14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Volume 10, No. 4, 2005, pp. 190–201 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x

Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales for Children

and Adolescents: A Review
Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson
Clinical Psychology Department, Unit 2, Gateway, Whackhouse Lane, Yeadon, Leeds LS19 7XY, UK. E-mail: richard.
butler@leedsmh.nhs.uk

There remains a flourishing interest in self esteem/self concept both in academic and clinical circles and
popular literature. This paper elaborates various notions of the self and discusses the principles underpinning
ways of measuring self esteem/self concept with children and adolescents. A review over the last 20 years
indicates a raft of scales currently employed. The 14 most frequently cited are considered, with the top six
measures and the latest British scale discussed in detail. The paper highlights issues and themes emerging from
a comprehensive analysis of these scales, with a conclusion framed around assisting the reader to make an
informed choice.

Keywords: Self concept; self esteem; children; adolescents; measures; review

Introduction
The notions of self concept and self esteem continue to
entertain the interest of psychologists in both clinical
and academic fields whilst also remaining a concept of
some importance to the general public. Given a positive
sense of self has been postulated to be central to the
adaptive functioning of the individual (Harter, 1990), a
vast array of literature has evolved offering the public
advice on enhancing their self esteem or the esteem of
their children.
Educational philosophy has been influenced by the
notion that children with good self esteem are inocula-
ted from a wide range of problems. It has been widely
considered that those with high self esteem act inde-
pendently, assume responsibility, tolerate frustration,
attempt new tasks with confidence and readily offer
assistance to others. Within academia, particularly
within social psychology, intense debate focuses on is-
sues of definition and aetiology, with over a thousand
published articles a year making reference to self es-
teem (Emler, 2001).
In a review of the clinical field, Emler (2001) suggests
those with low self esteem are likely to show depression,
become pregnant during teenage years, have suicidal
thoughts, experience unemployment (male), have eat-
ing disorders (female) and have difficulty in forming and
sustaining social relationships. In contrast, the weight
of evidence suggests those with low self esteem are not
more likely to commit crime, use or abuse illegal drugs,
drink alcohol, smoke to excess, abuse children or fail
academically. Emler summarises that those with low
self esteem treat themselves badly and may invite bad
treatment by others, but they tend not to treat others
badly.
It is thought that we are the only species that can self
reflect (Andrews, 1998). This implies a process by which
the individual is able to perceive of itself, for which
William James (1890) first proposed a distinction

2005 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
between the self as ‘I’ and the self as ‘me’. The self as ‘I’
is regarded as the subjective knower of the self,
responsible for notions of continuity (the self existing
over time), separateness (the self as distinct from oth-
ers) and reflection (consideration of the self by the self),
yet because of its nature has primarily fostered philo-
sophical or conceptual debate. The self as ‘me’, in con-
trast, refers to objective aspects of self, reflecting ways
people present themselves to others, and being more
observable has usually formed the basis of investigation
and measurement of self. This paper seeks to develop
an understanding of the notion of self and the termin-
ology employed; to review methods currently available
for measuring aspects of self with children and ado-
lescents; and explore the benefits and limitations of
such scales.
The literature on self is beset with confusing ter-
minology. There is a sense that common language no-
tions of self esteem are sometimes substituted for more
precise, explicit, scientific definitions, creating the
illusion of a universally accepted, well defined pheno-
menological entity (Wells & Marwell, 1976). The esoteric
description and inter-changeability of terminology has
led to concepts such as self image and self esteem being
used synonymously (Hughes, 1984) and the expansion
of a plethora of ill defined and confounding labels such
as self worth, self belief, self concept, self awareness
and self regard being employed (McGuire, 1994). Harter
(1983) suggests the terms used to describe the self are
simplistic prefixes rather than legitimate constructs,
whilst Wylie (1979) has argued the wide use of termin-
ology has rendered much of the literature on self as
un-interpretable.
Many definitions of self esteem and self concept have
been proposed, yet there remains noticeably little
agreement in nomenclature. Given self esteem and self
concept are hypothetical constructs generated to sum-
marise certain features of human behaviour (Wells &
Marwell, 1976), it is perhaps unsurprising to find an

Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales
absence of a universal definition. However, evident
themes within the literature suggest the following no-
tions with regards to self: (1) the global over-arching
view of self may be regarded as ‘self concept’ (Shavelson
& Bolus, 1982; Byrne, 1983); (2) the evaluative aspect
relates to worth and ‘self esteem’ (Blascovich & Tomaka,
1991; Butler & Green, 1998); (3) the descriptive facets
referring to characteristics available to an individual in
defining self may be understood as ‘self image’ (Butler,
2000); and (4) a notion of competency in terms of how
effective a person considers they will be in undertaking
a task, has been referred to as ‘self efficacy’ (Bandura,
1977; McCoy, 1977; Butler, 2000).
Principles of self esteem/self concept measures
Despite a diversity of conceptual and definitional opin-
ion over self construing, there are some principles
adopted by most scales in seeking to determine self
esteem, self concept and self image:
• Self report. With self esteem considered to be both a
phenomenological process where the protagonist is
aware of the judgement placed upon him or her self;
and a reflexive process where the individual per-
ceives characteristics of self, self report is, by far, the
most frequently used methodology for studying the
self. However, as Brinthaupt and Erwin (1992)
suggest, self reports are not free from problematic
issues. They require verbal competence; necessitate
self awareness (although the reflective nature of the
exercise can facilitate awareness); are potentially
influenced by the person’s affective and motivational
state, with the desire to appear competent and need
for approval being particularly important inter-
vening influences; may ignore culturally different
philosophies where collective aspects of self are
more relevant than individual notions of self; and
are affected by development, with children’s self re-
ports shifting from specific, behavioural and phys-
ical characteristics to general abstract psychological
characteristics
• A focus on assessing self as ‘me’. The self as ‘I’ with a
subjective reference to continuity, distinctiveness,
reflection and agency (Damon & Hart, 1982; James,
1961) is notably difficult to quantify and assess.
James suggested inquiry into the ‘I’ was best left to
philosophy. It is the objective, public self that indi-
viduals tend to describe when asked about them-
selves (Hart & Damon, 1988), which is reflected in
the way most self concept scales focus on the self as
‘me’.
• A focus on psychological notions about self. Many
authors consider the structure of self to be hierar-
chical, often conceptually derived rather than
empirically discovered (Kelly, 1955; Harter, 1999;
Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). Actions and behaviour
are considered to be at the base (sub-ordinate)
linked to psychological constructs and, at the apex,
general super-ordinate core constructs. As Harter
(1999) suggests, the cardinal assumption under-
lying many of the hierarchical models is that people
organise or structure the information they have
about themselves into predictable categories that
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
191
they then relate to one another as higher-order
clusters. Most scales of self concept appeal to psy-
chological constructs (e.g. social or emotional as-
pects) rather than sub-ordinate or super-ordinate
core constructs.
• An assumption of variability. Since notions of self
remain a personal construction, there will inevitably
be variability in how individuals perceive of them-
selves.
• An assumption that self esteem is quantifiable and
usually deduced through summing evaluations
across salient attributes of self or personality
(Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).
Self esteem/self concept measures
The range and variety of self concept/self esteem scales
is vast. Blascovitch and Tomaka (1991) suggested that
at least 200 measures of self esteem have been devel-
oped, yet most measures, according to Wylie (1961),
tend to be short lived and of debatable quality. Hattie
and Marsh (1996) outlined some minimum criteria for
assessing the quality of such scales and felt most
lacked ‘credibility’. Further, Keith and Bracken (1996)
suggest the plethora of self concept scales that have
been developed are one-offs, used in idiosyncratic re-
search studies and appear only fleetingly in the pro-
fessional literature.
A search of PsycINFO database, focused on meas-
ures of self for children and adolescents over the last
20 years, was undertaken, probing for key word mat-
ches for self concept, self image, self worth, self es-
teem, self competence, self confidence, self efficacy,
self construing, and self perception with assessment,
measurement, scale, literature review and meta ana-
lysis. The search was limited to children and adoles-
cents aged 17 or under, although the review includes
studies that used a range of ages. Each abstract was
examined to determine the measures used for asses-
sing the self, together with the author, date, national-
ity and age of the sample. A total of 1426 articles
referring to a measurement of the self were ascer-
tained. Those that focused on facets of self such as self
efficacy (e.g. Student Self Concept Scale), specific as-
pects (e.g. Dimensions of Self-Concept Scale and Col-
lective Self Esteem Scale), or were part of a larger
personality scale (e.g. Janis-Field Feelings of Inad-
equacy Scale) were excluded from further analysis.
Information was thus collated from the remaining
1226 articles. Table 1 depicts the 14 most frequently
cited self concept scales.
The Piers-Harris Children’s SCS was the most fre-
quently reported measure, with only 4 scales reported
on 50 or more occasions. All, apart from Marsh’s Self
Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1988), which is
Australian in origin, were developed and published in
the USA. Of the 14 measures, only Piers-Harris SCS
covers a full spectrum of childhood years, although
three Harter measures effectively embrace 5 to
18 years, with a version for college students extending
the age limit to 23 years. Some of the popular scales
(Rosenberg SES and Tennessee SCS) focus primarily on
the adolescent years, with extensions in adulthood. Few
scales explicitly define a theoretical base, although a
 Table 1. Properties of the most frequently employed self concept/self esteem scales for children and adolescents 192

Publication dates &

Measure Freq Ages range revisions Theoretical position1/model2/approach Norms

Piers-Harris Children’s 433 7–18 yrs Piers (1969, 1984, 1996), Theory ¼ Not explicit 1,183 public school children
Self Concept Scale Piers & Herzberg (2002) Model ¼ Initially uni-dimensional, from Pennsylvania (1969):
more recently multi-dimensional. 1,387 students from districts
Linked to homothetic model throughout the US (2002)
Approach ¼ Phenomenological
Self Esteem Scale 263 11+ yrs Rosenberg (1965) Theory ¼ Not explicit 5,024 high school students
Model ¼ uni-dimensional from 10 schools (1965)
Approach ¼ Phenomenological
Tennessee Self 155 13–68 yrs Fitts (1965); Roid & Theory ¼ Not explicit 626 subjects aged 12–68 yrs
Concept Scale Fitts (1988); Fitts & Model ¼ Post hoc multidimensional from ‘various parts of the US’
Warren (1996) and Taxonomic model (1965). These norms were
Approach ¼ Phenomenological then tested against further
samples for subsequent
Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson

revisions of the scale

Multidimensional 50 9–19 yrs Bracken (1992) Theory ¼ Behavioural (& Social 2,501 children aged 9–19 yrs
Self Concept Scale Interactionalist) from 4 major US regions (1992)
Model ¼ multidimensional and
Taxonomic model
Approach ¼ Phenomenological
Self Esteem Inventory 29 8–15 yrs Coopersmith (1967, Theory ¼ Not explicit but amalgam Original sample 44 males &
1975, 1981, 2002) of cognitive & affective notions 43 females aged 10–11 yrs.
Model ¼ uni-dimensional, Current norms for School
general factor Form based on Kimball (1973)
Approach ¼ Phenomenological 7,593 children aged 9–13 yrs,
but all Ss residing in one state.
Adult Form 226 college students
aged 16–34 yrs from one region
Self Perception Profile 16 8–15 yrs Harter (1985) Theory ¼ Not explicit (although 1,553 lower to middle class children,
for Children Originally published in appears to be influenced by aged 8–13 yrs from Colorado (1985)
1982 as the Perceived James, 1980/1983 & Cooley, 1902)
Competence Scale Model ¼ Multidimensional
Approach ¼ Phenomenological
HARE Self Esteem Scale 11 School age Hare (1975) Theory ¼ Not explicit 115 males and 137 females, aged
children Model ¼ Not explicit 10–13 yrs (1975)
(10+ yrs) Approach ¼ Phenomenological
Self Perception Profile 10 14–18 yrs Harter (1988) Theory ¼ Not explicit (although 651 aged 13–16 yrs, lower to
for Adolescents (although appears to be influenced by middle class adolescents from
norms for James, 1980/1983 & Cooley, 1902) Colorado (1988)
12–13 yrs) Model ¼ Multidimensional
Approach ¼ Phenomenological
State Self Esteem Scale 9 Heatherton & Theory ¼ Not explicit 3 separate studies totalling,
Polivy (1991) Model ¼ Influenced by affective 534 females and 303 males,
aspects attached to Janis & Field aged between 17–84, who
multidimensional notions were mainly undergraduates
Approach ¼ Phenomenological and volunteers from Toronto (1991)

14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales 193

number were influenced by the multidimensional model

56 kindergartners, 65 6 yr-olds, and

45 male and 45 female preschoolers,

44 7 yr-olds. Predominantly white

1,171 children from 4 ‘geographic
of Shavelson, Hubner and Stanton (1976).

State & Denver University (1986)

Grades 6–12 yrs in Texas (1996)
3,562 Australians, 303 English &
This paper considers the six most frequently used
standardised norm referenced measures for children

300 students from Colorado

90 males and 90 females in
and adolescents, coupled with the latest British publi-

and middle class (1984)

471 Canadians (1988)

cation. Table 2 summarises basic details and Table 3
Norms

area groups’ (1977)

the psychometric properties of the reviewed scales.

