1434540

Self Description Questionnaire III: The Construct Validity of Multidimensional Self-Concept
Ratings by Late Adolescents

Author(s): Herbert W. Marsh and Rosalie O'Neill
Source: Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Summer, 1984), pp. 153-174
Published by: National Council on Measurement in Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1434540
Accessed: 26-11-2015 23:58 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1434540?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and National Council on Measurement in Education are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Educational Measurement.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 134.176.129.147 on Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:58:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT
VOLUME 21, NO. 2, SUMMER 1984, pp. 153-174
SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE III: THE

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SELF-CONCEPT RATINGS BY LATE ADOLESCENTS
HERBERT W. MARSH
The University of Sydney, Australia
AND
ROSALIE O'NEILL
Macquarie University, Australia
This research examines the validity of self-concept interpretations of scores

from a new instrument for use with university-aged respondents. The Self
Description Questionnaire III (SDQ III) was designed to measure 13 factors
of self-concept, and these dimensions were identified with conventional and
confirmatoryfactor analyses. In two different studies, the reliabilities of the
13 factors were high (median alpha = 0.89) and correlations among the
factors were low (median r = 0.09). Correlations among a wide variety of
validity criteria and the multiple dimensions of self-concept measured by the
SDQ III formed a logical and theoretically consistent pattern of relation-
ships. Academic achievement measures in language and mathematics were
substantially correlated with self-concepts in the same areas but not with
other self-concept factors. Ratings by significant others for all 13 SDQ III
scales were substantially correlated with the measures of corresponding
self-concepts, but were not substantially correlated with the measures of
noncorrespondingself-concepts. These findings offer strong support for the
construct validity of both self-concept and interpretations based upon the
SDQ III.
Self-concept is a hypothetical construct, the usefulness of which must be demonstrated

by investigations of the construct validity of interpretations of scores on instruments
designed to measure it. As argued by Marx and Winne (1978), the identification of
theoretically consistent and distinguishable facets of self-concept (within-network
studies) is prerequisite to the study of how self-concept facets are related to other
constructs (between-network studies). Within-network studies of self-concept focus on
the development of theoretical models of self-concept and of measurement instruments
that are consistent with these models. Between-network studies correlate self-concept
indices with, for example, measures of ability/performance, self-concept ratings inferred
by external observers, behavioral observations, family backgroundvariables, experimen-
tal manipulations, and other self-report measures.
Systematic reviews of self-concept research have pointed to the lack of a theoretical
basis for, and the poor quality of, the measurement instrumentsused in most studies (e.g.,
Burns, 1979; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976; Welles & Marwell, 1976; Wylie,
1974, 1979). Shavelson et al. used their review as the basis for developing a self-concept
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Fred Orr for his assistance in collecting the data, and Jennifer
Barnes for her assistance in processing the data and her helpful reading of earlier drafts of this manuscript.
153
154 MARSH AND O'NEILL
model, one that incorporatesaspects from most theoretical positions. For purposesof this
study, the most important tenets of the Shavelson model are that self-concept is
multidimensional,that the facets of self-concept become more distinct with age, and that
the facets are hierarchically arranged. The Shavelson model, the proposeddimensions of
self-concept and their structure, are heuristic and plausible, but they were not empirically
demonstrated.
Soares and Soares (1977, 1982) also emphasized the need for within network research,
and described a theoretical model that is similar to the Shavelson model. They, however,
have argued that the low correlations among different facets of self-concept in their
research suggest a model consisting of nearly independent factors of self-concept, not the
strong hierarchical structure proposed by Shavelson. Other researchers (e.g., Cooper-
smith, 1967; Marx & Winne, 1978) have taken the opposite perspective, and argued that
self-concept is so heavily dominated by a general factor that separate facets cannot be
distinguished.
RELATIONSHIP TO EXTERNAL CRITERIA

Academic Ability
Self-concept theorists (e.g., Marsh & Parker, in press;Shavelson & Bolus, 1982) argue
that academic ability measures should be more highly correlated with self-concepts in
related areas than with those in other areas. For example, Marsh, Relich, and Smith
(1983), in a study of preadolescent children, showed that mathematics achievement was
substantially correlated with Mathematics self-concept (0.55), less correlated with
self-concepts for other academic areas (0.21 for Reading, and 0.43 for All School
Subjects), and uncorrelated with self-concepts in four nonacademic areas. Similarly,
Bachman (1970) reported that IQ correlated 0.46 with academic self-concept, but only
0.14 with a general self-concept measure adapted from the Rosenberg (1965) scale.
Hansford and Hattie (1982), in a meta analysis of ability/self-concept relationships,
found that measures of ability correlated 0.4 with self-concept of ability, but only 0.2 with
general self-concept. They also found that the size of the relationship increased from
preschool through secondary school, but dropped off at the college/university level, a
result they attributed to a restriction of the range of abilities.
Ratings By Significant Others

Self-concept ratings by others can be used to determine how accurately self-concept
can be inferred by external observers, and to validate responses to self-concept
instruments. Symbolic interactionists argue that self-concept is a looking-glass reflection
of the perceptionsof others, and that self-evaluations are the productof how others see us.
However, Marsh (Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983) has argued that ratings by others are
phenomenologicallydistinct from self-concept, and will agree with self-reports only if the
external observer knows the person well in a wide range of contexts, is able to make
discriminating judgments, and is judging the same characteristic as the subject.
Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) reviewed studies that correlated self-reports with
judgments by others, and concluded that "there is no consistent agreement between
people's self-perceptions and how they are actually viewed by others" (p. 549). However,
a series of multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) studies by Marsh (Marsh, Parker, &
Smith, 1983; Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983; Marsh, Smith, Butler, & Barnes, 1983)
demonstrated agreement between self-concepts inferred by primary school teachers and
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SELF-CONCEPT RATINGS 155
student self-reports on multidimensionalself-concept scales. Support for the discriminant

validity of the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) scales in these studies also
demonstrated that student-teacher agreement was specific to each facet and could not be
explained in terms of a more general dimension of self-concept. Soares and Soares (1977,
1982) also used MTMM analysis to demonstrate significant self-other agreement and
provide evidence for the distinctiveness of different dimensions of self-concept.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SDQ INSTRUMENTS

