A Revision of the Extended Version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status: An Identity Instrument for Use with Late Adolescents

Abstract

Previous work with the Extended Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS) has improved the assessment ability of the instrument. However, the interpersonal items were less consistent in ego identity classification than the ideological items. The interpersonal items were revised and, using a sample of 106 college students, tested to establish reliability and validity. The results from the revised EOM-EIS interpersonal and original ideological items were compared with scores on identity, intimacy, selfacceptance, authoritarian and social desirability scales. Convergent, discriminate, concurrent, and predictive validity and internal consistency (reliability) analyses demonstrate the interpersonal and ideological items can adequately measure identity status during late adolescence.

Identity Status of TESL Students in Malaysia

“…The questionnaire was adapted from the EOMEIS-2 by Bennion & Adams (1986). The students' age ranges from 17 to 20 years old.…”

“…Students who wish to be teachers should not be unsure of their plans. A survey was conducted among future English teachers by using a set of questionnaire adapted from the EOMEIS-2 by Bennion & Adams (1986). The findings of this study are pertinent to the lecturers teaching pre-service English teachers so that they are aware of the identity status of their students.…”

Forming a Professional Counselor Identity: The Impact of Identity Processing Style

“…General domains of identity commonly researched across populations include: (a) religious ideology, (b) political ideology, (c) life philosophy and values, (d) family relationships, (e) gender roles, (f) friendships, (g) romantic relationships, and (h) recreation (Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995;Bennion & Adams, 1986). Additional areas of focus often explored include ethnic and sexual identity domains (Degges-White & Meyers, 2005;Hoffman, 2004;Phinney, 1990).…”

The dynamics of personality and identity in adolescence

“…Similar to other identity measures like the Identity Status Interview (ISI; Marcia, 1966), the Extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego Identity Status (EOM-EIS; e.g., Bennion & Adams, 1986), and the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ; Balistreri et al, 1995), U-MICS allows identity dimensions to be assessed in the ideological domain (i.e., education) and the interpersonal domain (i.e., friendships). However, as the main aim of the current study is to examine change and stability in identity formation in general and not to assess differences between identity domains, identity dimensions will be assessed at a global level.…”

“…For that reason, Grotevant, Thorbecke, and Meyer (1982) extended Marcia's identity status paradigm into the interpersonal domain, tapping into the content areas of friendships, dating, and sex roles. A similar distinction between ideological and interpersonal domains has been adopted in several identity measures, such as the Extended version of the Objective Measure of Ego-Identity Status (EOM-EIS; e.g., Bennion & Adams, 1986), the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ; Balistreri, Busch-Rossnagel, & Geisinger, 1995), the Utrecht-Groningen Identity Development Scale (U-GIDS; Meeus, 1996), and the Utrecht Management of Identity Commitments Scale (U-MICS; .…”