Comparing the Psychometric Properties of a Scale Across Three Likert and Three Alternative Formats: An Application to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Overview

Journal Educ Psychol Meas

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2023 Jul 3

PMID 37398842

Authors

Xijuan Zhang

Linnan Zhou

Victoria Savalei

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Zhang and Savalei proposed an alternative scale format to the Likert format, called the Expanded format. In this format, response options are presented in complete sentences, which can reduce acquiescence bias and method effects. The goal of the current study was to compare the psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) in the Expanded format and in two other alternative formats, relative to several versions of the traditional Likert format. We conducted two studies to compare the psychometric properties of the RSES across the different formats. We found that compared with the Likert format, the alternative formats tend to have a unidimensional factor structure, less response inconsistency, and comparable validity. In addition, we found that the Expanded format resulted in the best factor structure among the three alternative formats. Researchers should consider the Expanded format, especially when creating short psychological scales such as the RSES.

Citing Articles

Psychometric benefits of self-chosen rating scales over given rating scales.

Kutscher T, Eid M Behav Res Methods. 2024; 56(7):7440-7464.

PMID: 38710987 PMC: 11362426. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02429-w.

References

Zhang X, Tse W, Savalei V . Improved Properties of the Big Five Inventory and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in the Expanded Format Relative to the Likert Format. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:1286. PMC: 6558198. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01286. View

van Sonderen E, Sanderman R, Coyne J . Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: let's learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One. 2013; 8(7):e68967. PMC: 3729568. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967. View

Savalei V, Brace J, Fouladi R . We need to change how we compute RMSEA for nested model comparisons in structural equation modeling. Psychol Methods. 2023; 29(3):480-493. DOI: 10.1037/met0000537. View

Marsh H . Positive and negative global self-esteem: a substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 70(4):810-9. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.810. View

Tafarodi R, Milne A . Decomposing global self-esteem. J Pers. 2002; 70(4):443-83. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6494.05017. View

Raskin R, Terry H . A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(5):890-902. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890. View

Falk C, Heine S, Takemura K, Zhang C, Hsu C . Are implicit self-esteem measures valid for assessing individual and cultural differences?. J Pers. 2013; 83(1):56-68. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12082. View

Zhang X, Savalei V . Improving the Factor Structure of Psychological Scales: The Expanded Format as an Alternative to the Likert Scale Format. Educ Psychol Meas. 2016; 76(3):357-386. PMC: 4849088. DOI: 10.1177/0013164415596421. View

Zhang X, Noor R, Savalei V . Examining the Effect of Reverse Worded Items on the Factor Structure of the Need for Cognition Scale. PLoS One. 2016; 11(6):e0157795. PMC: 4909292. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157795. View

10.

McKay M, Boduszek D, Harvey S . The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: a bifactor answer to a two-factor question?. J Pers Assess. 2014; 96(6):654-60. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2014.923436. View

11.

Scheier M, Carver C, Bridges M . Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994; 67(6):1063-78. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063. View

12.

Savalei V, Falk C . Recovering Substantive Factor Loadings in the Presence of Acquiescence Bias: A Comparison of Three Approaches. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 49(5):407-24. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2014.931800. View

13.

Bentler P . Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990; 107(2):238-46. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238. View

14.

Solis Salazar M . The dilemma of combining positive and negative items in scales. Psicothema. 2015; 27(2):192-200. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2014.266. View

15.

Hensley W, Roberts M . Dimensions of Rosenburg's self-esteem scale. Psychol Rep. 1976; 38(2):583-4. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1976.38.2.583. View

16.

Bowden C, Singh V, Thompson P, Gonzalez J, Katz M, Dahl M . Development of the bipolar inventory of symptoms scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007; 116(3):189-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00955.x. View

17.

Lindwall M, Barkoukis V, Grano C, Lucidi F, Raudsepp L, Liukkonen J . Method effects: the problem with negatively versus positively keyed items. J Pers Assess. 2012; 94(2):196-204. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2011.645936. View

18.

Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard P, Savalei V . When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012; 17(3):354-73. DOI: 10.1037/a0029315. View

19.

Robie C, Meade A, Risavy S, Rasheed S . Effects of Response Option Order on Likert-Type Psychometric Properties and Reactions. Educ Psychol Meas. 2022; 82(6):1107-1129. PMC: 9619315. DOI: 10.1177/00131644211069406. View

20.

Dueber D, Toland M, Lingat J, Love A, Qiu C, Wu R . To Reverse Item Orientation or Not to Reverse Item Orientation, That Is the Question. Assessment. 2021; 29(7):1422-1440. DOI: 10.1177/10731911211017635. View