ASSESSMENT & DIAGNOSIS

Toward Accountability in the Use of the Self-Esteem

Construct

Mary H. Guindon

Self-esteem is a common target of intervention, and the proliferation of research on self-esteem attests to the widely held belief
of its significance as a personality variable. Despite its popularity, there is limited consistency in the use of its definition, and little
evidence suggests that counselors routinely assess levels of self-esteem. This indicates a lack of attention to accountability in
the quality of counselor services. This article provides a step toward accountability by presenting a review of the evolution of self-
esteem as a construct, offering definitions grounded in the professional literature, and discussing a compendium of self-esteem
assessments. Working toward consistency and responsibility in defining and assessing self-esteem can positively influence
effective self-esteem interventions.

S
elf-esteem is investigated and researched by be-
havioral scientists and practitioners of various de-
scriptions and disciplines. As a focus of research
examining personality (Demo, 1985), it continues
to be the subject of numerous research studies and
intervention strategy articles. Counseling interventions targeted
at affecting self-esteem levels and facilitating its optimal
development are common despite the fact that (a) many writ-
ers have criticized its meaning and usage (L. Kaplan,1995; Lerner,
1985; London, 1997; Wylie, 1974), (b) self-esteem interven-
tion results are variable (Bednar & Peterson, 1995; L. Kaplan,
1995; Mruk, 1999; Smelser, 1989; Wylie, 1974), and (c) its
conceptualization and operationalization have not been con-
sistent (Demo, 1985; Wylie, 1974). Moreover, the self-esteem
construct has become highly popularized, leading to its per-
ception as an “over-inflated panacea” (Street & Isaacs, 1998).
A search of professional literature substantiates the pro-
liferation of self-esteem as an area of inquiry. An ERIC search
from 1982 to March 2000 produced 4,959 entries on the
subject of self-esteem, and a PsycINFO search generated
7,719 journal articles from 1984 to June 2000. As an area of
research, the phenomenon seems to be gaining in popular-
ity. An ERIC search showed that the term self-esteem ap-
peared in the title in 444 articles in the 10-year period,
1982 to 1991, and 519 appeared in the 7-year, 3-month pe-
riod from 1992 to March 2000. Of the 3,457 dissertations
generated since 1861 in which the term self-esteem appears
in the title, 1,313 (37.98%) were written in the 8 years
from 1992 through March 2000.
Clearly self-esteem publications are common, yet few
seem to be focused on its definition. Of the thousands of
entries listed in ERIC on some aspect of self-esteem, only a
few are listed as targeting its definition. Furthermore, al-
though there are ample assessment instruments measuring
self-esteem for research purposes, little evidence suggests
that counselors actually use these instruments for assess-
ment purposes, even though level of self-esteem is often an
issue for clients. Although studies examining assessment prac-
tices of counselors are limited (Giordano, Schwiebert, &
Brotherton, 1997), counselors typically use only a small
number of instruments of any kind in their work (Bubenzer,
Zimpfer, & Mahrle, 1990) and studies inquiring about assess-
ment practices have not included self-esteem instruments.
The ability to accurately assess and evaluate levels of func-
tioning is an established requirement for professional coun-
selors (American Counseling Association, 1995). Counselors
can be expected to use appropriate methods of assessment so
that their decisions are sound and interventions are more
likely to fit the needs of their clients (Ridley, Li, & Hill,
1998). Clearly, diagnosis is central to professional communi-
cation and treatment planning in general (Sommers-Flanagan
& Sommers-Flanagan, 1998). Counselors cannot determine
the best treatment techniques unless they diagnose effectively
(Hohenshil, 1995).

Mary H. Guindon is an assistant professor and chair in the Department of Counseling and Human Services at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,
Maryland. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Mary H. Guindon, Department of Counseling and Human Services, Johns Hopkins
University, 9601 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 (e-mail: mguindon@jhu.edu).

© 2002 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 204–214

204 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80


It may be that counselors are routinely making an infor-
mal “diagnosis” of low self-esteem in their clients without a
grounding in its meaning or practice in its assessment. It
seems that, as professional counselors, most of us think we
know what self-esteem is and tend to take its meaning for
granted (Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999; Robson,
1988). Relying on common sense can be misconstrued in
diagnosis and treatment and gives an impression of precise-
ness where none exists. Consequently, counselors may not be
effectively addressing the concerns of their clients nor
providing counseling that appropriately affects levels of self-
esteem. At a time when counselors in all settings are being
called upon to be accountable for the quality of their services
(Steenbarger & Smith, 1996) and counselors have faced
increasing demands to be accountable for their own effec-
tiveness as measured by outcomes studies (Whitson, 1996),
this lack of attention to accountability in the use of self-
esteem seems especially curious. As accountability continues
to be a prominent issue for the counseling profession, accu-
rate assessment becomes even more critical in delivering
services. Accountability means no less than documenting
counselor effectiveness through the use of measured means;
counselors must be able to document that the procedures and
methods they use are effective (Gladding, 2000). It follows
then that a clear understanding of the self-esteem construct
and the ability to assess levels of self-esteem are necessary
skills in assisting counselors to develop individual, group,
and systemic interventions designed to optimally affect
positive self-esteem development and enhancement. Given
the prevalence of self-esteem as an area of inquiry, its popu-
larity as a target of intervention, and the continued prolif-
eration of research into its nature, it seems reasonable to
expect counselors to be cognizant of its meaning, account-
able for how they use the term, and careful that they do not
make statements about levels of self-esteem in their clients
without some way of having responsibly assessed it.
The purpose of this article is to provide a step toward
accountability in the use of the self-esteem construct. To
achieve this objective, this article is organized into three
major sections. First, it provides an overview of the con-
struct, explains its development, and defines it. Second, it
presents a brief discussion of the significance of self-esteem.
Third, it examines self-esteem assessment and presents a
practical overview of common self-esteem instruments. By
calling for consistency in how we define self-esteem and
working toward responsibility in ways in which self-esteem
can be assessed, interventions aimed at enhancing it can be
used with greater effectiveness.
DEFINING SELF-ESTEEM
Self-esteem, a deceptively simplistic construct, is more com-
plex than it may first seem. Indeed, most counselors and
other mental health practitioners “seem to know” what self-
esteem is, yet few can define it precisely. For example, my
experience with counseling students and workshop partici-
pants substantiates Mruk’s (1999) own observation with
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
To w a r d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n S e l f - E s t e e m U s a g e
his students: “the diversity of definitions tends to be im-
pressive. Often, it is as though there are as many ways to
define self-esteem as there are people trying to do so” (p. 8).
Nevertheless, a body of knowledge on the meaning of self-
esteem exists; theorists have investigated the meaning of
self-esteem as it is subsumed under the category of self-
concept for more than a century. It is its consistency of
usage within the helping professions and in the popular con-
sciousness that seems to be in question.
Yet self-esteem is one of the earliest areas of investigation
in the modern field of psychological inquiry. Although an im-
pressive diversity of definitions plague the field, definitions
that merit attention have stood the test of time and are based
on theoretical work that, through persistence or significance,
have become a standard of comparison for subsequent work
(Mruk, 1999). These works include definitions that describe an
attitude toward the self and include self-esteem’s affective and
evaluative components (Cooley, 1902; Coopersmith, 1967,
1981; James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Pope, McHale, & Craighead,
1988; Rosenberg, 1965, 1979; Smelser, 1989; Wells & Marwell,
1976; White, 1963; Ziller, 1969). A brief review of how the
study of self-esteem has developed and a discussion of the
evolving definition of self-esteem, its dual nature, and its
relationship to related “self” terms will enable a more thorough
understanding of the construct.
The Evolution of the Self-Esteem Construct
James (1890) defined self-esteem as a summary evaluation
that reflects a ratio of our “pretensions” divided by our
“successes” (p. 310). Self-esteem reflects a “baseline” feel-
ing of worth, value, liking, and accepting of self that one
carries at all times regardless of objective reality. Cooley
(1902) postulated that the self is determined and judged by
the perception of others. Mead (1934) saw the self as a product
of interactions in which the individual experiences him- or
herself as reflected in the behavior of others. Rogers (1951)
referred to self-esteem as the extent to which a person likes,
values, and accepts him- or herself. Unconditional, positive
self-regard is dependent on the unconditional positive regard
of significant others (Rogers, 1959). White (1963) described
self-esteem as a process developing from two sources: an in-
ternal source of a sense of accomplishment and an external
source of affirmation from others. Maslow (1968) defined
self-esteem as “the desire for strength, for achievement, for
adequacy, for mastery and competence, . . . and for indepen-
dence and freedom” (p. 45).
Rosenberg (1965, 1979) and Coopersmith (1967) each de-
veloped a theory of self-esteem as a significant personality
construct based on empirical methods. Both reached similar
conclusions. Concerned with the development of a positive
self-image during adolescence, Rosenberg (1965) considered
self-esteem to be global, a unidimensional phenomenon, an
attitude toward a specific object, the self. According to him,
attitudes about every characteristic of the self have an evalu-
ative dimension that results in a self-estimate of that charac-
teristic. Each element of the self is actually rated and judged
205
Guindon
against a self-value that has developed during childhood and
adolescence. Feedback from others, particularly significant
others, is an important element of self-esteem (Rosenberg,
1979). Yet self-esteem is also unconditional in the sense that
the person respects (or does not respect) him- or herself in-
dependent of qualities or accomplishments (Rosenberg, 1985).
Coopersmith (1967) researched pre-high-school children and
saw self-esteem as a more complex phenomenon involving self-
evaluation and manifestations of defensive reactions to that
evaluation. Self-esteem consists of two parts: subjective ex-
pression and behavioral manifestation. Coopersmith (1967)
attempted to address both true self-esteem (manifested in those
who actually feel worthy and valuable) and defensive self-
esteem (manifested in those who feel unworthy but who can-
not admit this threatening information). Coopersmith’s (1981)
definition included a decision of personal worthiness, a judg-
mental process in which “performance, capacities, and attributes”
are examined according to personal standards and values that
develop during childhood. It focuses on the “relatively endur-
ing estimate of general self-esteem rather than on specific and
transitory changes in evaluation” (p. 5).
These two theorists were followed by others, who reiter-
ated, extended, or refined these basic elements. Fitts (1972)
suggested that self-esteem is primarily a result of the judg-
ments of significant others, thus supporting Coopersmith’s
(1967) view. Wells and Marwell (1976) categorized existing
definitions as attitudinal toward the self as the object of at-
tention; as relational between different sets of self-attitudes;
as psychological responses toward the self; and as a function
of personality, a part of the self-system. Gecas (1982) pointed
out a distinction between self-esteem based on a sense of
competence, power, or efficacy and self-esteem based on a
sense of virtue or moral worth. Competency-based self-
esteem is related to effective performance and is associated
with self-attribution and social comparison processes. Self-
esteem based on self-worth, or virtue, is grounded in values
and norms of personal and interpersonal conduct. Sense of
worth may be strongly affected by sense of competence and
vice versa (Gecas, 1982). Pope et al. (1988), echoing James’s
(1890) original work, defined self-esteem as the evaluation
of information within the self-concept that arises from the
discrepancy between the perceived self and the real self.
Frey and Carlock (1989) also recognized self-esteem as an
evaluative term and discussed the components of competence
and worthiness as interrelated. Mruk (1999) considered self-
esteem as an interaction between worthiness and competence
and conceptualized a self-esteem matrix indicating a con-
tinuum of competent or effective behavior.
Dual Nature of Self-Esteem
Self-esteem as the evaluative component of the self-
concept seems to be at once global (general) and selective
(specific or situational). This latter attribute lends confu-
sion and may lead to imprecision in applying self-esteem
interventions to issues affecting clients. The counselor may
be attending to one situational element in the client as a
206 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
manifest indicator of self-esteem level when another ele-
ment altogether may be of concern to the client. Self-
esteem, then, at once global and selective, seems to be made up
of individual constituent elements that vary in importance to
the self. Self-esteem seems to be a fluctuating self-attitude in-
fluenced by “changing roles, expectations, performances, re-
sponses from others, and other situational characteristics”
(Demo, 1985, p. 1491). Jane, for example, may have a strong
sense of general, or global, self-esteem but may manifest
feelings of low self-esteem about the size of her nose or her
inability to do math; may exhibit feelings of high self-
esteem about her popularity among her peers; and may tem-
porarily show characteristics of low self-esteem when she is
in a situation in which she feels incompetent or demeaned
by someone important to her.
Therefore, self-esteem seems to vary across different areas of
experience and according to role-defining characteristics
(Coopersmith, 1981). It seems to be situational—high at one
moment or low at another—depending on which specific
constituent personal identity element the individual attends to
(Harter, 1985; Leahy, 1985; Rosenberg, 1985). Accordingly, the
individual may have generally positive attitudes toward
the self, possess a good sense of self-worth, but because of
certain situations or particular days may feel better or worse
about him- or herself (Demo, 1985) at any one time.
This attitudinal perspective that regards self-esteem as at
once both general and specific means the person attaches evalu-
ations to many different qualities and aspects of the self and
also sums these to form an overall evaluation. Rosenberg (1965)
described self-esteem as a linear combination of individual and
specific self-estimates, each weighted by a value and then
summed. The weight of each value is dependent on how im-
portant the value is to the individual. The person’s overall
appraisal of self presumably weighs all areas according to their
subjective importance and arrives at what Coopersmith (1981)
referred to as a general level of self-esteem.
Rosenberg (1979) stated that many personal elements are
socially ranked and evaluated, that the individual’s sense of
personal worth or value (viz., self-esteem) is to some ex-
tent contingent on the perceived prestige of the identity
element. Therefore, a person’s global sense of self-esteem is
based “not solely on an assessment of his constituent quali-
ties but on an assessment of the qualities that count [italics
added]” (Rosenberg, 1979, p. 18). Wylie (1974) and Gurney
(1986) suggested a hierarchical relationship between specific
and global self-esteem rather than a qualitative difference
between them. Brown (1993), on the other hand, supported
conceptualizing self-esteem in terms of global feelings sepa-
rate from specific self-evaluation, arguing that global self-
esteem affects specific self-evaluations, not the reverse. In any
case, generalizations cannot be made from either the specific
to the global or from the global to the specific. It is pre-
cisely this confusion that may result in self-esteem inter-
ventions not fitting the needs of the client; the client may
feel something entirely different from what the counselor
assumes. The counselor may be attending to a different self-
element altogether. Or, the counselor may be placing more

or less importance on the significance of the element than
does the client. For example, John may play the piano ex-
ceptionally well, but if it does not matter to him, if this
accomplishment carries a low weight, his counselor’s well-
intentioned validation of his piano-playing skill as a way to
bolster his self-esteem is likely to be ineffective.
Relationship to Related Self Terms
Another point of confusion regarding self-esteem may have
to do with the construct’s close relationship to other simi-
lar constructs. Self-esteem is associated with, but not iden-
tical to, several other constructs that make up the study of
the self, an area with a controversial history of its own
(Szymanski & O’Donohue, 1995). Because the self cannot
be directly observed, its study has been difficult and open
to varying interpretations from the beginning. Many shades
of meaning differentiate self-esteem from other closely re-
lated terms. Self-concept as the most general of the terms is
broadly conceptualized as a person’s perceptions of him- or
herself that are formed through an individual’s experiences
with and interpretations of his or her environment
(Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). People may appraise
themselves on multiple dimensions, making judgments about
what they are like (self-concept) and reacting emotionally
to an evaluation (self-esteem) (Szymanski & O’Donohue,
1995). Wylie (1974) considered self-esteem to be synonymous
with what she called “self-regard,” an umbrella term she used
to described the attitudes toward the self and that included
“self-satisfaction, self-acceptance, self-esteem, self-favorability,
congruence between self and ideal self, and discrepancies
between self and ideal self” (pp. 127–128).
Self-efficacy refers to a person’s assessment of effective-
ness, competency, and causal agency (Bandura, 1977; Gecas,
1989). Although White (1963) believed that self-esteem
begins with self-efficacy, high self-esteem does not neces-
sarily reflect high feelings of efficacy (Rosenberg, 1985).
Self-confidence refers to the “anticipation of successfully
mastering challenges or overcoming obstacles [whereas] . . .
self-esteem . . . implies self-acceptance, self-respect”
(Rosenberg, 1979, p. 31). Persons high in self-esteem exhibit
confidence in their perceptions and judgments and gener-
ally believe that they can favorably resolve their concerns
through their own efforts (Coopersmith, 1967). Still, global
self-esteem seems to be distinct from social confidence
(Fleming & Watts, 1980). Keeping in mind the various mean-
ings of these related self-constructs and how they relate to
self-esteem will assist the counselor in lessening the confu-
sion surrounding this construct.
Toward the Use of a Consistent Definition of Self-Esteem
Despite variations in how self-esteem has been conceptual-
ized, certain common threads are present. Drawing from the
theories that have stood the test of time, which still stand
today as landmarks in understanding self-esteem, and that
are accepted and widely used, these commonalties and
consistencies allow us to form a clearer understanding of
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
To w a r d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n S e l f - E s t e e m U s a g e
the construct. Competence and achievement seem to be in-
tegral elements of self-esteem and seem to be intertwined
with an evaluation and awareness of self-worth. This aware-
ness is formed, at least in part, from the judgment of and
feedback from others. The reactions of significant others play
a part in self-esteem levels. In addition, there seems to be
more than one kind of self-esteem. The point is, in order to
operationalize self-esteem, it may be productive to con-
sider this construct as a self-esteem system. Counselors and
other helping professionals, who are those most concerned
with affecting levels of self-esteem, need to be precise in
how they use this construct. Consequently, this article calls
for the consistent use of the following definitions, which are
grounded in the professional literature:
1. Self-esteem: The attitudinal, evaluative component of
the self; the affective judgments placed on the self-
concept consisting of feelings of worth and acceptance,
which are developed and maintained as a consequence
of awareness of competence, sense of achievement, and
feedback from the external world.
2. Global self-esteem: An overall estimate of general self-
worth; a level of self-acceptance or respect for one-
self; a trait or tendency relatively stable and enduring,
composed of all subordinate traits and characteristics
within the self.
3. Selective self-esteem: An evaluation of specific and con-
stituent traits or qualities, or both, within the self, at
times situationally variable and transitory, that are
weighted and combined into an overall evaluation of
self, or global self-esteem.
By understanding the meaning of self-esteem and know-
ing its definitions, the counselor can be precise in its use and
judicious in choosing interventions targeted at increasing
levels of self-esteem in individuals and in group settings.
Global self-esteem seems to be less amenable to change than
does selective self-esteem. However, the fact that global
self-esteem is composed of selective self-esteem elements
may mean that a change in level of overall self-esteem is
contingent upon changes in evaluation of these specific, sub-
ordinate units within the self-system, which in turn affects
the overall, or global, level of self-esteem. By attending to
selective self-esteem traits or characteristics that are im-
portant to the client manifesting low self-esteem, the coun-
selor may more likely be able to assist that client in ulti-
mately increasing his or her level of overall self-esteem.
SIGNIFICANCE OF SELF-ESTEEM
A reason for the preeminence of self-esteem research is that
it seems to have motivational significance; much of behav-
ior is determined by how one assesses one’s own sense of
worth (Gecas, 1982; Rosenberg, 1965; Wylie, 1974). The
motivation to maintain and enhance a positive sense of self
may be universal because it stimulates dissonance-reducing
actions (Gecas, 1982; H. B. Kaplan, 1975; Rokeach, 1979;
207
Guindon
Rosenberg, 1979). What individuals choose to do and the
way they do it may be dependent, in part, on their self-
esteem. It seems to be correlated with functional behavioral
and life satisfaction (Bednar & Peterson, 1995; Gurney, 1986)
and is significantly related to physical and mental well-being
(Witmer & Sweeney, 1992). The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV; Ameri-
can Psychiatric Association, 1994), includes self-esteem among
the diagnostic criteria for some mental disorder catego-
ries, and self-esteem seems to be related to depression and
dysthymia.
Countless studies have been conducted on student self-
esteem and academic performance. Factors influencing students’
low academic performance point to low self-esteem as both an
antecedent and a consequent component. In general, high self-
esteem seems to be a consequence of having experienced success
(Holly, 1987). Other research, however, suggests that there is no
positive correlation between self-esteem and academic achieve-
ment in certain student populations (Ginter & Dwinell, 1994;
Pottebaum, Keith, & Ehly, 1986), and it is one’s actual ability
rather than perceived ability that seems to be a determinant
of self-esteem and makes a difference in academic success
(Bachman & O’Malley, 1986).
Hundreds of articles substantiate or repudiate self-esteem’s
antecedent or consequent role in human behavior. These
conflicting results underscore further the need for counse-
lors to understand the construct, account for how they use
the term, and how they assess it. Mruk (1995) stated that
“Measuring self-esteem is important because if this field
wishes to achieve a higher degree of reliability and validity,
then it must attempt to demonstrate observable, . . . mea-
surable relationships between self-esteem and the kinds of
behavior commonly held to be related to it” (p. 42).
SELF-ESTEEM ASSESSMENT
However precisely they may use its definition, counselors
and other helping professionals need to be sure they do not
make statements about self-esteem, nor plan interventions,
without some basis for having assessed it as accurately as
possible. It is important to note that there are problems
inherent in assessing self-esteem. Mruk (1999) stated that
self-esteem is an impure phenomenon closely related to other
self-phenomena, all of which are problematic to assess.
Some instruments purported to measure self-esteem are,
in actuality, measuring a sum of various self-descriptions
that may be a different concept than self-esteem (Skaalvik,
1986) Poor quality instruments are also a problem (Street &
Isaacs, 1998). Nevertheless, if counselors target self-esteem
enhancement as a goal in treatment planning, using assessment
instruments, even if not perfect, and other assessment tech-
niques to measure levels of self-esteem is preferable to no
assessment at all.
Achieving a sound degree of scientific validity is difficult.
This sets the limits within which we can realistically ex-
pect certainty in our assessment results, and the counselor
is well advised to use more than one resource before coming
208 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
to any conclusions about their clients’ levels of self-esteem.
Considering “multiple and repeated measures to obtain
‘snapshots’ of an individual’s self-esteem in different social
situations” (Demo, 1985, p. 1491) allows the counselor to
better ascertain more realistic and accurate approximations
of the construct.
Methods of Assessing Self-Esteem
In their landmark review of self-concept methodologies,
Wells and Marwell (1976) stated that all instruments have
biases and that relying on a single form of measurement is
inadequate. Counselors have several options before making
decisions about self-esteem levels in their clients: pencil-
and-paper self-reports, ratings by others (e.g., teacher, school
counselor, or parent), behavioral observation (e.g., partici-
pant observers and peers), and interview methods.
However, assessment of any kind does not begin with ad-
ministering an assessment instrument but by observations
made as soon as the client meets the counselor. The counse-
lor asks why the client is there and not only attends to
content but also observes the client process and style (Bednar
& Peterson, 1995). Assessment can be described as a process
that requires participation from and interaction between
both counselor and client. Counselors are responsible for
taking information gathered from an assessment and devel-
oping a treatment plan based on individual needs (Fong,
1993; