Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Susan Harter Como e Que Eu Sou Testes Normas Crianças Adolescentes

    Uploaded by

    fatimaramos31
    16 views126 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views126 pages

    Susan Harter Como e Que Eu Sou Testes Normas Crianças Adolescentes

    Uploaded by

    fatimaramos31

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 126
    ‘SERVICO DE ACONSELHAMENTO EDUCACIONAL FACULDADEDE PsIc0L0atA & DE CIENCIAS DA Epucacio UnavensiDabe DE Lisboa COMO E. QUE EU SOU (ADAPTADO DE SUSAN HARTER, 1985) FOLHADE APOIO Esta escala constitui a tradugdo da “Self-Perception Profile for Children” (Harter, 1985), {que por sua vez consiste na revisio da autora da “Perceived Competence Scale for Children” de 1979 e 1982 . Subjacente aos itens desta escala, Harter integra dois modelos distintos da auto-estima, @ saber, 0 modelo unidimensional e o modelo multidimensional. Quer isto dizer que @ autora tem em conta a importéncia da avaliagao global da auto-estima, bem como a avaliagdo das competéncias especificas a determinados dominios. Assim, 2 auto-estima global é avaliada independentemente por um conjunto de itens, enquanto que sub-escalas separadas cobrem avaliagdes especificas aos dominios, fornecendo um perfil multidimensional Desta forma, o perfil avaliado inclui as sub-escalas: 1, competéncia escolar (avalia a percepgo que a crianga tem da sua competéncia no émbito dos desempenhos escolares); 2. aceitagdo social (refere-se a0 grau em que a crianga tem amigos, sente que é popular e sente que as outras criangas gostam dela, mais do que a competéncias sociais genéricas); 3. competéncia atlética (prende-se com 0 contetido de desportos e actividades ao ar livre); 4, aparéncia fisica (esta sub-escala foi acrescentada nesta versio da escala ¢ tem a ver com 0 nivel de satisfago da crianga com o seu aspecto, peso, altura, corpo, cara, cabelo, e com 0 facto de se sentir atraente); 5. comportamento (esta também foi uma sub-escala acrescentada a esta versio e avalia 0 quanto a crianga gosta do modo como se comporta); 6. ea auto-estima global (esta Ultima é uma medida global de valor pessoal e nfio uma medida de competéncia geral), Assim, 20 separar as avaliagdes de competéncias especificas da avaliago mais global do nosso valor como pessoas, é possivel determinar a relagdo que as competéncias especificas mantém com a auto-estima global. ‘No desenvolvimento da escala, Harter deu especial atengo a validade ecolégica dos itens, & consisténcia interna e validade factorial das diferentes sub-escalas propostas, & elaboragéo de um formato de resposta que evitasse a desejabilidade social ¢ 4 sensibilidade da escala aos aspectos desenvolvimentistas. Cada uma das seis sub-escalas contém seis itens, constituindo um total de 36 itens (aos quais se acrescenta um item de treino), A resposta a cada item ndo se cinge a “verdadeiro-falso”. Antes, a crianga tem de decidir que tipo de crianga é (por exemplo, “Algumas criangas esquecem-se do que aprendem” enquanto que “Qutras criangas lembram-se das coisas facilmente”), tendo posteriormente de assinalar se “E mesmo assim” ou “E mais ou menos assim”. Dos seis itens de cada sub-escala, trés esto construidos de forma @ presenga de competéncia ser apresentada em primeiro lugar e nos outros trés apresentada a auséncia de competéncia em primeiro lugar. ‘As sub-escalas encontram-se fundamentadas pela autora em estudos da andlise factorial dos itens. O estudo feito com uma amostra de 481 criangas portuguesas de ambos os sexos, com idades compreendidas entre os 9 ¢ 0s 14 anos, replicou quase integralmente os resultados de Harter (com excepgio do item 32). As contribuiges da cada item para os factores sto inteiramente satisfat6rias € 0 a de Cronbach apresentou igualmente valores satisfatorios para todas as escalas (sendo 0 da aceitagio social o mais baixo). A auto-estima global é a sub-escala que apresenta correlagdes mais fortes com todas as outras, o que parece indicar que todas elas contribuem para a auto-estima, tal como 6 defendido por Harter. ‘As normas (médias ¢ desvios-padrio) disponiveis para a populagio portuguesa sao apresentados nas tabelas abaixo. Tabela 1 - Médias e Desvios-Padriio das Seis Sub-escalas Compettncta Teaiagao ‘Compettaca “Rparéaca | Gomportarnento | Auto Extina Eacolar Secta ‘Acadéanies i ‘Global M [pp |M [pp {| M [opp | ™M [pp | M_| pp | M | DP 2.66 | 59 | 2.76 | 51 | 254] 64 | 296] 71 [292] .55 | 3.07 | .63 Anexo Médias e desvios-padrao das sub-escalas por sexo ¢ idade ae es ve tao ae | ame x Lol x [orl x [or] x|orl x [or] x Lo] x [om] x lor] x forl x | or| x jor lx ‘cosa _|329| 6 | a0a| so |aa1| 72 |200| 08 [25] 65 [290] 72 | 12] s» | 915] 9 |n6] 4 [ase] #9 | 919] 1 291 comport | 297 | 02 7 a10| a7 |200| 7 |30s| 1 |203| 52 |27e] 42 [are] 0 [204] 00 | 202 | os ]270| 7 | 209] 9 | 240 poutecia | 3.20 part a1 | asz| 74 |az0| 20 fare) a0 | 200) re [207 | 22 [200] 77 | 204] .s¢ |2or| 94 | zs] .e7 | 2.19] so | 277 Seren aen| or [20x | 4 |aee| 9 as | a0 |ca| a2 [aca] so [2eol se [ese] er Lare| oe [acy] ot l2ee] ve [aan grace |207| 0 [aoe] a |2a1| 1 fan| se |200| an [20s] 2» [aor] se [eee] 0 |aa| oe [ae] at Jase] at [a7 congutrn | 2an| oe | 270] 17 [205] s+ [zor] ss [eae] ot [ase] 2» | 256] os [221] se |e | oo [eso] os Jase] ov jase ‘SERVICO DE ACONSEEHANSNTO EDUCACIONAL FAcULDADEDE PsicoLoata 5 DE CHENCIAS DA EDucacio, Uprvansipape De Lisnon “Como E Quz Eu Sou” FOLHA DE COTAGOES NOME IDADE ESCOLA. ‘PERFIL DE AUTO-PERCEPGAO PARA CRIANGAS: Competincia [| AcEITAGKO | CommeriNcia | AParENciA | ComporTaMen | AUTO-EsT@ma BSCOLAR SOCIAL ATLETICA Fisica. 70 GLOBAL Tz fohislassy ae [2 [eo falakef] we [3 To feslselalas] me le fohcleaizeloa] 24 | s fefraleabetss] mc [o frchalnfsepel oc ESCALA DE IMPORTANCIA: ConErENCIA "ACEETAGAO COMPETENCIA | APARENCIAFISICA | COMPORTAMENTO ESCOLAR SoctaL. ATLETICA T[_é[ul2i,7[u{]3}ei[w|a@y,otM|s [i= ESCALA DE PROFESSORES: ‘COMPETENCIA “AcEITAGAO | Covesrincia | APaRiNcia Fisica | ComporTamento ESCOLAR Social, ATLETICA TE6[u[wy2[7)[2pu|s]s[isl|4]o[idtu|s]olis[« Competincia Aceitagio Competincia Apasincia Comportamento Auio-estina Escobr Soci! Alitica Fesica Gen reer MANUAL FOR THE sine nT SELF-PERCEPTION PROFILE FOR CHILD (Revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children) Susan Harter University of Denver 1985, Table of Contents Introduction and rationale for scale revision ...... Revised scale structure ....--42e00eeess eee Question format Specific Scale Structure ; MasterList of fiems grouped according to subscale Administration and instructions. . : : q Scoring .... easel Teacher RatingScale .....-- : : Samples to which revision has been administered Sciatic Psychometric properties Internal Consistency Reliability Means and Standard Deviations... ci Factor Pattern F eee i Intercorrelations among Subscales .....seeceseeeeeee Additional Considerations References Appendix Instrument filled out by the child (What | Am Like) Scoring Key Data Coding Sheet Teacher's Rating Scale Scoring Key for Teacher's Rating Scale Individual Pupil Profile Form Importance Rating Scale a Scoring Key Calculation of Competencellmportance Discrepancy Preparation of this manual was facilitated by Grant HO 09613 irom the Nationel Institute of Chité | Health and Human Development. U.S.P.H.S. . Introduction and rationale for scale revision ‘The scale to be described represents a revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Gnilgren (Harter, 3978, 1982). The original measure was devised in order to tap children's domain-specific judgments of 23 weil 28 a global perceotion of their worth or eS 7SOT = MOmoetence, social competence, athletic competence, 2s well as one’s sense of global eeeee re Scitworthe These four subscales 2ach yielded 2 seperate scare, allowing sets Seamine a profile of the child's evaluative judgments. Underlying the construction SPine original scale was the assumption that an instrument providing separate measures See eiiceived competence in different Gomains, as welt as an independent assess- eat Sh one's global self-worth, would provide 2 sicher and more differentiated picture Tron hose instzuments providing only 2 single self-concept score (e.g., the Coopersmith Der geteam Inventory, 1967), The rationale for this approach has been spelled out in detail in previous writings (Harter, 1982; 1984; 1985) In the revision described in this manual, two subscales have been added to the original four, these are physical appearance and beheviore] conduct. The original subscales have sour heen sonarned in order to provide a more accurate label for the domain content. In ad gions number of the global self-worth items underwent revision, as did several flems from the domain-specific subscales. The title of the instrument has also bee altered. The original scale focused primarily on children’s judgments of competence. However, we have broadened our