Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:20:13.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bifactor Structure for the Categorical Chinese Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

Menglin Xu  and
Shing-On Leung
Menglin Xu
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University (USA)
Shing-On Leung*
Affiliation:
University of Macau (China)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shing On-Leung. Faculty of Education. University of Macau. Taipa, Macau (China). Phone: 853–83978714. Fax: 853–28831695. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, the bifactor model was suggested for the latent structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). The present paper investigates (i) the differences among bifactor, bifactor negative and other models; (ii) the effects of treating data as both categorical vs continuous; (iii) whether a problematic item in the Chinese RSES should be removed; and (iv) whether the final scoring would be affected. With a sample of 1.734 grade 4–6 school pupils in Hong Kong, we used BIC differences in addition to the usual model fit indices, and found that there was strong evidence for using the bifactor model (RMSEA = .052, 90% CI [.043, .062], CFI = .992, TLI = .984 for 9-item RSES categorical). Little difference is found between treating data as categorical or continuous for fit indices, but the factor loading patterns are better in categorical case. Keeping a problematic item has little effect on fit indices, but would lead to unexpected negative loading. The ranking of loadings within positive and negative items across different conditions are the same, which has important effects on scoring. Loadings in the method effects in the bifactor models are all positive (p < .001), which is different from previous research. All models show similar results on scoring, and support the usual simple sum score in most practice.

Keywords

bifactor modelcategorical dataRosenberg Self-esteem Scale
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E67
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

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

Bartholomew, D. J., & Knott, M. (1999). Latent variable models and factor analysis (pp. 32–39). London, UK: Arnold.Google Scholar
Boduszek, D., Shevlin, M., Mallett, J., Hyland, P., & O’Kane, D. (2012). Dimensionality and construct validity of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale within a sample of recidivistic prisoners. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2(1), 19–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20093821211210468 Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061 Google Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 Google Scholar
Cheng, S.-T., & Hamid, P. N. (1995). An error in the use of translated scales: The Rosenberg self-esteem scale for Chinese. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81, 431–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.2.431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, M. B., Ackerman, R. A., & Brecheen, C. (2016). Extending structural analyses of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale to consider criterion related validity: Can composite self-esteem scores be good enough? Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 169–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1058268 Google Scholar
Finney, S. J., & Distefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: IAP.Google Scholar
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, S.-T. (1995). To drop or not to drop an ambiguous item: A reply to Shek. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81, 988–990. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.988 Google Scholar
Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2003). Wording effects in Self-Esteem Scales: Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 435–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Google Scholar
Hyland, P., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Shevlin, M., & Egan, A. (2014). A bifactor approach to modelling the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 188–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.034 Google Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1994). On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 59, 381–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02296131 Google Scholar
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, S. O. (2011). A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point likert scales. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 412–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.580697 Google Scholar
Leung, S. O., & Wong, P. M. (2008). A study on reliability and validity of Chinese Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (in Chinese). New Horizons in Education, 56, 62–69.Google Scholar
Leung, S. O., & Wu, H. P. (2013). Application of latent variable model in Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14, 400–413.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.810 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., & Nagengast, B. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological Assessment, 22, 366–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019225 Google Scholar
McKay, M. T., Boduszek, D., & Harvey, S. A. (2014). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A bifactor answer to a two-factor question? Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 654–660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.923436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motl, R. W., & DiStefano, C. (2002). Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and methods effects associated with negatively worded items. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 562–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_6 Google Scholar
Muthen, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02294210 Google Scholar
Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8 Google Scholar
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Medical Care, 16, 19–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7 Google Scholar
Sharratt, K., Boduszek, D., Jones, A., & Gallagher, B. (2014). Construct validity, dimensionality and factorial invariance of the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale: A bifactor modelling approach within a sample of children of prisoners. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 2, 228–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2014.47447 Google Scholar
Shek, D. T. L. (1995). Please don’t drop an item so quickly: A comment on Cheng and Hamid’s syntax incompatibility error. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81, 977–978. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 84–98.Google Scholar
Wang, J. C., Siegal, H. A., Falck, R. S., & Carlson, R. G. (2001). Factorial structure of Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale among crack-cocaine drug users. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 275–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0802_6 Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Kong, F., Huang, L., & Liu, J. (2015). Neural correlates of biased responses: The negative method effect in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is associated with right amygdala volume. Journal of Personality. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12185 Google Scholar
Wu, C.-H. (2008). An Examination of the wording effect in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among culturally Chinese people. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 535–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.5.535-552 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed