The Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) is a self-concept instrument designed to measure seven components of self-concept derived from Shavelson's model. Separate factor analyses of responses by children (6 to 11 years of age) from four grade levels (Grades 2 to 5) all clearly identified the seven SDQ factors, and correlations among these factors were consistent with the hierarchical organization of self-concept hypothesized by Shavelson. However, several observations suggested that these factors become more distinct with age. Large sex differences for two factors (boys' self-concepts were higher in Physical Abilities; girls' were higher in Reading) and small sex differences for several other factors were consistent across different ages and consistent with previous findings with older children. There was a strikingly linear, negative relation between grade level and the total self-concept scores, the three academic self-concepts, and the two physical self-concepts, but not Relationship with Parents and Relationship with Peers. A separate examination of responses to negatively worded items demonstrated a substantial method/halo bias that was systematically related to grade level, arguing against their use on questionnaires for young children. These findings have important implications for the study of preadolescent self-concept and also support the construct validity of interpretations based on the SDQ and the Shavelson model.Self-concept is a hypothetical construct whose usefulness must be demonstrated by investigations of its construct validity. Within-network studies explore the multidimensionality of self-concept and attempt to demonstrate consistent, distinct, and theoretically defensible components. They typically employ factor analysis. Between-networks studies attempt to demonstrate a theoretically consistent (or at least logical) pattern of relationships between measures of self-concept and other constructs. These studies correlate self-concept indices with variables such as measures of ability/performance, self-concept ratings inferred by significant others (e.g., teachers, parents, peers), family background variables, behavioral observations, experimental manipulations, and other self-report measures.The authors would like to acknowledge the insightful criticism and helpful comments provided by Ray Debus on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

The study of dispositional differences in self-attributions has important implications for educational settings, but critical issues have been largely ignored in much attributional research. The purposes of this study are to clarify the distinction between dispositional and situational approaches to attribution research, to review particular issues that are important for the study of individual differences in self-attributions, to examine these issues with respect to results from a new self-attribution measure, and to demonstrate how self-attributions are related to dimensions of self-concept. Conclusions based on the literature review and empirical findings both demonstrate that (a) individual differences in self-attributions cannot be explained in terms of the bipolar dimensions that have been found in research that manipulates situational components of the attribution process (e.g., the internal-external, stable-unstable, and controllable-uncontrollable dimensions), (b) attributions for success and failure outcomes differ in ways that have not been recognized by attributional theorists, and (c) ability attributions (but perhaps not attributions to effort and external causes) are specific to particular areas of academic content. The results also demonstrate a clear and predictable pattern of relationships between dimensions of self-attribution and self-concept that supports the convergent and discriminant validity of responses in each of these areas.