conceptualization, spun ‘Giat how, only one-third of the six subscalas directly involve competence. The re iuShing subscales refer to various forms of self zdequacy, however they do not necessari-. {involve competence in the form of actual skills, Thus, in order to reflect its curren! cone Ct tne scale has been renamed and is entitled the Seli-Perceation *rofile fer Children, JENS tile reflects the tact that we are tapping children’s perceptions of themselves, and Fee ee Mprofile” underscores our view that the examination of differences In an in- MMoideul's egoras across the various domains of hislher life provides the richest and most accurate picture of one’s self-concept. Revised sesle structure The present version of this Instrument contains six separate subscales tapping five specific damains, as well as global self-worth. Specific Domains Scholastic Competence Social Accapiance Athletic Comoetence Physical Appe2rance @ehavioral Conduct 6, Global Self-Worth Content of each domain 4. Scholastic Competence. This scale, originally labeled cognitive competence, has been renamed to more precisely reflect that fact that all of the items are school-related. Thus, they tap the child's perception of hisiher competence or ability within the realm of ‘olastic performance. 2. Social Acceptance. The original sociai competence scale is now designated as social asesptance. A closer examination of ihe item content, as well as interview data from Children, has suggested that this subscale basically taps the degree to which the child is zecepted by peers or feels popular. The items do not tap competence directly in the loterte sccial skills -Rathar, ne 2.19 which one has Friends, feels one is popular, and feels that most kids like them. (The relationship e- tween such acceptance or popularity end social skills is an interesting empirical ques: tion, in and of itself) Athletic Competence, The subscale originally labeled physical competence has now Seen changed to athletic competence. This new label more directly conveys the fact that these items all tap content relevant to sports and outdoor games. (In addition, we did not want a label which might be confused with the new physical appearance Supscale, Le., we did not want two subscales with the word “physical” in the title) 4, Physical Appearance. The first of our two nei subscales, physical appearance, taps the ‘degree to which the child is happy with the way helshe looks, likes one's height, weight, body, face, hair, and feels that halshe is good.locking. (This scale was added on the basis of interview data revealing that one’s ohysical appearance becomes a very salient dimension of one’s self-concent in the later elementary and middle school grades.) 8, Behavioral Conduct. The second of our new subscales, behavioral conduct, taps the degree to which children like the way they behave, do the right thing, act the way they re supposed to, avoid getting into trouble, and do the things they are supposed to do. (it was added, given our increasing interest in clinical or special populations where con- duct is sometimes an issue.) 6. Global Sel/-Worth. These items tap the extent to which the child likes oneself as a per- Son, is happy the way one is leading one’s life, and is generally happy with the way one ig. Thus it constitutes a global judgment of one’s worth as a person, rather than domain- soecific competence or adequacy. While the domain-specific approach has merit, it is also the case that children (aged eight and older) can make a more global judgment about their self-worth, a more gestalt- fike evaluation about the self, in general, It snould be noted that we are tapping this judg- ment directly, as well-as indevendently of the domain-specific judgments. This approach to global sel? worth is decidedly different from the procedures of those who have sought to operationally detine general self-concept as the sum or average of a child's responses to a large array of items tapping diverse content (e.g., Coopersmith’s self'esteert measure}. That is, we do not adhere to the view that global self-worth Is best assessed by summing responses to an aggregate of items which ask about a wide variety of self-descriptions Rather, we Believe that one’s ‘2elings of worth should be tapped directly, by asking about self-worth itself. Thus, we want our items to encourage children to think about the global perception of their worth as a 2erson, We do not went to infer it from the sum or average OT their responses to many specific questions about their abilities or characteristics, It should also be noted that the global self-worth subscale is no a measure of general competence. Others employing the original instrument have misinterpreted this subscale, treating ig as a broader index of competence. However, by assessing global self-worth separately or independently of the saecific competence domains, one can then examine tha relationchip between global self-worth and the domain-specific perceptions of com- patance. In fact, we have sought !c determine both the antecedents and correlates of Slobal sel worth (Harter & Hogan, 1985; Harter, 1985). To date, we have found evidence for Bao determinants, building on the historical contributions of two self theorists, James (1882) and Cooley (1909) the ratio of one's successes to one's preten- various domains of one’s life. We heve opera- Hlonalized :nis formulation, and determines iat perceived comperenza sr adequacy In oe, mains raied 2s importent is stroncly precictive of seli-worth, A second. equally strong Predictor of self-worth, is she positive regars which signitican: Others have for the colt, was Coolsy's contention that the self represenis the reilected anpraisals of significant others. Our findings clearly indiedie tat Te perceiver r=qar: TS cirecly-tmpact one's global regard for the self. Moreover, this source of self-worth is independent of the first source, captured by perceived competence in domains deemed important. A cone plete discussion of the effects, including a causal model of the determinants and con (lates of self-worth can be found in Harter (1985). , global self-esteem represen sions or asairations toward success in the Question Format The revision employs exactly the same question format which wes devised for the original instrument. As discussed in the article describing the Péiceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982) a major proolem with the question tormats of earlier eel, concept scales was their tendency to pull tor socially desirable responses. In sddition, these two-choice formats (e.g., True—Felse or Like Me—Unlike Me) did not provide respondents with enough latitude to quality their responses. Thus, we devised a struc. tured alternative format” in which the child's presented with the following type of ques tion: Really Son of Sort ol Really Tre True Te True forme torme forma tor me Some kids atten farget otner kas Oo 0 nharey teat sur Sinema es enn, 7} [J The child is first asked to decide which kind of kid is most like him or her, and then ask- ed whether this is only sort of true or really ‘rue for him or her. The effectiveness of this question format lies in the implication thei half of the kids in the world (or in one's (elerence group) view themselves in one way, whereas the other half view themselves in the opposite manner. That is, this type of question legitimizes either choice. Our con. fidence in this format is bolstered by the fect that children's verbal elaborations on the reasons‘tor their choice indicate that they are giving accurate self-perceptions rather than socially desirable responses. The stetisticai cata provide additional evidence with regard to the effectiveness of this type of question. While a detailed scoring key will be providad later in this manual, the genéral procedures is to score each item on a scale from 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicates low perceived competence and a score of 4 reflects high carceived competence. Thus, in the exemple given above, the child who first indicates that he often forgets what he learns and then describes this as really tree-tar him would recive-a 1. The-child for whom this part of the statement is only sort of true would receivs a 2. The child who indicates that he can remember things easily, though describes-this as only sort of true for him, would receive a 3, and the child for wham this part of the sizxement was really true would receive a 4 Specific Scale Structure Each of the six subscales contains six items, constituting a total 6736 items. (An addi: for practice bu: is not scored.) Within each subscale, three \ first par: of the statement raflects high competence worded such that the first oart of the statement reflects. items are presented in the following arder ‘ontinue to repeat themselves in that order tional sample item is includ: of the items are worded such that or adequacy, and three items af tow competsnce or adequacy. The six subsce for the first six items of the scale, and then throughout ihe instrument: (1) Scholastic Corsetence, (2) Social Acceptance, (3) Athletic Competence, (4) Physical Appearance, (5) Benzvioral Conduct, and (6) Global Seli-Worth. Tne actual questionnaire, filled out by the crild, is entitled WHAT | AM LIKE. It is includ. ed in the Appendix of this manual, Nos that you have permission to copy this instrument for your own use. Master list of items grouped according to subscale. to the position on the child's form. Items i y (4) PF £0 in? Edequate seli-description as the first per of the & ement, whereas eggetively (~) present the less.compatent or scaquate ‘self cescription first Item # re more com! items keye Item # Keyed SCHOLASTIC COMPETENCE 1 Some kids feel that they are very good at thelr schoolwork SUT Other Some Momy about whether they can do the schoolwork assigned to them. 7 4 Some kids feel like they are just as smart a5 O11 kids their age SUT Some Kige aren't so sure end wonder if they are 23 sme 1% _ Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their schoolwork BUT Other kids an do their schoolwork quickly 19 _ Some kids often forget what they learn BUT Other Kics % ember things easily. ‘owell at their classwork BUT Other kids 2) 25 + Some kids dovery at their classwork. 3 _ some kids have trouble figuring out the answers ia Sch2= BUT Other ele can almost always figure out the answers SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 2 _ Some kids find it hard to make friends BUT Other Kics Sasy to make friends. 8 Some kids have alot of friends BUT Other Kids don't ¢2-> - friends. 1 — some kids would like to have alot more friends BUT O52" - many friends as they want. (New ter 20 some kids are always doing things with alot of kids Gsually do things by themselves. 26 _ ome kids wish that more people their age liked Ine Pext that most people their age do like them 32 Some kids are popular with others their age BUT O:- very popular. as Eeaanie lem # + a +33 22 28 34 Keyee Lee Qiestit a nT ATHLETIC COMPETENCE some kids do very well at ail xiads of sports SUT Other kids don't fest sor ney are very good when It comes t0 sports. some kis wish they could be slot better 2t sports BUT Over kids feel TREY STE GOST SNOUTM BT SPOTS some kids think they could do well at ust about any new 57 7 30 20 ceacremapemsiul ne = jet esoone another. While itis difficult to infer causetty. seems likely that so one athletic prowess may ‘ead te 3/earer ‘acceptance or popularity ingly, Social Accepiance related to SHO Competence yO ar itis not strongly related among. the fifth to eighth yet y appear that doing well in school becomes jess relevant to one's moderately relat physical attract among one’s pe for the younger graders. Thus, it Sopularity es one approaches and moves into acolescence. ThE GOTEENORS BONG BEEN SPECT COMETS rseiiwortirareatso-ot intere: ai vecolge, Physical Appearance Is the subscale which is consistently related to Self at same sderately high level (most rs falling Wi ange of 62 and .73). One may in- or hat attractiveness 1s particularly importa ione's sense of self-worth, although the tar trae aality of this celationship warrants [97 Study. The remaining four specific cieetges (Scnolastic Competence, AINE Bompetence, Social Acceptance, and Sees Conduct) bear madarate relationships (0 Seitworth, with somewhat higher cor relations among ihe younger puptls. ‘Additional Considerations : {@) For whom is the scate appropriate? "age range. The initial target pooulation We third through sixth grades. The instru” a rs ompioyed with older subjects, Hover”, it does not provide a sufficiently Tien andlor ciiferentiated picture of (ns iMolescent self-conceot. For this reason, We tich Sjoviced an adolescent version which Sere Come of the wording of Items In the Caisting measure and also taps three. ictuitional subscales (romantic appeal, c10Se existing in job compatence,) It should 2150 25 noted that a thirteen-domain college friondshif gion will soon be available (Harter & ‘Neeman) as well as 4 Twelve-comain adult v The Sel nildren is inappropriate for children 2stow age e\ght oa See For several reasons. The question {orn is nol understood by younger nied rea, for se nerally do not have the reading Skis follow the item content. Cen. ecttic words, notably the tral abels ge popular, smart, good-!ooking) Moreoves Sinaerstood, since develapmensally rere Generalizations do not emerge in are col geseriptions of children until mace 'y Mighood. Finally, young children do not yet havea consolidated concept of $72" sibeal self-worth as a person. These items Co yet have 2 °Sgase to younger chitdren and the Mibseale, therefore, 1s extremely unreliable ror younger chitaran we neve 2 pictorial ¥orsiO" which is administered individually. Tere Seale ot Perceived Comecienc’ S08 Social Acceptance for Young Ue rom (Harter & Pike, 1984) consists of NC, Versions, one for preschool and cet errten children end one for Isl ane Second graders. Subscales include Mince get Competence, Physical COMPETENCE. CoS creceptance and Maternal Accep- Cognitive Coudattional subscales, Benavioral Conduct og eather Acceptance wil! Be MYaed to 2 subsequent revision.) ‘Goecie! popurations, The scale in its present Te not be appropriate for special groups of children. For examples we Tee Soivonsteaved that the factor structure 2nd groups Cation of subscales is quite different 12) the mentally retarded (Silon & Harter, inter re et arming disabled child's fesponses fe ‘scale provide yet another factor pattern, dictating a different scale eee (Harter, 1985, Renick, 1988), This Her patterns Sted the construction of special veer cee ‘Pane scale for mentally retarded neces ate well as for learning disabled chiiere), although these are the only (wo cn errone wa nave studied in depth 10.204 2 fall be that other populations will populaticmain modtications. We afe C2720) ay essing this issue among intellec” (eay giited students as well as amons Shysically handicapped children) te tinterestActoss~——— (©) Social Camparison Processes mainstreamed mentally retarded Chilgran te 79) eri 7 jas) than the scores of mainstreamed leaming disablen anges within the normal manetrcamatelligence (Renick, 7985), Individual interviews vee that the Chitassetmed (etarded child compares hisiher performance te einen mentally retarded regaiset sihereas the learning disabled child's compatece group constitutes the sees assroom children. Thus, the mentally retarded chil gos consider hisiher Scholastic performance to be deficient, compared to other mentally retarded children, Qiereas the learning disabled child feels that they are lace scholastically competent, wie Foun ones fegular classroom children. In another stacy (darter k Zumpf, 1886} they und that the scores of intellectually gifted children vay, depending upon whether Ungy are comparing themselves to other gifted students yr4e pupils in the regular classroom, tom Domain a Scholastic Competence 8 Social Acceptance 3 ‘Athletic Comastence 3 Physical Appearance ” Behavioral Conduct 30 Global Settsvorth Sublects can be asked what group of kids they were thinking about when they answered panini gation. They can also be asked the question more ditecily: "Who Wereyou wie Teo Scent oos What Group of kids, when you were thinking about what you were He inepalnce different reference groups may be employed in different domaine eg be-Important to address this issue for all Six subscales, {¢) Bases on which children are making their sellivdgments “ The profile of subscale scores provided by thi Shlemine a given child's seit-perceptions across the domains idemifion otek is also instructive to know why the.child holds thes oe May be interested in obtaining this information, particularly if one’s focus Is on f gegeper understanding of the child's self-concept and the reasons for thece judgments. An inquiry, based on the most representative items identified inn ase Previous section. can thus be performed after the scale has been administered Ong (0 return to each of these six questions, reviewing the child's response. and ack ne Fa utins types of questions: How do you know thatyou tn 8K IE {til in item content, e.g., are good st your school work: dont have many fiends: act he way you are supposed to; are good-locing? Another possible question stem Ie What makes you think you how can you tell? A clinical in iepliewing technique, in which one conveys interest and curiosity about the child's response, rather than a style in which one appears to b hisiher response, will result in a richer and move acc! which children make these judgments. 