit the derived model. Mplus was used because the SES-S yields
ordinal scores. Eigenvalues of 11.92, 3.06, 2.39, 1.90, 1.50, 1.23, 1.14, and 1.14 were initially obtained,
which were associated with unrotated factors and exceeding the 1.00 criterion. Scree and parallel analy-
ses (Dimitrov, 2012) suggested extractions of one through three factors, all using maximum likelihood
estimation and an oblique geomin rotation because factors were assumed to be intercorrelated. A factor
structure coefficient of .30 (9% of variance in common between a variable and a factor) and above was
considered salient for the interpretation of variable-factor correlations.
The one-factor solution was most parsimonious accounting for 29.1% of variance shared in common
among item responses (see Figure 1). All but one item exceeded the .30 criterion, and 32 of 42 items
exceeded a .40 criterion. The EFA output statistics generated by Mplus indicated a comparative fit index
(CFI) of .86, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .86, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .055
(90% confidence interval [CI] [.053, .059]), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of .062.
Dimitrov (2012) suggested that for adequate model fit, CFI and TLI should be ࣙ.90, RMSEA should be
ࣘ.06, and SRMR should be ࣘ.08. Thus, RMSEA and SRMR indicated an adequate fit, while CFI and TLI
suggested a marginal fit of the data to the unidimensional model. The hypothesized four-factor model
accounted for 39.3% of shared variance. CFI was .79, TLI = .80, RMSEA = .051 (90% CI [.050, .053]), and
SRMR = .065.
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the unidimensional model on the Sample 2 initial
administration scores, and the output statistics generated by Mplus indicated a comparative fit index of
.85, TLI of .86, RMSEA of .057 (90% CI [.055, .060]), and SRMR of .070. While these results were similar
to the Sample 1 fit statistics, they should be interpreted with caution given that a sample size of only 81
respondents across a 42-item data set can lead to an unstable solution.

External Aspects of Validity

Convergent validation of the SES-S was calculated by conducting Pearson correlations between the
SES-S, Piers–Harris 2, and SESRS total scale standard scores. The SES-S correlated r = .77 with
the Piers-Harris 2 total scale score (n = 81) and r = .70 with the SESRS total score (n = 652;
p < .001). Both correlations indicate substantial degrees of convergent validity with very large
effect sizes.
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 31

Figure . SES Self-Report version.

Reliability
Internal consistency (α) coefficients for the total scale of the SES-S items for Samples 1 and 2 were .94 and
.92, respectively. Over the 14-day test–retest reliability period the SES-S self-report responses in Study 2
were a very high, rtt = .87 (n = 81). Overall, participants’ responses to the SES-S total score were reliable
both in terms of internal consistency and test-retest stability for screening-level purposes. Each of these
results was in the acceptable range of ࣙ.80 for a screening level test (Erford, 2013).

Conclusions, Limitations, and Practical Implications for Counselors

Strong internal consistency and test–retest reliability and strong external aspects of validity of the total
score on the SES-S were noted and support this instrument as a psychometrically adequate tool for
screening-level purposes. EFA statistics indicated that student perceptions of their own self-esteem
were best explained by a unidimensional model, supported by a marginally adequate to good fit of the
data. The unidimensional model probably provided a better fit than the hypothesized four-factor model
because of the high interscale correlations demonstrated in Table 1. The pattern of correlations with the
32 B. T. ERFORD ET AL.

Table . Intrascale and Criterion-Related Validity Coefficients for Self-Report Responses for the Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report (SES-S)
Subscales, Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale Subscales, and Self-Efficacy Self-Report Scale (SESRS).

Total Physical Academic Family Peer

Self-Evaluation Scale–Self-Report
. SES-S total score —
. Physical . —
. Academic . . —
. Family . . . —
. Peer . . . . —
Self-Efficacy Self-Report Scale (SESRS) Total Score . . . . .
PHCSCS Total Score . . . . .
Behavioral Adjustment . . . . .
Intellectual and School Status . . . . .
Physical Appearance and Attributes . . . . .
Freedom from Anxiety . . . . .
Popularity . . . . .
Happiness and Satisfaction . . . . .

Note. PHCSCS = Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. N =  SESRS participants and  PHCSCS participants. All correlations were
significant at p < ..

Piers-Harris in Table 1 fall into a predictable pattern, showing that the SES-S Total Score, Physical, and
Academic scales demonstrate the highest correlations with similar Piers-Harris scales. However, all pat-
tern matrix correlations were statistically significant (p < .05), ranging from .30 to .77. This was likely
due to common methods variance and common respondent variance (Erford, 2014) given that both the
SES-S and Piers–Harris were self-report inventories completed by the child or adolescent, thus inflat-
ing the noted relational comparisons. The SES-S scale also has an accompanying teacher version, the
SES-T (Erford, Lowe, & Chang, 2011), which can be used to augment self-reported self-concept scores
and provide a more comprehensive understanding of this construct. Published results regarding parent
perceptions of student self-concept are in preparation. Triangulation with these alternative respondent
forms may help reduce the effects of common respondent variance.
While these results are promising, several cautions or limitations must be noted. One limitation of this
study was the composition of the sample, which was predominately White. Future studies should demon-
strate a more diverse sample representative of the U.S. population. Since the study involved participants
from predominately suburban areas and Northeastern and Southern regions of the United States, future
studies should also include more participants from rural and urban areas and be more representative of
Midwestern and Western regions of the United States. There was also a higher than normal participant
rate of parents who graduated from college, indicating that there was an overrepresentation of students
of a higher socioeconomic status. In future studies, samples should include students from a more diverse
set of racial, geographical, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Another limitation of the study was the selection of students through convenience sampling. This
method may be problematic in that the students, or more precisely, the parents who consented to allow
their children to participate in this study, may be substantially different than the students who did not
willingly participate in the study. This potential bias should be addressed through random sampling of
students in future studies.
It is also possible that the three response choices for each SES-S item may have contributed to homo-
geneity of responses, possibly leading to lower reliability and validity approximations. Reliability and
validity may be increased by implementing a 4- or 5 point scale, which would promote more heteroge-
neous responses (Erford, Lowe, & Chang, 2011; Erford, Schein, & Duncan, 2011).
Despite the aforementioned limitations, continued evaluation of the SES-S may yield additional evi-
dence of its effectiveness as a self-concept assessment that is free access and especially useful in the school
setting. Additionally, there are implications for the practical usage of the SES-S in schools for examining
the self-concept of individual students. The SES-S is a quick and easy instrument to administer and takes
less than 15 minutes to complete. Therefore, the SES-S is a realistic tool for school-based personnel with
busy schedules and demanding responsibilities to use in daily practices. Given that self-concept can be a
 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT 33

powerful personal resource for students, evaluation of this construct from multiple respondents can pro-
vide students, parents, teachers, and professional school counselors with information that is important
in accounting for the academic and social success of students (Ellis, 2001).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes on Contributors
Bradley T. Erford is a PhD and a professor in the school counseling program in the Education Specialties Department in
the School of Education at Loyola University Maryland.
Gerta Bardhoshi is a PhD and an assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation and Counselor Education in the
School of Education at the University of Iowa.
Kelly Duncan is a PhD and is the Dean of the School of Education at Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota.
Stephanie Voucas is a MEd and a graduate of the school counseling program at Loyola University Maryland.
Emily Dewlin is a MEd and a graduate of the school counseling program at Loyola University Maryland.

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Wolman, S. D. (2007). Determinants and validity of self-estimates of abilities and self-concept measures.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 57–78. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.2.57
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightman (Eds.),
Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes (pp. 115–160). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational
Psychology, 15, 1–40. doi:10.1023/A:1021302408382
Bracken, B. (1992). Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Bracken, B. A., Bunch, S., Keith, T. Z., & Keith, P. B. (2000). Child and adolescent multi-dimensional self-concept: A
five-instrument factor analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 483–493. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6<483:AID-
PITS1>3.0.CO;2-R
Dimitrov, M. D. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.
Ellis, A. (2001). Research on educational innovations (3rd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Erford, B. T. (2013). Assessment for counselors (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
Erford, B. T. (2014). Research and evaluation in counseling (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.
Erford, B. T., Lowe, S., & Chang, C. Y. (2011). Technical analysis of teacher responses to the Self-Evaluation
Scale-Teacher (SES-T) Version. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44, 151–158.
doi:10.1177/0748175611409844
Erford, B. T., Schein, H., & Duncan, K. (2011). Technical analysis of scores on the Self-Efficacy Self-Report Scale. Assessment
for Effective Intervention, 37, 59–65. doi:10.1177/1534508411406898
Fitts, W., & Warren, W. (1996). Tennessee Self-concept Scale manual (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Roy, A., & Litalien, D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous academic motivation,
and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 644–653.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001
Harter, S., & Marold, D. (1994). Psychological risk factors contributing to adolescent suicide ideation. In G. Noam, & S.
Borst (Eds.), Child and adolescent suicide (pp. 71–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harter, S., & Monsour, A. (1992). Developmental analysis of conflict caused by opposing self-attributes in the adolescent
self-portrait. Developmental Psychology, 28, 251–260. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.251
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). Future directions in self-concept research. In B. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept:
Developmental, social and clinical considerations (pp. 421–443). New York, NY: Wiley.
34 B. T. ERFORD ET AL.

Helmke, A. (1999). From optimism to realism? Development of children’s academic self-concept from kindergarten to
grade six. In W. Schneider, & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), Individual development from 3 to 12. Findings from the Munich
longitudinal study (pp. 198–221). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Huitt, W. (2004, October, 29). Becoming a brilliant star: An introduction. Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/
whuitt/brilstar/chapters/BrilStarintro.pdf
Hymel, S., LeMare, L., Ditner, E., & Woody, E. Z. (1999). Assessing self-concept in children: Variations across self-concept
domains. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 602–623.
Keith, L. K., & Bracken, B. A. (1996). Self-concept instrumentation: A critical review. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of
self concept: Developmental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 91–171). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Manning, M. (2007). Reframing how we see student self-concept. Principal Leadership, 7, 11–15.
Meggert, S. (2004). “Who cares what I think”: Problems of low self-esteem. In D. Capuzzi, & D. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk:
A prevention resource for counselors, teachers and parents (4th ed., pp. 93–115). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Miyahara, M., & Piek, J. (2006). Self-esteem of children and adolescents with physical disabilities: Quantitative evidence
from meta-analysis. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 219–234. doi:10.1007/s10882-006-9014-8
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén.
Piers, E., & Herzberg, D. (2002). Piers-Harris 2; Children’s Self Concept Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press.
Swain, R., & Wayman, J. (2004). Multidimensional self-esteem and alcohol use among Mexican American and white
non-Latino adolescents: Concurrent and prospective effects. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 559–570.
doi:10.1037/0002-9432.74.4.559
Taylor, L., Davis-Kean, P., & Malanchuk, O. (2007). Self-esteem, academic self-concept, and aggression at school. Aggressive
Behavior, 33, 130–136. doi:10.1002/ab.20174