Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:32:28.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity Evidence based on Internal Structure of Scores on the Spanish Version of the Self-Description Questionnaire-II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Cándido J. Ingles ,
María S. Torregrosa ,
María D. Hidalgo ,
Jose C. Nuñez ,
Juan L. Castejón ,
Jose M. García-Fernández  and
Antonio Valle
Cándido J. Ingles*
Affiliation:
Universidad Miguel Hernandez (Spain)
María S. Torregrosa
Affiliation:
Universidad Miguel Hernandez (Spain)
María D. Hidalgo
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia (Spain)
Jose C. Nuñez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Oviedo (Spain)
Juan L. Castejón
Affiliation:
Universidad de Alicante (Spain)
Jose M. García-Fernández
Affiliation:
Universidad de Alicante (Spain)
Antonio Valle
Affiliation:
Universidad de A Coruña (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Candido J. Ingles. Universidad Miguel Hernandez de Elche, Departamento de Psicología de la Salud, Avda. de la Universidad, s/n. 03202 Elche – Alicante, (Spain). Phone: +34 966658600 (ext.: 9046). Fax: +34 966658904. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the reliability and validity evidence of scores on the Spanish version of Self-Description Questionnaire II (SDQ-II). The instrument was administered in a sample of 2022 Spanish students (51.1% boys) from grades 7 to 10. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine validity evidence based on internal structure drawn from the scores on the SDQ-II. CFA replicated the correlated 11 first-order factor structure. Furthermore, hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (HCFA) was used to examine the hierarchical ordering of self-concept, as measured by scores on the Spanish version of the SDQ-II. Although a series of HCFA models were tested to assess academic and non-academic components organization, support for those hierarchical models was weaker than for the correlated 11 first-order factor structure. Results also indicated that scores on the Spanish version of the SDQ-II had internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates within an acceptable range.

El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar la fiabilidad y validez de las puntuaciones en la versión española del Self-Description Questionnaire II (SDQ-II). El instrumento fue administrado a una muestra de 2022 estudiantes españoles (51,1% chicos) de 1º a 4º de educación secundaria obligatoria. El análisis factorial confirmatorio (CFA) fue usado para examinar la validez basada en la estructura interna de las puntuaciones del SDQ-II. El CFA replicó la estructura factorial de primer orden de 11 factores correlacionados. Además, el análisis factorial confirmatorio jerárquico (HCFA) fue usado para examinar el ordenamiento jerárquico del autoconcepto medido por las puntuaciones de la versión española del SDQ-II. Aunque se examinaron una serie de modelos de HCFA para evaluar la organización de componentes académicos y no académicos, el apoyo para estos modelos jerárquicos fue más débil que para la estructura factorial de primer orden de 11 factores correlacionados. Los resultados también indicaron que las puntuaciones de la versión española del SDQ-II tuvieron estimaciones de consistencia interna y fiabilidad test-retest dentro de un rango aceptable.

Keywords

SDQ-IIself-conceptadolescencemultidimensionalityhierarchical orderingSDQ-IIautoconceptoadolescenciamultidimensionalidadordenamiento jerárquico
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 388 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6.1: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., & Gavin, D. W. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for the structure of academic self-concept across pre, early and late adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 215–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.88.2.215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Burnett, P. (2003). Cracking the self-concept enhancement conundrum: A call and blueprint for the next generation of self-concept enhancement research. In Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 91–126). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Dekker, S., & Fisher, R. (2008). Cultural differences in academic motivation goals: A meta-analysis across 13 societies. Journal of Education Research, 102, 99–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.2.99-110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, L. A., Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2005). Navigating the transition to adolescence and secondary school: A critical evaluation of the impact of peer support. In Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. (Eds.), New frontiers for research. Advances in Self Research, (Vol. 2, pp. 329–356). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modelling. In Hancock, G. R. and Mueller, R. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modelling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Garaigordobil, M. (1999). Assessment of a cooperative-creative program of assertive behaviour and self-concept. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 2, 3–10.Google Scholar
Gilman, R., Laughlin, J. E., & Huebner, E. S. (1999). Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire-II with an American sample. School Psychology International, 20, 300–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034399203005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerin, F., Marsh, H. W., & Famose, J. P. (2003). Construct validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 147–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hau, K. T., Kong, C. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Chinese Selfdescription Questionnaire. Cross-cultural validation and extension of theoretical self-concept models. In Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 49–65). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indixes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Leach, L. F., Henson, R. K., Odom, L. R., & Cagle, L. S. (2006). A reliability generalization study of the Self-Description Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 285–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405284030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312023001129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 17–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1987.tb00259.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1992) SDQ II: Manual. Sydney, Australia: Self Research Centre, University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (2006). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role of self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). International advances in self-research. In Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & McInerney, D. M. (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 3–14). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Kong, C. K. (2002). Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Influence of language of instruction (English compared with Chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 727–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312039003727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mash, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., & Ayotte, V. (2004). A multidimensional perspective of relations between self-concept (Self Description Questionnaire II) and adolescent mental health (Youth Self-Report). Psychological Assessment, 16, 27–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2001). The Self-Description Questionnaire II and gifted students: Another look at Plucker, Taylor, Callahan, and Tomchin's (1997) “Mirror, mirror on the wall”. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 976–996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martorell, M. C., Flores, P., Silva, F., & Navarro, A. (1992). Autoconcepto: Adaptación Española del SDQ-II de Marsh y Barnes [Self-concept: Spanish adaptation of Marsh and Barnes SDQ-II]. Revista de Psicología de la Educación, 3, 65–88.Google Scholar
Menjares, P. C., Michael, W. B., & Rueda, R. (2000). The development and construct validation of a Spanish version of an academic self-concept scale for middle school Hispanic students from families of low socioeconomic levels. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (2007). Datos básicos de la educación en España en el curso 2006/2007 [Basic data of education in Spain during the academic year 2006/2007]. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.Google Scholar
Nishikawa, S., Norlander, T., Fransson, P., & Sundbom, E. (2007). A cross-cultural validation of adolescent self-concept in two cultures: Japan and Sweden. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 269–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.2.269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-hill.Google Scholar
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2002). A framework of reporting and interpreting internal consistency reliability estimates. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, M. J., Apocada, P., Etxebarria, I., Fuentes, M. J., & López, F. (2008). Predictores familiares de la internalización moral en la infancia [Family predictors of moral internalization in childhood]. Psicothema, 20, 712–717.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ponterotto, J. G., & Ruckdeschel, D. E. (2007). An overview of coefficient alpha and reliability matrix for estimating adequacy of internal consistency coefficients with psychological research measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 997–1014. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PMS.105.7.997-1014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riccio, C., & Rodríguez, O. L. (2007). Integration of psychological assessment approaches in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 243–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In Pajares, F. & Urdan, T. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71–96). Greenwich, England: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Selfconcept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction of coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, B. (1997). The importance of structure coefficients in structural equation modelling confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 5–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057001001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L., & The Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594CrossRefGoogle Scholar