2 (d) Determinants of a chitd’s competence or adequacy In addition to an interest in the criteria which children employ, one may also be in. terested in how the child thinks he/she got that way. That is, what factors are responsi: é ble for the child's particular level of Competence or adequacy in 2 given domain? inter. view ques:ions designed to elicit this type of information are: How did you get to be (fill in item content, e.g., good at schoolwork, goad at Sports, act so goodlouking?) What happened to make you 7 What's the main reeson for why you are_______? Answers to. these questions typically reveal explanations consistent with the dimensions iden- titied-in.the-locus-ot eontroLiiterst Thus, children may refer to personal effort (I study hard; | practice alot at sports); to natural ability (Vm just teally smart, | was born that way; | guess I'm just a natural Sthlete); to the actions of significant others (my parents taught me alot; the other kids ‘re mean to me and that's the reason | act the way | do and get in trouble); or they may indicate that they simply don’t know why they are at a particular level of competence or adequacy (I really don't understand why I don't do better in school; | don't know why | Gon't have more friends; | don't know why | behave the way | do). The infermation glean €0 trom these questions may be particularly valuable in intervention situations where one is attempting to change the child's perceived competence or adequacy, €.9.. in specific programs instituted, individual treatment plans, etc. That is, one may well need to know the child's particular theory of the cause of his/her level of competence ina given domain, in part to assess the accuracy of these inferences. In certai cases, if the child's theory appears to be inaccurate, or if the child indicates that he/she doesn't understand the source of his/her level of competence or adequacy, one may need to address the child's theory directly, rather than merely attempt, to alter the child's seif-concept Determinants of the child's global self-worth Our recent research has been directed toward examining the determinants or antecedents of the global self-worth judgment. Children may be less cognizant of these determinants than they are of the causes of the domain-specific judgments. - However, we have indirectly identified two very critical antecedents of a child's sense of global self-worth, determinants suggested by the theoretical formulations of James (1892) as well as Cooley (1908), described in Harter (1985). For James, general self-esteem (or global self-worth) resulted trom the relationship between one's competence and one's aspirations to be competent. This was codified in his ratio in which Self-esteem equals success divided by one's pretensions. Thus, if one is successful in domains deemed important to the self, high self-esteem will en- sue. If one is not successful in domains judged important, low self-esteem will result Cooley's model of global selt-judgments was rather different in that he viewed the self a8 a S6cial construction. For Cadléy, our sénsé of general worth as a person represented the incorporation of attitudes which we believed that others held toward the self, His metaphor of the looking glass self referred to his view that the self con- stitutes the reflected appraisals of significant others who represent the mirror into which we gaze for information concerning ourselves. Our research has now documented findings indicating that both sources, the degree to which one is successtul in domains deemed important, and one's perceptions of the attitudes which significant others hold toward the self, strongly influence the level of one's global self-worth (see Harter, 1985, for a complete discussion of these theoretical formulations and resulting empirical efforts). The contribution af children’s perceptions of-the attitudes which significant others hold toward the self was determined by examining the relationship between perceived social support (including positive regard) from others and global self-worth, Four such others have been identified to date: Parents, teachers, classmates, and close Iriends. ‘These perceptions are tapped by administering the Social Support Scale for Children (Harter, 1286), a iour-subscale instrument which utilizes the same question format as the instrument described in this manuel, Items tap the degree to which others like the self the way one is, treat one zs a person, care abou! their feelings, act like they feel that the person matters. Thus, we are obtaining judgmenis of the degree to which the child feeis that others like the self 2s a person, judgments which are predictive of how likes the self as a oerson (es tapped by the can be obtained from tne Competence in domains deemed important. The procedure for determining the relation- ship between competence in domains deemed important and global-self worth will be described here for those interested in examining this issue directly. The procedure in- volves calculating the discrepancy between a child's competenceladequacy judgments on the Selt-Perception Profile and his/her judgment of the importance of each of the five do. mains. The critical consideration involves how adequate the child feels in just those areas Judged as important. if the child is competent at areas judged important, then there will be little discrepancy and the child should have an accompanying self-worth score that is high. In contrast, if the child feels that certain domains are very important, but that his or he? competence levels are low in these areas, there would'be a discrepancy between impor. tance and competence, a discrepancy. that should result in low self-worth, In order to calculate discrepancy scores, a separate measure of the child's importance judgments, must be administered. This measure, entitled How Important are These Things, to How You Feel About Yourself as a Person, is included in the Appendix. For each of the five domain-specific subscales, there are twa items, resulting in atenitem scale. A scor. ing key is included in the appendix. Simply add the two scores for each domain anc divide by two to get the mean importance score for each domain Scholastic Competence: items 1 and 6 Social Acceptance: Items 2 and 7 Athletic Competence: items 3 and 8 Physical Appearance: Items 4 and 9 Behavioral Conduct Items 5 and 10 Calculation of discrepancy score (see procedure sheet in Appendix) Step J. Write down the names of just those domains in which the Importance Score was 23.0 (Sort of Important), 3.5 (Hait-way between Sort of Important and Very Importanty-or 4.0 (Very Important). This procedure derives from James" assumption that only those domains in which success is.important will have an impact on general self-esteem. For example, if a child feels that success at sports is not important, then a low (or high) competence score in that domain should not dramatically influence his/her overall selt-worth. Low impor tance scores in areas of low competence indicate that the child is able to discount the im: portance of an area in which he/she feels inadequate. (See Harter, 1985, for a complete discussion of discounting, along with supporting evidence which indicates that high self- worth children are able to discount the importance GT domains in which they feel the least competent, whereas low self-worth children continue to maintain that areas of in competence are imgortant,) There will be a potential maximum of five scares if all domains are considered important. However, in many if not most cases, not all domains will be con- sidered important, Step’2. From the Self-Perception Profile, fill in the’ mean subscale scores for just those areas rated as important a Step 3. Record only those importance ratings which are elther 3.0, 3.5, oF 4.0 in value. Step 4. Subtract the Importance Ratings from their respective Competence of Ade- Guacy scores for each domain rated as important. The sign of these valves is riticel. If the Importance Rating (the second value) is greater than the Competence score (the first value) then the Discrepancy Score will be negative. If the Importance ating Is smatier than the Competence score, then the Discrepancy Score will be positive. Step 5. Ad¢ up the discrepancy scores taking their sign into account to arrive ate Total Discrepancy Score. In most cases, this value will be negative since importance Ratings 24 tend ta ne higher than Competence seores. The larger the Toa! Mache? score with a ietative sign, tie more the child's Imeorance ayer Exceed nisiher Competence negative Sgt) Wie ative discrepancy scores should be assaciated with low self-worth Scores. aoe, Tero, or positive scores should be associated with high self-worth. Step 4 Divide by the number of domains «ated a8 Important (those with Importance scores 0! &, 35, of 3), to get the mean (average) disereerncy. ‘score..Note that you are just seers Oe tne number of domains for which discrepancy Scores were calculated, Step 7, Transfer the child's Global Self worth score 10 the calculation sheet in the lower

    You might also like