Whilst acknowledging various forms of validity, con-
struct validity in terms of both convergent and discri-
minant validity were selected as prime means of
assessing scale structure.

Self Concept Scale (SCS) (Piers, 1969, 1984, 1996;

Piers & Herzberg, 2002)
Piers defined self concept as ‘a relatively stable set of
Model ¼ Amalgam of behavioural & developmental
Model ¼ Multidimensional - Shavelson et al (1976)

self attitudes reflecting both a description and an eval-

influenced by James, 1980/1983 & Cooley, 1902)

influenced by James, 1980/1983 & Cooley, 1902)

uation of one’s own behaviour and attitudes’ (Piers,
Theory ¼ Not explicit (although appears to be

Theory ¼ Not explicit (although appears to be

Theoretical position1/model2/approach

1984). ‘Self concept’ is regarded as synonymous with

self esteem, and although originally conceived as uni-
dimensional, psychometric analysis indicates the scale
is multi-factorial, with up to six clusters, now called
domains. Originally consisting of 80 items the latest
Approach ¼ Phenomenological

Approach ¼ Phenomenological

Approach ¼ Phenomenological

Approach ¼ Phenomenological
Model ¼ Based on Piers-Harris

version (Piers-Harris 2), constructed from a pool of

Model ¼ Multidimensional

Model ¼ Multidimensional

statements elicited from children, has 60 items. The

notions; Uni-dimensional
Approach ¼ Observation

scale consists of 25 positively and 35 negatively

Theory ¼ Behavioural
Theory ¼ Not explicit

Theory ¼ Not explicit

phrased items presented as first person declarative

statements (e.g. ‘I have nice hair’; ‘I am dumb about
most things’), where children respond to each item with
either ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Self Esteem Scale (SES) (Rosenberg, 1965)

Rosenberg (1979) defined self concept as ‘an organisa-
tion of parts, pieces and components … hierarchically
Explicit theoretical position underpinning the original scale. 2As referred to in Byrne (1996).

organised and interrelated in complex ways... with self

Zaichkowsky (1977)
Publication dates &

esteem being the totality of the individual’s thoughts

and feelings having reference to himself as an object’.
McDaniel (1986)
revisions

Harter (1986)

Although self is perceived as hierarchical, self esteem is

Harter & Pike
(1983, 1984)

Marsh (1988)
Martinek &

considered a judgement about the self as a whole. The

Neeman &

SES is thus regarded as a uni-dimensional measure of

global feelings of self worth, employing 10 statements,
although there is a 6-item short form for those under
11 years. The scale is constructed of 5 positively and 5
negatively phrased items composed exclusively of first
Two versions:

person evaluative statements about the self (e.g. ‘at

Ages range

(2) 5–7 yrs

(1) <5 yrs,

times I think I am no good at all’; ‘I wish I could have

17–23 yrs
6–13 yrs

7–13 yrs

6–12 yrs

more respect for myself’) where individuals respond on

a 4-point Likert scale (‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly dis-
agree’), although others have employed a 6-point scale
(Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990). Norms for British
secondary school students up to age of 16 or 17 years
Freq

have recently been published (Bagley & Mallick, 2001)

8

Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS) (Fitts, 1965;

Roid & Fitts, 1988; Fitts & Warren, 1996)
Self Description Questionnaire
Competence and Acceptance

The TSCS is described as depicting a ‘self picture’ of the

Concept Scale for Children

Inferred Self Concept Scale

Pictorial Scale of Perceived
Martinek-Zaichkowsky Self

Self Perception Profile for

individual. The original items were drawn from a large

pool of self-descriptive items from other self concept
for Young Children
Table 1. Continued

measures and written self-descriptions of patients and

College Students

non-patients, which were then categorised by seven

clinical psychologists (Fitts & Warren, 1996). Originally
(Fitts, 1965), the scale had two forms (Counselling, and
Measure

Clinical & Research), although the 1988 revision added

a further scale (Faking Good) from existing items. In the
1996 revision, a number of scores and both the
1
 14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
194 Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson

Counselling and Clinical & Research Forms were

self image; self esteem;

Response: 7 pt rating -

SI ¼ 0–72 SE ¼ sum of
omitted. The latest version has been redesigned with

how I am - how I’d

Multi-dimensional
Self image profile
two scales (Inconsistent Responding and Academic/

Self descriptions
Child generated
Butler

Work) added. The scale has an Adult form consisting of

discrepancy
self aspects
82 items, and a Child form with 76 items, both having

like to be
an option of being shortened to 20 items. The TSCS has
25 items
7–16 yrs
British

42 negatively phrased and 34 positively phrased items

2001

on the Child Form, and is composed of first person self-

descriptive statements (e.g. ‘I am a nobody’, ‘I feel good
most of the time’), with a 5-point response format
Response: - choice - rate
Contrasting statements
Self perception profile

(‘always false’ to ‘always true’).

5 specific domains
how ‘true for me’

Multi-dimensional
Author generated

Global self worth;

Harter

Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS)

Score 6–24 for

each domain
(Bracken, 1992)
American

36 items

Self concept is defined as ‘a multidimensional and

8–15 yrs

context-dependent learned behavioural pattern that

1985

reflects an individual’s evaluations of past behaviours

and experiences, influences an individual’s current
behaviours, and predicts an individual’s future behav-
Uni-dimensional (variety
Self esteem inventory

iours’ (Bracken, 1992). The MSCS is a multidimen-

Response: ‘like me’

25 item short form

of clusters found)

sional measure of adolescent’s (aged 9–19 years) self

Coopersmith

Global self esteem

Author generated
Short statements

concept. Items were developed in line with domains that

or ‘unlike me’

have emerged from research as important, and how

Score 0–50

children’s behaviours related to these domains. The

American

50 items
8–15 yrs

authors removed items deemed inappropriate, before

1981

piloting the scale on a number of individuals. The scale

is composed of 150 items, with the option of using any
of the six subscales individually for specific domain
scale – ‘Strongly agree’

interests. It consists of 82 positively phrased and 62

to ‘Strongly disagree’
Response: 4 pt rating

Global self concept:

negatively phrased items written from a ‘personal’ and

6 specific domains

Multi-dimensional
Author generated
Self concept scale

Short statements

‘other’ perspective (e.g. ‘I am not accepted by people

Subscales can be
Bracken

administered

Range 66–135

who know me’, ‘My parents care about my future’), with

individually

a 4-point Likert scale response format (‘Strongly agree’

150 items
American
9–19 yrs

to ‘Strongly disagree’).
1992

The Self Esteem Inventory (SEI) (Coopersmith,

1967, 1975, 1981, 2002)
‘always false’ to ‘always true’
Response: 5 pt rating scale –

In defining self esteem as ‘the evaluation a person

Self descriptive statements

makes, and customarily maintains... indicating the

extent to which a person believes him or herself com-
Global self concept; 9
Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of the self concept/self esteem scales

Tennessee

petent, successful, significant or worthy’, Coopersmith

20 item short form

Multi-dimensional
Author generated
Self concept scale

specific domains

(1981) implies both attitudinal and evaluative aspects

Range of scores

of self. Self esteem is evaluated across four contexts,

although a unitary concept is assumed. The SEI is
American
13–68 yrs
82 items

regarded as a uni-dimensional measure, although

analysis fails to support either a uni-dimensional
1988

structure or the four contexts. The original scale com-

prised the School Form (1967) for ages 8–15 years and a
Response: 4 pt rating
scale re ‘agreement’

later development – the Adult Form (1975) - designed

(2 clusters found)
Global self esteem
Author generated

for individuals over 16 years. The School Form consists

6 item short form
for under 11 yrs
Self esteem scale

Short statements

Uni-dimensional
Rosenberg

of 50 items selected on the basis of face validity, with a

25-item short form also available. The scale consists of
Score 0–40
American

18 positively phrased and 32 negatively phrased items,

10 items
11+ yrs

composed of declarative self descriptive statements (e.g.

1965

‘my parents expect too much of me’; ‘kids pick on me

very often’) with individuals responding ‘Like me’ or
‘Unlike me’ to each item.
Response: ‘yes’ or ‘no’

Global self concept; 6

(6 clusters found)
Author generated
Self concept scale

specific domains

Self Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) (Harter,

Short statements

Uni-dimensional

1985)
Piers-Harris

Score 0–60

Harter (1999) considers the structure of self to be both

American

60 items
7–18 yrs

multi-dimensional and hierarchical, and seeks to

2002

measure both facets through tapping specific domains

and a global measure of self worth, all constructed by
 Table 3. Psychometric characteristics of the self concept/self esteem scales1

Reliability Construct validity

Factor analysis Internal consistency Test-retest Convergent validity Discriminant validity

Piers-Harris Self Concept 10 factors emerged with Total score ¼ .91 A number of studies .85 (Coopersmith); Locus of control (.35);
Scale for Children (2002) 6 being interpreted: Domains ¼ .74 ).81 are reported, e.g. For .51 to .61 (Tennessee) Children’s Manifest
a later study confirmed 2 wks (N ¼ 182) .69; For Anxiety Scale (.54 to .69)
the original 6 factors. 10 wks (N ¼ 173) .75
Others found strong
support for 3 of the
factors; the recent
revision (2002)
supports 6 factors
Rosenberg2 Self Esteem Data indicates 1 .77 to .88 reported For 1 wk (N ¼ 259) .82; .55 (Coopersmith), .72 Scholastic Aptitude Test
Scale (1965) factor (O’Brien, 1985) (No estimates reported For 2 wks (N ¼ 28) .85; (Lerner Self Esteem verbal ().06), Anxiety ().64),
and 2 factors (Dobson for original sample) For 7 wks (N ¼ 990) .63 Scale), .79 (General-Self Depression ().59), Anomie ().43)
et al., 1979) subscale of SDQ-III), .64
(Self Concept subscale
of Affective Perception
Inventory)
Tennessee Self Concept No data reported, but Total sample ¼ .66 to Total sample (N ¼ 81) Total Self Concept Score No data given
Scale: 2 Child Version (1996) factors imposed from .92 (median .73) Total Self Concept .66 (Piers-Harris)
the Adult TSCS:2 Score .72. Range is
.55 to .83 (1 wk)
Bracken Self Concept Emergence of 6 factors Total sample ¼ .98 For 4 wks - Total .73 (Coopersmith); .85 Two small groups of children
Scale (1992) corresponding to (range .97).99); scale ¼ .90; Subscales ¼ (Piers-Harris); .69 (SDQ,I); previously identified as
6 subscales Subscales ¼ .87 to .97 .73 to .81 and .80 (SDQ,II). having low self concept
Coopersmith Self Esteem 9 factors emerged Total sample ¼ .87 to .92 For 5 wks (N ¼ 50) .88; No data given Lorge-Thorndike IQ (.30)
Inventory (1981) from utilising 18 For 1 yr (N ¼ 104) .64;
factor analyses, For 3 yrs (N ¼ 380) .64
other have shown and (N ¼ 56) .70
4 and 5 factors
Harter Self Perception Revealed 5 factors Global Self-Worth ¼ .78 to No data given Expressed through factor No data given
Profile for Children (1985) corresponding to .84; Subscales ¼ .71 to .86 analysis – although sample
5 subscales (a 4 sizes not reported
factor solution was
obtained in 2 samples
of 3 & 4th graders)
Butler Self Image Profiles - SIP-C ¼ Revealed 7 SIP-C ¼ Positive & Negative No data given SIP-C ¼ SE: ).24; SIP+ve: .28; No data given
SIP-C & SIP-A (2001) factors SIP-A ¼ Self-image ¼ .69 SIP-A ¼ SIP-ve: ).28 (Harter) SIP-A ¼
Revealed 10 factors Positive SI ¼ .69 & SE: ).28; SIP+ve: .29;
Negative SI ¼ .79 SIP-ve: ).20 (Harter)
1
Information based on latest manual data.
Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales

2
Information derived from Keith & Bracken (1996), Blascovich & Tomaka (1991) and Byrne (1996).
195

14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

196 Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson
the author. Granleese and Joseph (1994) comment that
measures of global self worth remain highly stable over
time in contrast to domain-specific measures. The
SPPC is a revision of the Perceived Competence Scale
(Harter, 1982, 1983) with the incorporation of two
additional subscales relating to physical appearance
and behavioural conduct and the re-naming of some
sub-scales. Modification of the scale’s name reflected a
conceptual move from emphasis on competence to the
child’s perception of themselves in different contexts.
The SPPC has 30 items and, given Harter’s develop-
mental notion of increasing domains with age, she has
constructed separate scales for both younger children
(Harter & Pike, 1983, 1984) and adolescents (Harter
1988). Recently, in accordance with Austin and Joseph
(1996), two further domains (peer victimisation and
bullying behaviour) may be attached to the original
scale when considered appropriate. The scale is con-
structed around 5 specific domains (social, physical
appearance, athletic competence, behavioural conduct,
and academic ability) and a measure of self worth with
each domain consisting of 6 questions. The unique
format presents the respondent with pairs of state-
ments, to which they are invited to choose which best
describes them, and then to rate the extent of agree-
ment with ‘sort of true’ or ‘really true’. The SPPC also
has an additional scale that reveals the importance of
each domain for each individual child.
Self Image Profiles (SIP-C; SIP-A) (Butler, 2001)
Butler and Green (1998) advocated a distinction be-
tween notions of self, proposing that self image, being a
descriptive aspect of self, may be defined as ‘how an
individual thinks about him or herself’, whereas self
esteem, being an evaluative aspect of self, can be de-
fined as ‘how an individual judges him or herself along
dimensions considered important’. The SIP is founded
on the theoretical principles of Personal Construct
Theory (Kelly, 1955; Butler & Green, 1998) and the
developmental and organisational aspects of self pro-
posed by Harter (1999). The structure of self is con-
sidered to be both multidimensional and hierarchical
with individuals describing themselves through verba-
lised self representations across a series of domains
such as appearance, social behaviour and sporting
competence.
Both the child and adolescent SIP have 25 items, 12
of a positive nature, 12 of a negative tone and one
neutral item, presented as brief self descriptions where
respondents are invited to undertake two ratings for
each item (how they consider themselves to be; and how
they would like to be), which generates both a score for
self image (summation of the first rating) and self es-
teem (operationally defined as the discrepancy between
the two ratings). Other novel features include child/
adolescent generated items and concurrent visual
feedback for the respondent. Because the construction
of a scale for use by young people requires recognition
of their cognitive development, their ability to under-
stand certain concepts and their language skills, items
for the SIP were child/adolescent generated. Samples of
children and adolescents were invited to describe
themselves in three ways, and the most frequently eli-
cited descriptions formed the items on the scale. With
regards to feedback, during completion of the SIP, the
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
individual has an ongoing visual profile of the evalua-
tions he or she makes with respect to both self image
and self esteem.
Issues in relation to self esteem/self concept
measures
Critique of the seven reviewed self esteem/self concept
measures highlights a range of conceptual and
methodological issues of relevance to clinicians wishing
to assess young people’s self construing. The ‘termin-
ology’ accompanying a scale may not accurately reflect
content, with ‘self concept’ being a case in point.
Generally considered as an over-arching term encom-
passing many facets of the self, including affective,
behavioural and cognitive constituents, self concept
may arguably be gauged by the Tennessee SCS and
Bracken MSCS, which encompass a broad vista of self
characteristics, yet Piers-Harris SCS, although des-
cribed as a measure of self concept, appears to specif-
ically measure self esteem. Scales, as might be expected,
reflect subtly different facets of self functioning. A gen-
eral notion of ‘self worth’ is derived from Rosenberg SES,
Bracken MSCS and one domain of Harter SPPC; an
evaluation of ‘self esteem’ is deduced from Piers-Harris
SCS, Coopersmith SEI, Tennessee SCS and Butler SIP;
‘self competence’ from 5 domains of Harter SPPC; and an
evaluation of ‘self image’ acquired from the Butler SIP.
With many scales there is a noticeable absence of
information about ‘theoretical stance’, although mul-
tidimensionality, as a theoretical structure, is acknow-
ledged, directly or implicitly by Piers-Harris SCS and
Bracken MSCS (both employing Shavelson et al.’s
(1976) model), Tennessee SCS, Harter SPPC and Butler
SIP. Keith and Bracken (1996) suggest the psycho-
metrics of self concept measurement should improve
where authors incorporate a model as a term of refer-
ence. Only the Butler SIP explicitly frames the measure
within a theoretical stance, drawing on principles from
personal construct theory, in which items reflect
youngsters’ constructions of themselves with their
views being treated with credulity.
Many scales were designed with ‘research and/or
screening’ as their primary purpose. However, more
recent developments and revisions allude to scales
being employed clinically. The Tennessee SCS and
Piers-Harris SCS-2 provide details of clinical applica-
bility and interpretive guidelines and Harter (1999)
notes the importance of examining individual profiles in
clinical settings, based on the premise that individuals
attach idiosyncratic and meaningful importance to dif-
ferent facets of self. The Butler SIP provides a ‘clinically
relevant’ profile that identifies areas in which the
respondent feels dissatisfied and committed to change.
Dimensions upon which the two ratings (‘how I am’ and
‘ideal’) are discrepant become the focus of elaboration
and therapeutic intervention (Butler, 2001).
Except for the Butler SIP, all other scales have been
developed and published in the USA with American
norms. Only rarely has normative data been acquired
for populations outside the country of origin, the one
exception being Bagley and Mallick (2001) who derived
normative data for the Rosenberg SES in British ado-
lescents aged between 12–19 years. Scales have tended
to be normed on geographically limited samples, with

Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales
potential problems in generalisability. Rosenberg SES
sampled from one state, Coopersmith SEI from one
university in northern California, Harter SPPC enrolled
1500 pupils from schools in Colorado, whilst Butler SIP
engaged children and adolescents from a range of
schools with differing socio-cultural populations in a
major city in the north of England. More geographically
diverse norms are now available for the Piers-Harris
SCS-2 with nationwide norms and Bracken MSCS with
a nationally representative sample closely matching the
1990 census on gender, race and ethnicity.
There are variations in how scales conceptually ad-
dress the notion of ‘dimensionality’. Theoretically, the
Rosenberg SES and Coopersmith SEI are considered
uni-dimensional scales, assessing primarily general
feelings about one’s self, or overarching characteristics
of the person. Coopersmith (1981) was a major propo-
nent of the notion that self esteem is global in nature,
suggesting measures are based on an additive model
where response to items across a range of arenas con-
cerning judgements of self are pooled to arrive at one
score. Rosenberg (1965) acknowledged multi-dimen-
sionality but opted to measure a general sense of self
worth. However, as Table 2 illustrates, factor analysis,
even of proposed uni-dimensional scales, tends to show
the emergence of at least two factors, supporting the
multifaceted proposal. The Piers-Harris SCS, Harter
SPPC, Tennessee SCS, Bracken MSCS and Butler SIP
are considered theoretically to be multidimensional
scales where self esteem is thought to be composed of a
set of self evaluations specific to different aspects, fac-
ets, domains or dimensions of self (e.g. social; physical;
intellectual). Harter (1999) suggests that if the issue is
considered within a hierarchical context, then both a
general sense of self worth (at the apex) and evaluations
across a range of specific domains (lower in the hier-
archy) are feasible. Whether the individual experiences
their self in the way psychologists propose, or how
psychometric analysis suggests, however, remains
open to conjecture.
For most scales, items are generally ‘author gener-
ated’. Rosenberg SES presented no rationale, except
face validity, for the choice of items, whereas Cooper-
smith SEI sought the opinion of five psychologists over
selection. Harter SPPC failed to disclose how items were
generated but they are structured in a way suggesting
the author’s direct involvement. Bracken MSCS is
composed of items reflecting six domains the authors
claim as important in the concept of self: affect, family,
social, physical, academic and competence. The Ten-
nessee SCS vaguely refers to a large pool of items and
included in those were items ‘derived from written self-
descriptions of patients and non-patients’. Brinthaupt
and Erwin (1992) showed that very few (4%) self-
descriptions given by students could be categorised in
terms of the original Piers-Harris SCS items, either in
terms of vocabulary or meaning, raising a concern over
appropriateness. Self esteem scales have been criticised
as being too experimenter determined, not allowing
children to specify areas that compose their self con-
cept, and in sympathy with this view, Hughes (1984)
proposed that only instruments that allow individuals
to provide their own descriptions of their self perception
should be considered as measures of self concept. Items
for the Butler SIP were, in sympathy with such a view,
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
197
generated by children and selected by frequency of eli-
citation to represent commonly held ways that individ-
uals describe themselves. The ‘language of anchors’
inevitably varies across scales. The Rosenberg SES and
Bracken MSCS employ ‘strongly agree – strongly dis-
agree’; the Butler SIP ‘not at all – very much so’; the
Harter SPPC ‘sort of true – really true’; whilst the Ten-
nessee SCS favoured ‘always false – always true’. Byrne
(1983) found the Coopersmith SEI anchors (‘like me –
unlike me’) difficult to understand for many high school
students.
Clusters, aspects or domains considered to be con-
stituents of self esteem have also generally been selec-
ted by authors, often without theoretical linkages and
imposed on the self structure. Coopersmith SEI selec-
ted social, academic, family and personal experience;
Harter SPPC chose scholastic, social, athletic, appear-
ance, and behaviour, with sparse discussion over
development or the rationale for the selected domains.
The Tennessee SCS was adapted from the adult version
by changing wording without checking with children
themselves. Psychometrically, few domains have been
demonstrated to be co-terminus with a factor analysis,
or indeed what individuals consider make up self con-
cept. In contrast, the Bracken MSCS is composed of six
factors corresponding to the six scales, whilst the Butler
SIP has Aspect of Self scores (7 for SIP-C; 10 for SIP-A)
determined through factor analytic structure.
Although the Rosenberg SES and Tennessee SCS
essentially tap the perspective of adolescence, other
scales span both childhood and teenage years. With age
arises an increase in differentiation and understanding
of the self, leading to greater multidimensionality and
organisation of the hierarchy (Harter, 1999; Butler,
2001). Harter (1999) suggests that it is not until ‘middle
childhood’ that individuals make global judgements of
their worth as a person as well as provide specific self-
evaluations across a variety of domains. With this in
view, it seems out of place to assume one scale is
appropriate for the age span from childhood through
adolescence. Both the Harter SPPC and Butler SIP have
developed separate scales for different age bands and
Harter and Pike (1984), with their Pictorial Scale, have
sought to cover children younger than 7 years.
Neither Rosenberg nor Coopersmith referred to ‘gen-
der’ or ‘ethnicity’ in their sampling procedures. The
Butler SIP provides norms for both male and female but
not ethnicity. The sample for the Harter SPPC com-
prised 90% Caucasian with no details on the remaining
10%, whilst the Tennessee SCS developed a represen-
tative US sample comprising 72% white, 13% black and
8.5% Hispanic. Both the Bracken MSCS and Piers-
Harris SCS-2 standardised on both gender and ethni-
city, with samples fairly closely representative of the
USA population census.
Current scales are predominantly of Western origin
taking little account of ‘cultural philosophies’. Western
and Eastern cultures vary in how the self is defined and
the criteria against which the self is estimated. Western
culture tends to champion individuality, with the self
construed as independent, bounded, stable, internal
and private and typically characterised by notions such
as physical appearance and achievement, with which
the Harter SPPC domains are classic examples. Non-
Western cultures, in contrast, consider the self

198 Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson
primarily in relation to others and specific social con-
texts. Self is viewed as inter-dependent connected with
the social context and remaining flexible, variable,
external and public (Markus & Kitayama, 1999).
Given scales are employed with sometimes quite
young children, length of time to complete may arise as
a salient issue. The Rosenberg SES is the shortest (10
items) with the Bracken MSCS the longest (150 items)
scale. What might be considered missing with brevity is
comprehensiveness. Wells and Marwell (1976) make
the point that erring towards scales with a greater
number of items fosters more thorough sampling from
the domain of possible descriptions, producing a more
heterogeneous and representative instrument with
increased validity and generality.
The acquisition of items for scales has relied pre-
dominantly on verbal techniques. Wells and Marwell
(1976) contend that virtually all forms of self esteem
measurement involve elicited verbal self presentation
and consist of descriptive adjectives, phrases or sen-
tences. Multi-word descriptions may involve a complex,
multifaceted evaluation that can be conceptually diffi-
cult for children (e.g. ‘I handle my personal business
responsibly’ – Bracken MSCS; ‘I am happy with who I
am’ – Tennessee SCS), whereas single adjectives may be
subject to equivocal semantic interpretation. Readabil-
ity of items is clearly an apposite consideration with
young people. Occasionally the language is contentious
in terms of impact (e.g. ‘I hate myself’, ‘I am a sick
person’ – Tennessee SCS), culturally dependent (e.g. ‘I
am assertive when I need to be – Bracken MSCS,
‘Sometimes when I am not feeling well, I get cranky’ –
Tennessee SCS); inappropriate (‘I feel desired by mem-
bers of the opposite sex’ – Bracken MSCS) or ambiguous
(e.g. ‘My life is unstable’ – Bracken MSCS). Wylie (1989)
hints at the validity of an open-ended approach in
yielding unique views about the self, encouraging peo-
ple to express how they see themselves in their own
ways. Development of the Butler SIP scales was based
on such methodology, initially employing the language
of self descriptions elicited from a sample equivalent to
that for which the measure is intended for use.
Most scales invite the individual, through the ‘item
structure’, to reflect on him or herself. However, in
sympathy with Cooley’s notion of self as determined in
part by reflected appraisal (Cooley, 1902), some scales
such as the Coopersmith SEI, Bracken MSCS, Ten-
nessee SCS and Piers-Harris SCS-2 include items that
encourage the respondent to consider another person’s
perspective of themselves (e.g. ‘My parents usually
consider my feelings’; ‘My teacher thinks I am smart’;
‘Others will believe that I will make something of my-
self’). Being invited to judge oneself through another’s
eyes can prove conceptually difficult for young chil-
dren.
Most scales have a balance between positively and
negatively phrased items, yet Brinthaupt and Erwin
(1992) found only 4% of self descriptions elicited from a
‘tell me about yourself’ prompt, were negatively toned.
Repetition of items in a scale appears almost universal.
The Harter SPPC has virtually identical wording in or-
der to arrive at six items for each domain, which can
prove a frustrating experience for youngsters. Piers-
Harris SCS-2 has 15 very similarly paired items to
provide an estimate of ‘inconsistent responding’
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The validity of any item is dependent on an agreed
understanding of the meaning. Self esteem measures
readily assume a community of meaning in the des-
criptive terms or items used but this can prove prob-
lematic, especially where items are not generated by the
population with whom the scale is to be employed. By-
rne (1983) found the Coopersmith SEI had items (e.g.
‘I’m pretty sure of myself’; ‘It’s pretty tough to be me’)
that were far from comprehensible for many high school
students. Where scales are composed of items devel-
oped by psychologists influenced by particular models
(e.g. Bracken MSCS) or structures of self (e.g. Harter
SPPC), there is an assumption of shared meaning.
Items derived by psychologists tend to reflect their
thinking rather than necessarily being in tune with
meanings common to the population in general. Only
the Butler SIP elicited self descriptions from children
and adolescents to form items with a shared meaning
and readily understood by the population for whom the
scale was designed to be employed.
Most scales derive an estimate of self esteem through
‘direct evaluation’, where individuals reflect on their self
functioning along a set of verbal dimensions, indicating
level of agreement towards the stimuli, either by binary
choice (e.g. Coopersmith SEI; Piers-Harris SCS) or by
rating the extent to which the description applies. The
dichotomous form asks respondents to select if the item
applies to them or not (like me – not like me), whereas
rating scales may involve any number of points, seven
being considered the maximum. Rosenberg SES and
Bracken MSCS employed a 4-point, Tennessee a
5-point and the Butler SIP a 7-point Likert type scale.
Harter SPPC entertained a 4-point scale but introduced
a format inviting children to make two decisions for
each item – deciding which end of the construct applied
to them and then to assess the degree to which it ap-
plied, a format which can prove conceptually demand-
ing for some younger children.
The direction and magnitude of self evaluations are
usually taken as direct indicators of self esteem. Most
measures of self esteem are achieved by summing
responses to a series of items, assuming that each item
is a linear function of the same attribute. The simplest,
and most common approach is to summate separate
item responses, as with the Coopersmith SEI, counting
all the evaluative positive items.
‘Response bias’ is a perennial issue as scales remain
vulnerable to social desirability, where youngsters re-
spond in ways they consider socially appropriate rather
than how the individual typically construes their self.
However, Wells and Marwell (1976) suggest the threat of
social desirability distorting measures of self esteem
remains plausible but unsubstantiated and argue that
discrepancy measures are a means of alleviating social
desirability.
Alternative propositions about the self include
anticipations about how an individual might wish to be,
customarily described as the ‘ideal self ‘(Harter, 1999;
Butler & Green, 1998) and a perception of how a person
considers they should or ought to be, which is con-
sidered an introjected value (Higgins, 1999). Both the
Harter SPPC and Butler SIP invite two ratings from
respondents in order to measure self esteem. The
Harter SPPC assesses the importance respondents
place on each domain whilst the Butler SIP invites a

Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales
rating of the ideal self, and the discrepancy between
ratings of the self and the second rating (importance or
ideal respectively) provides a measure of self esteem. It
has been postulated that the magnitude of the dis-
crepancy between self and ideal is a primary index of
maladjustment (Rogers & Dymond, 1954). Whilst the
self – ideal discrepancy is theoretically understood to
lead to an impact on self esteem (Harter, 1999; Butler &
Green, 1998), the self – ought/should discrepancy is
implicated in the genesis of anxiety (Higgins, 1999). The
notion of disparity, however, is not free from challenge.
Wylie (1974) criticised multiple rating for being less
easily interpretable. The actual – ideal discrepancy is an
arithmetical derivation of two variables that conceptu-
ally make sense but whose interpretation remains
questionable, given the lack of evidence that discrep-
ancy relates to the phenomenological experience of self
esteem. The two ratings elicited from the Butler SIP
nevertheless prove useful clinically in the identification
of areas the individual senses dissatisfaction. Glick and
Zigler (1985) suggest disparity is normal and increases
with development and cognitive maturity, suggesting
that as individuals come to understand others’ views of
self by taking their role, they adopt a more realistic (less
positive) view of the self, leading to increased discrep-
ancy.
All scales provide a numerical summary to represent
level of self esteem, facets of self and domains or as-
pects of self. However, more recent scales also present
scores visually. The Bracken MSCS provides a graphi-
cal portrayal of self scores, and the methodology of the
Butler SIP provides a concurrent visual profile across
the items. Such an idiographic frame of reference has
particular clinical relevance, where areas the youngster
wishes to change are identified and provide the starting
point of therapy.
Conclusions
Self concept/self esteem is becoming an increasingly
important concept in the field of child and adolescent
mental health. Emler (2001) has highlighted an
association between low self esteem and a raft of trou-
bles in youngsters, arguing that such individuals tend
to treat themselves badly and may invite undesirable
treatment from others, but they tend not to treat others
harmfully. Although definitions of self concept/self es-
teem remain contentious, there is gathering acceptance
that self concept refers to an overarching view of the
self, whilst self esteem reflects a person’s evaluative
assessment of themselves.
Following the Rosenberg SES and Coopersmith SEI,
as early attempts to estimate self esteem in childhood
and adolescence, a raft of measures have proliferated in
the field, many with questionable methodology and
idiosyncratically designed for specific research studies.
A review over the last 20 years suggests the Piers-Harris
SCS is the most frequently employed measure. This
paper briefly described the six most heavily endorsed
scales, coupled with the latest British scale, and sought
to identify pertinent issues in relation to their use.
There now appears, both theoretically and psycho-
metrically, to be an acceptance of multidimensionality
with respect to the self, with the latest scales designed
around such a notion. Only the Butler SIP, however,
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
199
seeks to access different versions of self with the at-
tempt to delineate and measure both self image and self
esteem. Most scales, as Blascovich and Tomaka (1991)
suggest can be improved psychometrically, especially
by periodic collection of validational, reliability, and
normative data, with a degree of caution being consid-
ered where scales might be employed in the develop-
ment of theories and models relating to the self.
In selecting an appropriate measure it may prove
constructive to consider that self concept/self esteem
scales:
• theoretically and psychometrically measure differ-
ent facets of self structure, from global measures
(concept; worth), evaluative aspects (esteem), des-
criptive aspects (image) or perceived competence.
• offer a range of domains or aspects of self including
academic, appearance, emotional, behavioural, so-
cial, sporting and so forth.
• are appropriate for different age levels
• have been validated on different populations, both
in terms of socio-cultural dimensions and sample
selection thus raising issues about item appropri-
ateness.
• vary in how recent psychometric analysis has been
undertaken. With both society and culture con-
tinually in the throes of change, regular psycho-
metric updates with appropriate revision to
maintain appropriate norms, validation and reliab-
ility, would prove invalueable
• vary in speed of administration, with the Rosenberg
SES remaining the shortest and Bracken MSCS
being the longest in terms of item number
• have a range of potential applications including re-
search, screening and clinical work
• should not be employed for diagnostic purposes
(Wylie, 1989)
Acknowledgements
We are particularly grateful to East Leeds Primary Care
Trust, the Psychological Corporation and Leeds Mental
Health library for their support and assistance in the
development of this paper.
References
Andrews, B. (1998). Self esteem. The Psychologist, 10, 339–342
Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully/victim
problems in 8–11 year olds. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 66, 447–456
Bagley, C., & Mallick, K. (2001). Normative data and mental
health construct validity for the Rosenberg self esteem scale
in British adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence
and Youth, 9, 117–126
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of
behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215
Blascovich. J., & Tomaka. J. (1991). Measures of self esteem.
In Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes.
(pp. 115–160). New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Bracken, B.A. (1992). Multidimensional Self Concept Scale.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Brinthaupt, T., & Erwin, J. (1992). The self: Definitional and
methodological issues. SUNY Series, Studying the Self.
Butler, R., & Green, D. (1998). The child within: The exploration
of personal construct theory with young people. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann .

200 Richard J. Butler & Sarah L. Gasson
Butler, R.J. (2000). Sports psychology in action. London:
Arnold.
Butler, R.J. (2001). The Self Image Profiles. London: The
Psychological Corporation.
Byrne, B.M. (1983). Investigating measures of self concept.
Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 115–126
Byrne, B.M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life
span. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New
York: Scribners.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self esteem. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Coopersmith, S. (1975). Coopersmith self esteem inventory:
Technical manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). Coopersmith self esteem inventory.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Coopersmith, S. (2002). Revised Coopersmith self esteem
inventory manual. Redwood, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1982). The development of self-
understanding from infancy through adolescence. Child
Development, 53, 841–864
Dobson, C., Goudy, W.J., Keith, P.M., Powers, E (1979)
Further analysis of Rosenberg’s Self Esteem Scale. Psycho-
logical Reports, 44, 639–641
Emler, N. (2001). Self esteem: The costs and causes of low self
worth. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York Publishing
Services Ltd.
Fitts, W.H. (1965). Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Nashville,
TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
Fitts, W.H., & Warren, W.L. (1996). Tennessee Self Concept
Scale Manual: Second Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Glick, M., & Zigler, E. (1985). Self-image: A Cognitive-develop-
mental approach. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the
self. New York: Academic Press .
Granleese, J., & Joseph, S. (1994). Reliability of the Harter Self
Perception Profile for Children and predicting global self
worth. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 487–492.
Hare, B.R. (1975). The HARE general and area-specific (school,
peer, and home) self esteem scale. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Sociology, SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook,
New York.
Hart, D., & Damon, W.D. (1988). Self understanding in
childhood and adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for
Children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self
system. In Handbook of child psychology: Socialisation,
personality and social development, Vol. 4. (pp. 275–385).
New York, Wiley.
Harter, S. (1985). Self-perception profile for children. Denver,
CO: University of Denver Press.
Harter, S. (1988). Self-perception profile for adolescents. Den-
ver, CO: University of Denver Press.
Harter, S. (1990). Issues in the assessment of the self concept
of children and adolescents. In A.M. LaGreca (Ed.), Through
the eyes of the child. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and
Schuster.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New York,
Guilford Press.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1983). Procedure manual to accom-
pany the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Acceptance for Young Children. Denver, CO: University of
Denver Press.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The Pictorial Scale of Perceived
Competence and Acceptance for Young Children. Denver, CO:
University of Denver Press.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H.W. (1996). Future directions in self
concept research. In B.A. Bracken, Handbook of self concept:
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Developmental, social and clinical considerations. New York:
Wiley and Sons.
Heatherton, T.F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and
validation of a scale for measuring state self esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.
Higgins, E.T. (1999). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self
and affect. In R. B. Baumeister, The self in social psychology.
London: Psychology Press.
Hughes, H.M. (1984). Measures of self concept and self esteem
for children ages 3–12 years: A review and recommenda-
tions. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 657–692.
James, W. (1961). Psychology: The briefer course. New York:
Harper & Row.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (2 vols.) Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica.
James, W. (1983). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Keith, L.K., & Bracken, B.A. (1996). Self concept instrumen-
tation: A historical and evaluative review. In B. A. Bracken,
Handbook of self concept: Developmental, social and clinical
considerations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New
York: Norton.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. In R.B.
Baumeister, The self in social psychology (pp. 339–367).
London: Psychology Press.
Marsh, H.W. (1988). Self description questionnaire I. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Martinek, T.J., & Zaichkowsky, L.D. (1977). Martinek-Zaich-
kowsky Self Concept Scale for Children. Chesterfield, MO:
Psychologists and Educators Inc.
McCoy, M. (1977). A reconstruction of emotions. In D.
Bannister (Ed.), New perspectives in personal construct
theory. London: Academic Press .
McDaniel, E.L. (1986). Inferred Self Concept Scale. Los Angeles,
CA: Western Psychological Services.
McGuire, S. (1994). Measuring self concept in children. ACPP
Review & Newsletter, 16, 83–87.
Neeman, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Self-perception profile for
college students. Denver, CO: University of Denver Press.
O’Brien, E.J. (1985). Global self esteem scales: unidimensional
or multidimensional? Psychological Reports, 57, 383–389.
Piers, E.V. (1969). Manual for the Piers-Harris Children’s Self
Concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and
Tests.
Piers, E.V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale:
Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Piers, E.V. (1996). Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale:
Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Piers, E.V., & Herzberg, D.S. (2002). Piers-Harris 2; Children’s
Self Concept Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Rogers, C.R., & Dymond, R. (1954). Psychotherapy and
personality change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roid, G.H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee Self Concept Scale,
Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic
Books.
Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L., & Phillips, A.P. (1990). Global self
esteem as a correlate of work-related attitudes: A question of
dimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 276–
288.
Shavelson, R.B., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self concept: The interplay
of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology,
74, 3–17.

Measurement Issues: Self Esteem/Self Concept Scales
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self
concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of
Educational Research, 46, 407–441.
Wells, L.E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self esteem: Its conceptual-
isation and measurement. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publica-
tions Inc.
Wylie, R.C. (1989). Measures of self concept. Lincoln: Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
14753588, 2005, 4, Downloaded from https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2005.00368.x by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [23/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
201
Wylie, R.C. (1961). The self concept: A critical survey of
pertinent research literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Wylie, R.C. (1974). The self concept: A critical review of
methodological considerations and measuring instruments.
(2nd Ed., Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Wylie, R.C. (1979). The self concept: Theory and research on
selected topics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.