The original SDQ is a measure of preadolescent self-concept. It providedone basis for
the design of the SDQ III described here. The SDQ was specifically designed to measure
three areas of academic self-concept (Reading, Mathematics, General-School) and four
areas of nonacademic self-concept (Physical Abilities, Physical Appearance, Peer
Relations, Parent Relations), all derived from the Shavelson model. These seven factors
have been identified in independent factor analyses of responses by diverse populationsof
preadolescent children (Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, & Tidman, in press; Marsh, Relich, &
Smith, 1983; Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983). In the studies described earlier, the SDQ
facets were substantially correlated with matching self-concepts inferred by primary
teachers and with matching measures of academic ability, thus providingfurther support
for the validity of interpretations based upon the SDQ.
The bulk of research on self-concept has been conducted on, and a majority of the
measurement instruments have been designed for, preadolescent or early adolescent
children (see Burns, 1979; Wylie, 1974, 1979). This is surprisingfor a number of reasons.
First, many important and interesting theoretical questions in the study of self-concept
can be studied more easily with older children who have better verbal skills. Second, a well
developed instrument for late adolescents would be a valuable tool for the study of
university students, for the evaluation of university programs, and for use in university
counseling centers. Third, particularly in the United States, it appears that the most
readily available pool of subjects for research is university students. Nevertheless, the
self-concept research that has been conducted on this older age group has typically relied
upon instrumentsthat are not well standardized, that were developed for use with younger
children, or that do not differentiate adequately between areas of self-concept felt by
these students to be important.
A new self-concept instrument, the SDQ III, was designed specifically for this late
adolescent population, and the validity of interpretationsof scores on this instrument was
examined in this study. The SDQ III is based upon the Shavelson model and previous
research with the SDQ. The first version of the SDQ III contained the seven scales from
the SDQ (except that the Peer scale was divided into Same Sex and Opposite Sex scales)
and additional scales for Emotional Stability, Problem Solving/Creative Thinking, and
General-Self (based on the Rosenberg, 1965, self-esteem scale and the modification by
Bachman, 1970). The 180 items used to represent these 11 facets of self-concept were
administered to a sample of 125 students. These students were also asked to identify
important areas not included in the survey. Item analysis and factor analysis of the
students' responsesto the 180 items confirmedthe presence of 11 self-concept factors, and
provided a basis for selecting items for the current version of the SDQ III. However,
substantial numbers of students indicated that religion/spirituality and honesty/
reliability were important to their self-conceptions, and noted that these areas were not
represented on the questionnaire. Additional items to measure these two areas were
constructed and administeredto a new sample of students. The addition of items for these
2 areas and the selection of the most effective of the items for the other 11 areas resulted
in a questionnaire containing 136 items and measuring 13 self-concept facets.
THE PRESENT STUDY

The first objective of Studies 1 and 2, both of which are reported here, was to
demonstrate that responses to the SDQ III measure a consistent, distinct, and
theoretically defensible set of self-concept dimensions. The second objective of both
studies was to demonstrate that responses to the SDQ III form a logical pattern of
relationships with relevant external criteria. Consistent with a construct validation
approach, the emphasis was on the pattern of relationships;it is important that external
criteria are significantly correlated with the areas of self-concept to which they are most
logically related, and less correlated with other areas.
STUDY 1-METHOD
Sample and Procedure

The sample consisted of 296 girls in the 11th grade (median age = 16 years) who
attended one of two senior Catholic schools. Both are regional Catholic schools for girls in
the 11th and 12th grades, and both share library facilities with Catholic boys' schools on
adjacent grounds. One school is situated in the outer suburbs of Sydney, the other in the
outer suburbs of Newcastle; these cities are in the Australian state of New South Wales.
In Australia the typical "school leaving" age is at the end of the 10th grade. Historically,
across the entire state, less than one-quarter of the students in an age cohort go on to
complete the 11th and 12th grades, and the students who do tend to be more academically
successful and more likely to aspire to a higher education.
As is typical of the population in Australia, a substantial portion of the sample came
from families where the father (40%) or mother (33%) was born in a foreign country,
although most of the subjects (91%) were born in Australia. Fathers' occupations,
classified according to Congalton's Scale of Occupational Status in Australia (1963)
indicated that most of the students came from middle-class families.
The 11th grade students attending each school were divided into groups of 50 to 60
students, and materials were administered to each group during two sessions, approxi-
mately 4 weeks apart. During the first session, the SDQ III was administered by the
female coauthor, who read the instructions aloud. During the second visit, the School
Climate Questionnaire was administered by the same researcher.
Measurement Instruments and Background Variables
SDQ III. The SDQ III, described earlier, appears in Appendix I. Each of the 13 scales
is represented by 10 or 12 items, approximately half of which a?e negatively worded.
Students respond on an 8-point scale, the response options varying from "1-Definitely
False" to "8-Definitely True." As part of the first session of the study, students also
completed a background information questionnaire and provided self-ratings on 12
single-item scales called summary descriptions. These summary descriptions were
designed to represent 12 of the SDQ III scales-all but the General-Self scale. Subjects
judged the accuracy of the statement associated with each scale as a self-description, and
reported their judgments on a 9-point response scale where the response options varied
from "l-Very Inaccurate" to "9-Very Accurate." The response scales used in the
self-concept and summary description tasks were intentionally varied (i.e., an 8-point
true-false scale as compared to a 9-point accurate-inaccurate scale) in order to disrupt
response biases and make the tasks more distinct.
School Climate Questionnaire. The School Climate Questionnaire (see Flynn, 1975)
was the focus of a part of the study not reported here, but a numberof items were selected
for examination on an a priori basis as being potentially relevant to student self-concept.
These items relate to home environment, academic satisfaction, and academic expecta-
tions. These items were included to determine whether they formed a logical pattern of
relationships with the SDQ III factors.
School Certificate Scores. Near the end of the 10th grade, all students in the state of
New South Wales complete standardized tests in which both their math and their
English/language skills are evaluated. On the basis of test results and school performance
each student is given a separate certificate score for each subject in the range 1 to 5, where
1 represents the top 10%,2 the next 20%, 3 the next 40%, 4 the next 20%, and 5 the last
10%of the 10th grade population in this state. While school performance is a basis on
which students are ranked within each school, the number of students assigned each
certificate score is fixed by performanceon the state-wide tests. This is done in an attempt
to make the scores in different schools comparable. In this study, most of the students had
received scores of 1 or 2 in both mathematics (mean = 2.27, SD = 0.85) and language
(mean = 2.03, SD = 0.83), although there were some 3s and a few 4s and 5s. The skewed
distribution for this sample is due to the large number of students who leave school at the
end of the 10th grade. The language and mathematics scores in this study correlated 0.59
with each other.
Statistical Analysis
Responses to negatively worded items were reversedso that for all items a responseof 8
represented a positive rating of self-concept. A value of 5 (the median of the distribution
of obtained responsesto all items) was then substituted for the few missing responses(less
than 1/4Of 1%)to any SDQ III item. A preliminaryitem analysis of responsesto each scale
indicated that no item in any scale was a negative discriminator;132 of the 136 items had
"corrected item-total correlations" (see Hull & Nie, 1981, pp. 248-267) of at least 0.3.
The alpha coefficients from this analysis appear in Table 2.
For the factor analyses performed in this study, the 10 (or 12) items from each scale
were divided into 5 (or 6) item-pairs, such that the first 2 items in the scale were assigned
to the first pair, the next 2 items to the second, and so forth. Thus, the factor analyses
here, and in Study 2, were performed on responses to 68 item-pairs. This procedure is
preferable to factor analysis responsesto 136 items for the following reasons: (a) the ratio
of the number of subjects to the number of variables (which was still less than desirable in
both studies) is increased; (b) each variable should be more reliable and should have a
smaller unique component; (c) the factor loadings should be less affected by the
idiosyncratic wording of individual items; (d) the cost of the factor analyses will be
substantially reduced; and (e) it becomes possible to use the method of factor analyses in
cases when the number of items exceeds either the limitations of commercially available
factor analysis procedures (e.g., 100 variables for SPSS) or the memory capacity of the
available computers, and one-half the number of items does not. The major disadvantages
of this procedure are that information about individual items is lost, items must be
reasonably homogeneous with respect to the dimension that they were designed to
measure, so that it is important to perform a preliminary item analysis such as the one
described above before this procedureis used, and the parameterestimates and the factor
scores resulting from the factor analysis are likely to vary somewhat, depending upon the
particular pairing of items that is used. However, the factor scores (Nie et al., 1975) that
were generated as part of the factor analysis and used in subsequent analyses were in this
study highly correlated with those based upon another, random pairing of items (median
r = 0.991 for the 13 SDQ III scales). Thus, the particularpairing of items apparently had
little impact in this application.
In both studies, conventional and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. The
former was done using the SPSS program (Nie et al., 1975), with iterated communality
estimates, a Kaiser normalization, and an oblique rotation with delta set to -2. The
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed with the LISREL V program
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). In the CFA model employed in both studies, it was
hypothesized that: (a) the responsesto the SDQ could be explained by 13 factors, (b) each
item-pair would have a non-zero loading on the factor it was designed to measure and zero
loadings on all other factors, (c) the 13 factors would be correlated, and (d) the
error/uniqueness terms for the measured variables would be uncorrelated. The hypoth-
esized pattern of factor loadings for this model was similar to that expected to result from
a conventional factor analysis, except that in the CFA the factor loadings for each
measured variable were set to zero on all the factors except the one it was designed to
measure. The fit of this CFA model to the data was assessed by the magnitude of
parameter estimates relative to their standard errors of estimate, the ratio of the
chi-square to the degrees of freedom for the analysis, and the root mean square of the
residual differences between the observed and reproduced correlation matrices (see
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981; Marsh & Hocevar, 1983, in press; Maruyama & McGarvey,
1980). As yet, there are no universally accepted guidelines about how to evaluate
goodness-of-fit, but the most widely used indicator is the chi-square/df ratio. Even here
there is disagreement;some researchersargue that chi-square/df ratios as high as 5 may
indicate a good fit (e.g., Wolfle, 1981), while others claim that a ratio of less than 2 is
required(e.g., Alwin & Jackson, 1981). Nearly all agree, however, that ratios of less than
2 indicate a good fit.
STUDY 1-RESULTS
Factor Analysis of the SDQ III Responses
The conventional factor analysis (see Table 1) identified the 13 SDQ III factors with
remarkable clarity.' Target loadings (i.e., the loadings on the factor that a variable was
'For the conventional factor analysis in Study 1, the 13th eigenvalue was 1.25 and the 14th was 1.03,
indicating that the 13-factor solution is reasonable. Similar factor analyses were also conducted with 10, 11, 12,
14, 15, and 16 rotated factors. For those solutions with fewer than 13 factors, at least one of the SDQ III factors
was not adequately represented in that the variables designed to measure it did not load substantially on any
factor and the error/uniqueness components (i.e., 1 minus the communality) for these variables were higher
than in the 13-factor solution. For solutions with more than 13 factors, there was always at least one empirical
factor that was not adequately defined in that few (or no) variables had substantial loadings on the factor, and
an inspection of those variables that did load highest (i.e., loadings in the 0.2s and 0.3s) did not lead to a
reasonable interpretationof the factor. Also, for solutions with more than 13 factors the median communality of
the measured variables did not differ appreciablyfrom that of the 13-factor solution. For the seven solutions that
were considered (i.e., solutions with 10 to 16 rotated factors), the median communalities were 0.59, 0.60, 0.64,
0.66 (for the 13-factor solution), 0.66, 0.66, and 0.67.
Table 1
Factor Analysis of SDQ III Item Pairs
Factor Pattern Matrix Commu-

Self-Concept Areas: Math Verb Acad Prob Phys Appr SSPr OSpr Prnt Sprt Hnst Emot Genl nality
Mathematics 1 74 -12 03 15 04 02 00 -13 03 -05 09 03 -08 67
2 87 -09 -01 00 03 -04 -03 03 00 05 01 05 -03 77
3 91 07 07 -03 01 05 -03 -02 -02 01 00 05 -04 86
4 86 04 10 06 02 00 04 02 06 -06 -10 -04 -01 83
5 76 -06 14 08 -06 02 05 -10 -08 02 01 -02 04 70
Verbal 1 -11 57 09 19 -01 10 02 08 02 -02 05 06 -01 53
2 -05 64 09 00 -01 -04 -04 -10 -03 01 11 -03 04 48
3 -03 39 15 33 -01 02 09 09 05 -03 00 04 17 60
4 -04 66J-05 25 -03 09 01 12 -04 07 08 15 00 70
5 -02 71 05 00 -03 -02 08 -03 07 -05 -02 -01 04 56
Academic 1 -06 -13 6 22 -08 01 08 -09 -02 -04 11 09 07 59
2 09 11 80 07 03 -02 00 -02 05 -14 10 21 -01 84
3 15 15 72 02 -05 04 -04 -04 13 -16 05 07 07 77
4 19 23 65 08 -02 04 06 -05 13 -11 -01 18 03 79
5 19 30 45 05 -04 04 05 04 -03 -05 -12 08 14 53
Problem Solving/ 1 11 13 07 06 03 -03 11 -01 10 01 03 -04 51
Creativity 2 10 00 09 59 04 07 -01 04 00 -10 00 02 03 45
3 21 14 11 55 07 -07 -01 -04 -08 09 -02 -10 14 56
4 -12 17 -09 62 -01 02 11 10 05 01 -01 -04 11 59
5 00 05 -01 52 04 -02 03 01 00 02 00 -08 09 33
Physical Abilities/ 1 -02 -04 -02 06 85 15 04 -01 00 06 -03 03 01 80
Sports 2 -02 -09 -03 07 871 01 06 -01 01 00 05 08 -02 82
3 03 05 -06 00 90102 08 04 01 -05 00 04 01 88
4 00 -03 03 00 89101 03 05 04 -06 03 -01 00 83
5 03 02 01 -01 186-08 08 11 -02 04 -01 -04 01 80
Physical Appearance 1 02 00 03 -01 -01 1 06 08 00 02 -02 01 08 68
2 06 00 05 05 12 75 -17 08 01 00 08 09 05 68
3 03 -07 04 00 09 68-03 11 00 -05 10 12 11 61
4 -10 05 06 00 -05 74 09 -09 03 01 -07 -08 07 61
5 04 09 -11 04 -01 11 07 04 -02 -11 -09 07 68
Relations With 1 -01 08 03 00 -01 02 40 08 -08 -02 -06 04 04 25
Same Sex Peers 2 04 01 01 01 07 -09 42 23 -08 03 09 -04 19 40
3 04 03 -01 08 09 02 59 07 -05 05 00 -05 02 45
4 -07 -08 11 09 07 12 76 09 -06 -08 05 07 -19 68
5 03 00 -03 -07 06 -06 01 -01 02 -02 -02 13 56
Relations With 1 -09 -04 08 02 -01 22 08 6 -01 00 -05 07 04 67
Opposite Sex Peers 2 -01 -04 -06 09 03 03 11 79 00 -05 -01 -01 01 76
3 -03 02 01 04 05 -04 06 85 -06 -04 00 09 05 84
4 -07 03 -01 00 05 07 11 77 00 -02 01 07 08 79
5 00 07 -09 -01 09 02 09 7J 03 -11 -02 02 10 75
Relations With 1 00 -01 09 04 04 05 -05 -01 7 04 -02 -07 01 54
Parents 2 05 04 10 -08 04 -03 02 01 68 00 13 -02 13 60
3 -01 01 06 04 -01 13 05 -01 67 08 08 -03 04 58
4 -06 07 01 -02 03 -06 -01 06 791-02 01 10 00 65
5 04 -05 -01 03 02 -01 03 -03 81 -05 12 01 08 73
Religion/ 1 00 03 27 00 09 03 -01 -05 -24 -02 -27 02 56
Spirituality 2 05 01 08 00 -02 -02 -06 05 -02 81 12 -24 04 80
3 07 -02 19 -01 01 02 -05 -06 05 73 13 -26 02 81
4 01 03 18 07 -04 04 -04 02 06 74 09 -23 -06 76
5 -01 08 08 -02 01 -05 06 -12 03 35 -05 -22 03 24
6 -03 -01 21 03 03 02 01 -03 01 58 07 -15 06 51
Honesty/Reliability 1 -05 02 02 12 -03 00 -02 -05 10 08 42 04 -05 25

2 07 -05 -06 -04 12 -04 06 -05 16 02 57 00 11 43
3 04 15 07 -03 -01 00 -04 03 06 -04 64 -05 -06 49
4 -05 13 03 00 07 -03 00 -05 -01 07 56 11 10 41
5 -05 -12 12 13 -10 -02 -04 00 -08 11 51 -12 -02 40
6 07 17 12 -09 -01 09 16 00 -02 -15 39 -07 07 30
Emotional Stability/ 1 -01 00 -06 01 01 06 05 -03 -09 23 -02 7 19 75
Security 2 02 06 -03 -08 08 -04 08 01 09 24 -05 53 13 47
3 03 -03 -11 07 08 -04 16 06 20 15 01 60 11 62
4 01 07 -09 03 01 12 20 -01 14 22 -05 70101 73
5 03 04 02 09 06 -03 12 12 01 23 -15 23 63
General Self-Concept 1 00 -02 12 10 -01 02 00 24 02 04 -03 10 6 64
2 -06 -01 04 -01 -01 16 10 -05 02 04 12 -05 73 69
3 -08 -01 02 18 02 08 05 11 00 04 03 10 61 63
4 -02 13 00 05 00 09 08 11 11 05 01 05 65 71
5 -03 07 06 01 -04 23 13 05 09 06 -06 15 65 83
6 00 11 -02 08 03 17 18 05 10 00 05 04 56 66
Table 1 (Continued)
Factor Pattern Correlations
Mathematics 100
Verbal -03 100
Academic 21 26 100
Problem Solving 11 28 22 100
Physical Abilities 05 -03 -06 08 100
Physical Appearance 00 08 08 09 06 100
Same Sex Peers 01 14 06 10 17 09 100
Opposite Sex Peers -09 07 -07 15 13 16 29 100
Relations With Parents 01 06 17 03 05 08 04 02 100
Religion/Spirituality -01 01 16 08 04 02 03 -09 13 100
Honesty/Reliability 00 12 18 07 03 00 01 -01 20 07 100
Emotional Stability 03 07 -06 03 09 07 17 16 07 -05 09 100
General-self -03 20 15 21 06 25 28 23 15 13 07 25 100
Note: All Coefficients are presented without decimal points.
designed to measure) are consistently high (90% are 0.50 or higher, and none is less than
0.35), while nontarget loadings are low (98% are 0.20 or lower, and none is greater than
0.33). Correlations among the 13 oblique factors are small (mean r = 0.08) and
demonstrate that the factors are quite distinct. None of the correlations is greater than
0.37, and, surprisingly, not even the General-Self factor is substantially correlated with
other factors. These findingssuggest that no strong hierarchicalstructureunderlies the 13
SDQ III factors, but instead that there are 13 relatively distinct facets of self-
concept.
The results of the CFA indicate that the 13-factor solution fits the data well. The 68
factor loadings are each large (7 to 20 times the size of their standard errors) and
statistically significant. The ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom (1.68) and
the root mean square residual (0.06) are also small, indicating that the data is well
described by this restrictive factor model.2
Correlations Between SDQ III Factors and Summary Descriptions
After completing the SDQ III, students judged the accuracy as self-descriptionsof 12
summary descriptions designed to characterize 12 of the SDQ III factors (all but the
General-Self factor). Correlations between the 12 self-concept scores (based upon factor
scores derivedfrom the analysis summarizedin Table 1) and the 12 summarydescriptions
(see Table 2) are presented in the form of a multitrait-multimethod matrix. The
application of the Campbell and Fiske (1959) guidelines (see Marsh & Hocevar, 1983)
reveals:
1. Convergencecoefficients (the underlinedvalues in the diagonal of the square matrix
in Table 2) are statistically significant and substantial (mean r = 0.60). This
demonstrates good agreement between the self-concept scores and the summary
descriptions.
2. For every one of the 264 comparisons that can be made between a convergent
2Null models correspondingto the CFA in Study 1, and the two CFAs in Study 2 had chi-square values of
15,332, 10,613, and 11,195, respectively, with 2,278 degrees of freedom. In Study 2, an additional model was
tested where all the parameter estimates (i.e., factor loadings, factor correlations, and error/uniquenesses) for
the self-ratings were required to be the same as the correspondingparameter estimates for the inferred-ratings
(i.e., complete invariance);it resulted in a chi-square/df ratio of 1.89. However, the computer analysis ran out of
time after 60 minutes and cost considerations precluded further analyses. Nevertheless, the partial solution was
reasonable, and the final solution would probably have been similar with a somewhat smaller chi-square value.
Thus, while any interpretationmust be made cautiously, it appears that the parameterestimates in solutions for
the self-ratings and the other-ratings are quite similar and nearly invariant.
Table 2
Multitrait-multimethod Matrix of Correlations Between Self-concepts an
Self-concepts Summar
Self-concepts Al Bi C1 D1 El Fl G1 Hl Il Jl K1 L1 A2 B2 C2 D2 E
Al Math (93)
Bl Verb -64 (86)
Cl Acad 24 32 (90)
D1 Prob 14 37 27 (77)
El Phys 05 -04 -07 09 (95)
Fl Appr 00 10 09 11 06 (88)
G1 Ssex 00 16 07 13 21 12 (81)
H1 Osex -10 08 -08 19 15 18 34 (93)
Il Prnt 01 07 20 03 05 09 06 -03 (87)
J1 Sprt -01 01 18 10 04 -02 03 -09 15 (89)
K1 Hnst 00 15 24 09 04 00 00 -08 27 11 (75)
L1 Emot 03 10 -06 04 10 09 22 18 09 -07 -12 (88)
SummaryDescriptions
A2 Math 76 05 24 16 04 04 04 -07 02 -01 -06 00 --
B2 Verb 06 47 25 46 03 19 25 12 05 08 01 06 23 --
C2 Acad 29 39 51 32 -02 14 08 00 10 -03 04 -01 46 42 --
D2 Prob 07 29 21 57 01 00 10 21 04 11 -01 02 16 44 33 --
E2 Phys 06 -05 -07 07 79 09 22 12 07 00 02 11 10 07 03 04 -
F2 Appr 04 08 07 09 03 65 21 28 05 -01 -09 07 10 21 15 07 1
G2 Ssex -01 15 17 10 05 08 46 14 08 07 -05 06 02 14 06 16 1
H2 Osex -06 08 -07 24 19 19 37 76 -05 -12 -10 18 -05 17 04 23 1
12 Prnt 02 06 19 08 04 17 10 01 73 17 17 09 05 10 09 09 0
J2 Sprt 14 00 27 15 00 03 -05 -10 17 73 01 06 11 17 13 15 -0
K2 Hnst 19 09 18 17 09 08 12 -01 17 13 33 02 26 23 22 15 1
L2 Emot 05 06 05 18 11 09 24 13 20 22 06 47 11 24 12 27 1
Note: Correlations (presented without decimal points) greater than .12 are statistically s
in parentheses are coefficient alpha estimates of reliability. The underlined values are
coefficient and another coefficient in the same row or the same column of the square
block, the convergent coefficient is higher. The average of the off-diagonal coefficients in
this block is 0.09.
3. For every one of the 264 comparisons between a convergence coefficient and one of
the 11 other coefficients in the same row or the same column of the two triangular blocks,
the convergent coefficient is higher. The average correlation is 0.08 among the
self-concept factors and 0.15 among the summary descriptions.
Not surprisingly, the convergence between self-concept factors and corresponding
summary descriptions is substantial. These findings also demonstrate that responses to
the SDQ III measure distinct and separate components of self-concept.
Correlations With External Criteria

Between-network studies attempt to demonstrate theoretically consistent patterns of
relationships between self-concept measures and external criteria. Consistent with a
construct validation approach, this requires that a self-concept measure be highly
correlated with criteria to which it is closely related logically (convergence) and less
highly correlated with other criteria (divergence). This pattern is clearly seen in the
correlations between the self-concept factors and each of the two academic achievement
scores (see Table 3). Mathematics achievement is substantially correlated with Math
self-concept, less highly correlated with other academic self-concepts, and uncorrelated
with nonacademic factors. Similarly, language achievement is most highly correlated
with Verbal self-concept, less correlated with other academic self-concepts, and
uncorrelated with self-concepts in nonacademic areas. The size of these academic
self-concept/achievement correlations is larger than those found in most previous
self-concept studies (see Hansford & Hattie, 1982), even though the range of achieve-
ment scores was severely truncated and the discrimination provided by the achievement
scores was very gross. These relationshipsprovidestrong supportfor the construct validity
of self-concept and for interpretations of responses to the SDQ III.
Also worthy of note is the fact that Math and Verbal self-concepts are uncorrelated
with each other even though achievements in the corresponding areas are substantially
correlated (0.59), Research described earlier, based upon responses by younger students
to the SDQ, also found that self-concepts in Math and Reading were nearly uncorrelated.
Hence, not only are self-concepts in these two academic areas clearly distinguished, but
they are more clearly differentiated than the correspondingareas of academic achieve-
ment that they reflect.
The other external criteria measured in this study relate to home environment,
academic expectations, and enjoyment of school (see Table 3). The correlations between
these criteria and the self-concept scales also define a pattern of correlations that supports
the construct validity of interpretationsbased upon responsesto the SDQ III. Satisfaction
with the home environment correlates substantially with the Parent scale and less with
other self-concept factors. Student perceptions of the extent to which parents are pleased
with and interested in their school work correlate with both the Parent and Academic
scales, while perceptions of the extent to which parents are disappointed with school
performance are negatively correlated with these scales. Plans to go on to higher
education are most highly correlated with the Academic scale. Ratings of enjoyment in
different academic classes, except religion classes, are most highly correlated with
self-concepts in the academic areas and also in the area of relations with parents.
Table 3
Coefficients of Correlation Among Self-concept Scales and Other Crite
Self-Concept Scale
CRITERIONMEASURES Math Verb Acad Prob Phys Appr Ssex Osex
School Certificate Scores In:

Mathematics 58* 11 27* 03 02 05 -04 -08
English 19* 42* 24* 17* -11 02 -01 -03
Self Report Criterion (paraphrased)

Have been happy at home this year 06 12 19* 02 00 08 03 -06
Parents pleased with my school work 08 12 34* 05 07 08 03 07
Parents interested in my school work 05 16* 31* 09 05 04 08 02
Parents expect me to be able student 16* 00 07 -03 -07 -05 02 -12
Parents expect me to be better student than I am -10 -03 -18* -02 -06 -13 -06 -03
Parents want me to go on to higher education 12 13 16* 01 -10 -03 -07 -07
I plan to go on to higher education 18* 09 31* 12 01 04 02 -10
I generally work to my utmost ability in school 16* 10 38* 05 -01 -01 -04 -11
I have enjoyed science classes this year 23* 15* 23* 16* 07 07 01 -03
I have enjoyed English classes this year 21* 20* 14 11 -03 02 02 03
I have enjoyed history classes this year -06 15* 29* 03 -06 -02 03 -14
I have enjoyed religion classes this year 07 -10 07 -03 05 -14 -18* -18*
I have enjoyed school this year 12 06 25* 09 06 02 -07 -03
*
p.(.01
Note: The correlation coefficients are presented without decimal points.
Enjoyment of religion classes is most highly correlated with the Religion/Spirituality

scale, and is uncorrelated with the academic scales. This pattern of relationships,
although based upon two self-report measures, seems intuitively logical and offers
additional supportfor the construct validity of interpretationsof responsesto the SDQ III
as measures of self-concept.
STUDY 2-METHOD
The purposes of Study 2 were to extend and replicate the findings of Study 1 with a
more representativeand heterogeneous sample of students, and to examine the validity of
the 13 SDQ III factors by correlating the self-concept ratings with ratings by significant
others. The ratings by significant others providedan external validity criterion for each of
the SDQ III scales.
Sample and Measurement Instruments
The sample was drawn from the college/university students attending two universities
and a teachers college in Sydney, Australia. Subjects were volunteers from education and
psychology classes. They were asked first to complete the SDQ III and then to ask the
"person in your life who you think knows you best" to complete a similar survey. On this
companion survey, the significant other was asked to imagine that he/she was the person
who had given him/her the survey and to complete the SDQ III as if he/she was that
person. Then the significant other was asked to return the questionnaire, using the
stamped, addressed envelope that was provided.
An attempt was made to keep the students and their significant others from discussing
their ratings, at least until after all had completed the task. The subjects (i.e., the
students) were explicitly instructed not to discuss the survey with the persons they had
chosen, not even after they had completed the task. Each significant other was also asked
in written instructionsnot to discuss his/her responseswith the personbeing rated. It was
impossible to ensure that students did not talk to the significant others about the study,
but informal inquiriesof several subjects who were students from the authors'own classes
indicated that they had not done so. Also, several students requested that they and their
significant others be allowed to discuss their responses upon completion of the study; this
further suggests that the instructions were taken seriously.
The surveys completed both by the subjects and by the significant others consisted of
the 136 items (Appendix I) described in Study 1. Subjects most frequently chose a parent
as the person who knew them best, but others chose siblings, spouses, other family
members, and friends. A total of 151 sets of paired responses were obtained.
Statistical Analysis
As in Study 1, item analyses, conventional factor analyses, and confirmatory factor
analyses were performed. In Study 2, however, separate factor analyses were performed
on the sets of paired-item responsesfrom the self-concept ratings (ratings by the subjects)
and inferred self-concept ratings (responses by the significant others). An MTMM
analysis was used to test agreement between self-ratings and other-ratings.
STUDY 2-RESULTS
Factor Analyses
The conventional factor analysis of the self-ratings, as in Study 1, clearly identified the
13 SDQ III factors. Furthermore,the same dimensions were also identified in the factor
analysis of the inferred-ratings. In both factor analyses, the highest factor loading for
each of the 68 item-pairs nearly always occurred for the factor that it was designed to
measure (target loadings), and other loadings (nontarget loadings) were smaller. The size
of the target loadings was large (median = 0.67 for self-ratings, 0.72 for inferred-ratings)
while the size of the nontarget loadings was quite small (median = 0.02 for both sets).
Correlations among the oblique factors were also small, varying between -0.19 and 0.32
(median = 0.07) for self-ratings and varying between -0.14 and 0.33 (median = 0.08)
for ratings by significant others. (The results of these factor analyses are described in
more detail by Marsh, Barnes, & Hocevar, 1983.) These findings replicate the findings in
Study 1, and show in addition that the factor structure underlying the inferred-ratingsis
similar to that underlying the self-ratings.
The results of the confirmatoryfactor analyses indicate that the 13-factor solution fits
the data for both self-ratings and inferred-ratings acceptably well. For self-ratings and
inferred-ratings, the target factor loadings are substantial, while the chi-square/degrees
of freedom ratios (1.78 and 1.59, respectively) and the root mean square residuals (0.07
for both analyses) are small.
Analysis of Self-Other Agreement

In the MTMM analysis in Study 1, convergence was interpreted as demonstrating the
generality of the self-concept dimensions across two different types of self-rating scales,
and not as an indication of the validity of the responses against an external criterion. In
Study 2, however, the second "method" is the set of ratings by significant others; this
constitutes an important external criterion of validity. Hence, while the actual mechanics
of the MTMM analyses in both studies were similar, the interpretations of the results
were quite different. The application of the Campbell-Fiske criteria to the MTMM
matrix in Table 4 indicates:
1. All 13 of the convergent validity coefficients are statistically significant and the
mean of these values (0.58) is substantial.
2. For each of the 312 possible comparisons between a convergent validity coefficient
and another coefficient in the same row or column of the square (heterotrait-
heteromethod) block of coefficients, the validity coefficient is higher.
3. For 310 of the 312 possible comparisons between a convergent validity coefficient
and other coefficients in the same row or column of the two triangular (heterotrait-
monomethod) blocks of coefficients, the validity coefficient is higher.
These findings support both the convergent and the divergent validity of the
self-concept facets measured by the SDQ III. The high convergent validity coefficients
indicate good self-other agreement, an agreement that is specific to each dimension of
self-concept. This is further evidence of the multidimensionalityof self-concept, and also
demonstrates that external observers can accurately infer the multiple self-concepts of
persons they know well.
DISCUSSION
The first purpose of both studies was to use factor analysis to demonstrate that
responses to the SDQ III define a set of distinct self-concept dimensions. The results of
separate conventional factor analyses of the self-ratings collected in Study 1, and of both
the self-ratings and the inferred-ratings collected in Study 2, clearly identified the 13
SDQ III factors. Confirmatoryfactor analyses demonstrated that the 13-factor solution
Table 4
Correlations Among SDQ III Scales

Ratings by Self and Ratings by Others (n=151)
Ratings by Self Ratings by O

Self-ratings Sl S2 S3 S4 SS S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sll S12 S13 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 0
S1 Math (95)
S2 Verb -03 (84)
S3 Acad 09 40 (86)
S4 Prob 08 17 30 (79)
S5 Phys 01 -14 -17 -03 (96)
S6 Appr 07 09 25 15 09 (86)
S7 Ssex 14 13 16 09 08 16 (86)
S8 Osex 06 24 03 05 03 11 21 (90)
S9 Prnt 05 14 -02 -14 -08 -04 18 16 (91)
S10 Relg -01 00 -02 -06 02 -08 10 -05 10 (95)
511 Hnst 00 06 13 -01 02 01 11 13 05 09 (74)
S12 Emot 03 12 10 05 12 08 27 27 14 -09 07 (91)
S13 Genl 16 07 12 10 08 14 31 28 08 01 06 28 (93)
Other's ratings
01 Math 77 -05 03 03 -08 -06 05 -03 07 05 -09 -06 05 (95)
02 Verb -07 51 31 12 -19 18 -01 06 22 04 -10 08 -06 00 (86)
03 Acad 23 15 31 09 -00 07 -04 -13 -02 14 -06 -11 00 22 32 (88)
04 Prob 08 20 17 52 04 12 -03 -03 -07 -08 -01 18 01 13 37 19 (82)
05 Phys 04 -17 -10 -04 78 09 -01 -11 06 08 -01 18 08 04 00 15 15 (97).
06 Appr 04 -03 -06 10 06 50 05 11 15 07 06 08 19 02 14 -05 17 20 (89)
07 Ssex 01 00 -12 -11 03 06 45 12 22 09 11 27 31 01 11 -01 02 09 23 (90)
08 Osex 01 -02 20 07 12 00 51 08 00 -03 30 20 00 02 -03 19 16 34 37 (9
09 Prnt 07 00 -07 -10 02 -08 i-
17 08 76 14 01 15 06 11 14 10 -01 15 08 32 0
010 Relg 05 -08 00 06 06 -13 04 -08 02 79 09 -09 01 05 -06 11 03 10 04 -02 -0
011 Hnst -07 -05 05 -01 04 00 -04 -02 10 25 44 08 -02 -01 17 24 15 12 15 15 0
012 Emot 02 18 -11 03 11 -01 12 23 24 05 00 62 12 -04 12 01 19 15 19 32 4
013 Genl 07 -08 -00 15 12 15 21 17 15 09 04 22 41 02 13 11 22 16 41 29 3
Note: Correlations (presented without decimal points) greater than .19 are statistically significant (p ( .05). The valu
alpha estimates of reliability. The values in the diagonal of the heterotrait-heteromethod square, the underlined values,
was able to fit the data from all three sets of responses acceptably well. Also, for each set
of responses, the correlations among the factors were quite small; this argues that no
strong hierarchical structure underlies the SDQ III factors. The results from Study 2 both
replicate the results from Study 1, and generalize them to ratings by significant
others.
The second purposeof both studies was to demonstrate that the SDQ III factors form a
logically consistent pattern of relationships with external validity criteria. In Study 1, the
most important of these were achievement scores in mathematics and language. These
achievement scores are substantially correlated with self-concepts in the same area, less
correlated with other academic self-concepts, and nearly uncorrelated with nonacademic
self-concepts. Consistent with other research (e.g., Marsh, Smith, Barnes, & Butler,
1983), Verbal and Math self-concepts are nearly uncorrelated with each other even
though the corresponding achievement scores are substantially correlated. The correla-
tions between the SDQ III factors and the other external criteria in Study 1 also form a
pattern of high and low coefficients that is intuitively logical.
In Study 2, the results of the MTMM analysis demonstrate remarkably good
correlations between self-concepts as rated by the subjects themselves and self-concepts
as inferred by the significant others. For example, the self-other agreement in Study 2 was
nearly as strong as agreement between self-ratings and summary descriptions in Study 1.
The inferred-ratings in Study 2 provide a good external validity criterion for each of the
13 SDQ dimensions, hence the results provide evidence of the validity of interpretations
based upon each of the scales. The demonstration of divergent validity again shows that
each of the scales is distinct.
The MTMM results also contradict the Shrauger-Schoeneman conclusion that
self-perceptions and ratings-by-others show little correspondence. Significant self-other
agreement has been found in other research with school children (e.g., the series of
MTMM studies by Marsh and the Soares & Soares 1982 study described earlier).
However, supportfor convergence and divergence in this study is better than in those, and
in other MTMM studies, perhaps for the following reasons: (a) the subjects in this study
were older, (b) both subjects and significant others respondedto the same well-developed
instrument, (c) the self-other agreement shown here was for specific characteristics
rather than the broad, ambiguous characteristics employed in some other studies, and (d)
the significant others in this study knew the subjects they were rating better than did the
external observers in most other research.
The results of these two studies have important implications for further theoretical
work in self-concept research. A few researchers contend that self-concept is unidimen-
sional, while most argue that it is dominated by a general factor and that there is a strong
hierarchical structure, with specific facets of self-concept at the base and a general factor
at the apex of the structure. However, for the present study, neither the unidimensional
nor the strong hierarchical structures were found. Hence, while any significant
correlation among any of the self-concept facets can be used to argue for a hierarchical
structure, the correlations between self-rating factors in both studies and even the
correlations among other-rating factors are so small that the usefulness of such an
interpretation is dubious.
The weakness of the hypothesis that the structure of self-concept is hierarchical is also
demonstrated by correlations involving the General-Self factor. This factor was based
upon the Rosenberg scale, the most widely employed measure of general or overall
self-concept. While the item analyses and factor analyses show that this factor is
well-defined, correlations between it and the other factors were small. This finding argues
that general self-concept has at best a modest relationship to self-concept in specific
areas.
The correlations among the self-concept factors reported here are much smaller than
those typically reported,perhaps for two reasons. First, the subjects in the present studies
were older than those in most other research, and areas of self-concept become more
distinct with age (see Shavelson et al., 1976; Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, & Tidman, in press).
Second, the design and the psychometric propertiesof the SDQ III appear to be superior
to those of the self-concept instruments used in most other research; the SDQ III may be
better able than other instruments to differentiate facets of self-concept.
Two of the most commonly used criteria for validating measures of self-concept are
measures of academic performance (particularly in research with school-aged subjects)
and the observations of an external observer. The literature reviews cited earlier
(Hansford & Hattie, 1982; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979) have suggested that both of
these external criteria have weak relationships with self-concept. In contrast to these
earlier findings, the results from both Studies 1 and 2 provide strong support for the
validity of self-concept and the SDQ III as a measure of self-concept. We suspect that the
clear definition of the multiple dimensions of self-concept employed in developing the
SDQ III is the primary reason for its superior performance. Other research has often
relied upon an overall or general measure of self-concept that is the sum of an ill-defined
set of items, or one that resembles the General-Self scale of the SDQ III. However, the
General-Self scale was uncorrelated with? academic achievement in Study 1, and
self-other agreement was lowest for this scale in Study 2. We contend that the relationship
between self-concept and other constructs cannot be adequately understood if the
multidimensionality of self-concept is ignored.
Another importantcontributionof these studies is the introductionof a new instrument
for the measurement of multiple dimensions of self-concept. The SDQ III has a
well-developed factor structure, and measures dimensions that are reliable, valid, and
based upon a strong theoretical model. Thus, the psychometric propertiesof the SDQ III
are stronger than those of other instruments. Reviewers in this field have commented that
one of the most important weaknesses of self-concept research is the poor quality of the
instruments used to measure it. It is hoped that the SDQ III will help remedy this
situation.
Appendix I -- SDQ III Items
1. I find many mathematical problems interesting and challenging.
2. My parents are not very spiritual/religious people.
3. Overall, I have a lot of respect for myself.
4. I often tell small lies to avoid embarrassing situations.
5. I get a lot of attention from members of the opposite sex.
6. I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something.
7. I am usually pretty calm and relaxed.
8. I hardly ever saw things the same way as my parents when I was growing up.
9. I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects.
10. I am never able to think up answers to problems that haven't already been figured
out.
11. I have a physically attractive body.
12. I have few friends of the same sex that I can really count on.
13. I am a good athlete.
14. I have hesitated to take courses that involve mathematics.
15. I am a spiritual/religious person.
16. Overall, I lack self-confidence.
17. People can always rely on me.
18. I find it difficult to meet members of the opposite sex whom I like.
19. I can write effectively.
20. I worry a lot.
21. I would like to bring up children of my own (if I have any) like my parents
raised me.
22. I hate studying for many academic subjects.
23. I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried.
24. I am ugly.
25. I am comfortable talking to members of the same sex.
26. I am awkward and poorly coordinated at most sports and physical activities.
27. I have generally done better in mathematics courses than other courses.
28. Spiritual/religious beliefs have little to do with my life philosophy.
29. Overall, I am pretty accepting of myself.
30. Being honest is not particularly important to me.
31. I have lots of friends of the opposite sex.
32. I have a poor vocabulary.
33. I am happy most of the time.
34. I still have many unresolved conflicts with my parents.
35. I like most academic subjects.
36. I wish I had more imagination and originality.
37. I have a good body build.
38. I don't get along very well with other members of the same sex.
39. I have good endurance and stamina in sports and physical activities.
40. Mathematics makes me feel inadequate.
41. Spiritual/religious beliefs make my life better and make me a happier person.
42. Overall, I don't have much respect for myself.
43. I nearly always tell the truth.
44. Most of my friends are more comfortable with members of the opposite sex than
I am.
45. I am an avid reader.
46. I am anxious much of the time.
47. My parents have usually been unhappy or disappointed with what I do and have done.
48. I have trouble with most academic subjects.
49. I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems.
50. There are lots of things about the way I look that I would like to change.
51. I make friends easily with members of the same sex.
52. I hate sports and physical activities.
53. I am quite good at mathematics.
54. My spiritual/religious beliefs provide the guidelines by which I conduct my life.
55. Overall, I have a lot of self-confidence.
56. I sometimes take things that do not belong to me.
57. I am comfortable talking to members of the opposite sex.
58. I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal reasoning ability.
59. I hardly ever feel depressed.
60. My values are similar to those of my parents.
61. I'm good at most academic subjects.
62. I'm not much good at problem solving.
63. My body weight is about right (neither too fat nor too skinny).
64. Other members of the same sex find me boring.
65. I have a high energy level in sports and physical activities.
66. I have trouble understanding anything that is based upon mathematics.
67. Continuous spiritual/religious growth is important to me.
68. Overall, I have a very good self-concept.
69. I never cheat.
70. I'm quite shy with members of the opposite sex.
71. Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite good.
72. I tend to be high-strung, tense, and restless.
73. My parents have never had much respect for me.
74. I'm not particularly interested in most academic subjects.
75. I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.
76. I dislike the way I look.
77. I share lots of activities with members of the same sex.
78. I'm not very good at any activities that require physical ability and coordination.
79. I have always done well in mathematics classes.
80. I rarely if ever spend time in spiritual meditation or religious prayer.
81. Overall, nothing that I do is very important.
82. Being dishonest is often the lesser of two evils.
83. I make friends easily with members of the opposite sex.
84. I often have to read things several times before I understand them.
85. I do not spend a lot of time worrying about things.
86. My parents treated me fairly when I was young.
87. I learn quickly in most academic subjects.
88. I am not very original in my ideas, thoughts, and actions.
89. I have nice facial features.
90. Not many people of the same sex like me.
91. I like to exercise vigorously at sports and/or physical activities.
92. I never do well on tests that require mathematical reasoning.
93. I am a better person as a consequence of my spiritual/religious beliefs.
94. Overall, I have pretty positive feelings about myself.
95. I am a very honest person.
96. I have had lots of feelings of inadequacy about relating to members of the
opposite sex.
97. I am good at expressing myself.
98. I am often depressed.
99. It has often been difficult for me to talk to my parents.
100. I hate most academic subjects.
101. I am an imaginative person.
102. I wish that I were physically more attractive.
103. I am popular with other members of the same sex.
104. I am poor at most sports and physical activities.
105. At school, my friends always came to me for help in mathematics.
106. I am basically an atheist, and believe that there is no being higher than man.
107. Overall, I have a very poor self-concept.
108. I would feel OK about cheating on a test as long as I did not get caught.
109. I am comfortable being affectionate with members of the opposite sex.
110. In school I had more trouble learning to read than most other students.
111. I am inclined towards being an optimist.
112. My parents understand me.
113. I get good marks in most academic subjects.
114. I would have no interest in being an inventor.
115. Most of my friends are better looking than I am.
116. Most people have more friends of the same sex than I do.
117. I enjoy sports and physical activities.
118. I have never been very excited about mathematics.
119. I believe that there will be some form of continuation of my spirit or soul
after my death.
120. Overall, I have pretty negative feelings about myself.
l~i. I value integrity above all other virtues.
122. I never seem to have much in common with members of the opposite sex.
123. I have good reading comprehension.
124. I tend to be a very nervous person.
125. I like my parents.
126. I could never achieve academic honours, even if I worked harder.
127. I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks.
128. I am good looking.
129. I have lots of friends of the same sex.
130. I am a sedentary type who avoids strenuous activity.
131. Overall, I do lots of things that are important.
132. I am not a very reliable person.
133. Spiritual/religious beliefs have little to do with the type of person I want
to be.
134. I have never stolen anything of consequence.
135. Overall, I am not very accepting of myself.
136. Few, if any, of my friends are very spiritual or religious.
REFERENCES
ALWIN, D. F., & JACKSON, D. J. (1981). Applications of simultaneous factor analysis to issues
of factorial invariance. In D. D. Jackson & E. F. Borgotta (Eds.), Factor analysis and
measurement in sociological research: A multidimensional perspective. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
BACHMAN, J. G. (1970). Youth in transition: Vol. 2. The impact of family background and
intelligence on tenth-grade boys. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, Survey Research
Center.
BURNS, R. B. (1979). The self-concept: Theory, measurement, development and behavior.
London: Longman.
CAMPBELL, D. T., & FISKE, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
CONGALTON, A. (1963). Occupational status in Australia. Sydney: University of New South
Wales Press.
COOPERSMITH, S. A. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
FLYNN, M. (1975). Some Catholic schools in action. Sydney: Catholic Education Office.
HANSFORD, B. C., & HATTIE, J. A. (1982). The relationship between self and achievement/
performance measures. Review of Educational Research, 52, 123-142.
HULL, C. H., & NIE, N. H. (1981). SPSS Update 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill.
JORESKOG, K. G., & SORBOM, D. (1981). LISREL V. Analysis of linear structural relations
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: International Educational Services.
MARSH, H. W., BARNES, J., CAIRNS, L., & TIDMAN, M. (in press). The Self Description
Questionnaire (SDQ): Age effects in the structure and level of self-concept for preadolescent
children. Journal of Educational Psychology.
MARSH, H. W., BARNES, J., & HOCEVAR, D. (1983). Self-other agreement on multidimen-
sional self-concept ratings: Factor analysis and multitrait-multimethod analysis. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
MARSH, H. W., & HOCEVAR, D. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-
multimethod matrices. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 23 1-248.
MARSH, H. W., & HOCEVAR, D. (in press). The factorial invariance of students' evaluations of
college teaching. American Educational Research Journal.
MARSH, H. W., & PARKER, J. W. (in press). Determinants of self-concept: Is it better to be a
relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
MARSH, H. W., PARKER, J. W., & SMITH, I. D. (1983). Preadolescent self-concept: Its
relation to self-concept as inferred by teachers and to academic ability. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 53, 60-78.
MARSH, H. W., RELICH, J. D., & SMITH, I. D. (1983). Self-concept: The construct validity of
interpretations based upon the SDQ. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
173-187.
MARSH, H. W., SMITH, I. D., & BARNES, J. (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.
MARSH, H. W., SMITH, I. D., BARNES, J., & BUTLER, S. (1983). Self-concept: Reliability,
dimensionality, validity, and the measurement of change. Journal of Educational Psycholo-
gy.
MARUYAMA, G., & MCGARVEY, W. (1980). Evaluating causal models: An application of
maximum likelihood analysis of structural equations. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 502-512.
MARX, R. W., & WINNE, P. H. (1978). Construct interpretations of three self-concept

inventories. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 99-108.
NIE, N. H., HULL, C. H., JENKINS, J. G., STEINBRENNER, K., & BENT, D. H. (1975).
Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ROSENBERG, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
SHAVELSON, R. J., & BOLUS, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 3-17.
SHAVELSON, R. J., HUBNER, J. J., & STANTON, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
SHRAUGER, J. S., & SCHOENEMAN, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of
self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573.
SOARES, L. M., & SOARES, A. T. (1977, April). The self-concept: Mini, maxi, multi? Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York.
SOARES, L. M., & SOARES, A. T. (1982, July). Convergenceand discrimination in academic
self-concepts. Paper presented at the 20th Congress of the International Association of Applied
Psychology, Edinburgh, Scotland.
WELLES, L. E., & MARWELL, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
WOLFLE, L. M. (1981). Causal models with unmeasured variables: An introduction to LISREL.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los
Angeles.
WYLIE, R. C. (1974). The self-concept (Vol. 1, rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
WYLIE, R. C. (1979). The self-concept (Vol. 2). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
AUTHORS
HERBERT W. MARSH, Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, University of Sydney,
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Degrees: BA, Indiana University; MA, PhD, University of
California, Los Angeles. Specializations: Educational measurement and evaluation, self-
concept.
ROSALIE O'NEILL, Postgraduate Student, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Austra-
lia.

1434540

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1434540

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Description Questionnaire III: The Construct Validity of Multidimensional Self-Concept

Ratings by Late Adolescents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE III: THE

This research examines the validity of self-concept interpretations of scores

Self-concept is a hypothetical construct, the usefulness of which must be demonstrated

RELATIONSHIP TO EXTERNAL CRITERIA

Ratings By Significant Others

student self-reports on multidimensionalself-concept scales. Support for the discriminant

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SDQ INSTRUMENTS

THE PRESENT STUDY

Sample and Procedure

Factor Analysis of SDQ III Item Pairs

Factor Pattern Matrix Commu-

Honesty/Reliability 1 -05 02 02 12 -03 00 -02 -05 10 08 42 04 -05 25

Multitrait-multimethod Matrix of Correlations Between Self-concepts an

Correlations With External Criteria

CRITERIONMEASURES Math Verb Acad Prob Phys Appr Ssex Osex

School Certificate Scores In:

Self Report Criterion (paraphrased)

Enjoyment of religion classes is most highly correlated with the Religion/Spirituality

Analysis of Self-Other Agreement

Correlations Among SDQ III Scales

Ratings by Self Ratings by O

Appendix I -- SDQ III Items

1. I find many mathematical problems interesting and challenging.

2. My parents are not very spiritual/religious people.

3. Overall, I have a lot of respect for myself.

4. I often tell small lies to avoid embarrassing situations.

5. I get a lot of attention from members of the opposite sex.

6. I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something.

7. I am usually pretty calm and relaxed.

9. I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects.

11. I have a physically attractive body.

13. I am a good athlete.

14. I have hesitated to take courses that involve mathematics.

15. I am a spiritual/religious person.

16. Overall, I lack self-confidence.

17. People can always rely on me.

19. I can write effectively.

20. I worry a lot.

22. I hate studying for many academic subjects.

25. I am comfortable talking to members of the same sex.

28. Spiritual/religious beliefs have little to do with my life philosophy.

29. Overall, I am pretty accepting of myself.

30. Being honest is not particularly important to me.

31. I have lots of friends of the opposite sex.

32. I have a poor vocabulary.

33. I am happy most of the time.

34. I still have many unresolved conflicts with my parents.

35. I like most academic subjects.

36. I wish I had more imagination and originality.

37. I have a good body build.

40. Mathematics makes me feel inadequate.

42. Overall, I don't have much respect for myself.

43. I nearly always tell the truth.

45. I am an avid reader.

46. I am anxious much of the time.

48. I have trouble with most academic subjects.

49. I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems.

51. I make friends easily with members of the same sex.

52. I hate sports and physical activities.

53. I am quite good at mathematics.

54. My spiritual/religious beliefs provide the guidelines by which I conduct my life.