Method Effects on an Adaptation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Greek and the Role of Personality Traits

Abstract

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale is a balanced, 10-item scale designed to be unidimensional; however, research has repeatedly shown that its factorial structure is contaminated by method effects due to item wording. Beyond the substantive self-esteem factor, 2 additional factors linked to the positive and negative wording of items have been theoretically specified and empirically supported. Initial evidence has revealed systematic relations of the 2 method factors with variables expressing approach and avoidance motivation. This study assessed the fit of competing confirmatory factor analytic models for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale using data from 2 samples of adult participants in Cyprus. Models that accounted for both positive and negative wording effects via 2 latent method factors had better fit compared to alternative models. Measures of experiential avoidance, social anxiety, and private self-consciousness were associated with the method factors in structural equation models. The findings highlight the need to specify models with wording effects for a more accurate representation of the scale's structure and support the hypothesis of method factors as response styles, which are associated with individual characteristics related to avoidance motivation, behavioral inhibition, and anxiety.

Cognitive Abilities Explain Wording Effects in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

“…In this view, in addition to the focal construct of self-esteem negatively keyed items also capture a conceptually distinct trait representing a respondent’s response consistency independent of the scales’ content. In line with this assumption, wording effects in the RSES have been found to be stable across measurement occasions (Gana et al, 2013; Marsh et al, 2010; Michaelides, Koutsogiorgi, & Panayiotou, 2016; Motl & DiStefano, 2002) and subgroups (DiStefano & Motl, 2009; Lindwall et al, 2012; Michaelides, Zenger, et al, 2016; Salerno et al, 2017), they were identified in different language versions (Tomás et al, 2013; C. H. Wu, 2008; Y.…”

Investigating Response Heterogeneity in the Context of Positively and Negatively Worded Items by Using Factor Mixture Modeling

“…Finally, although the current study has discovered individual differences in answering positively and negatively worded items, it has not examined which variables are involved. As noted earlier, several potential predictors, including personality traits, cognitive ability, reading ability, and trait anxiety have been identified (Corwyn, 2000; de Jonge & Slaets, 2005; Gnambs, & Schroeders, 2017; Marsh, 1996; Michaelides et al, 2015; Quilty et al, 2006; Roszkowski & Soven, 2010; Tomás et al, 2013). Future research could incorporate such candidate variables in FMM analysis to determine which ones best predict response inconsistency.…”

“…Indeed, there is some evidence that individual differences may influence the observed relationship between positively and negatively worded items. Response inconsistency has been found to be correlated with certain personality constructs (de Jonge & Slaets, 2005; Hernández, Drasgow, & González-Romá, 2004; Michaelides, Koutsogiorgi, & Panayiotou, 2015; Quilty, Oakman, & Risko, 2006). Inconsistency was also found to be associated with low cognitive ability (Gnambs & Schroeders, 2017), low reading ability (Corwyn, 2000; Marsh, 1996), and trait anxiety (Tomás, Oliver, Galiana, Sancho, & Lila, 2013).…”

Is the Bifactor Model a Better Model or Is It Just Better at Modeling Implausible Responses? Application of Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

“…Almost universally, researchers find that a multidimensional model with two correlated factors (representing direction of wording) fits better than a “straw man” one-factor (or unidimensional) model (see Huang & Dong, 2012, for meta-analytic review). Significant debate continues, however, on whether those two factors represent distinct but highly correlated substantive dimensions of positive and negative self-appraisal (Goldsmith, 1986; Horan, DiStefano, & Motl, 2003; Kaplan & Pokorny, 1969; Michaelides, Koutsogiorgi, & Panayiotou, 2016; Owens, 1993, 1994) or are merely a direction of wording method artifact (Marsh, 1996; Tomas & Oliver, 1999) that needs to be controlled for.…”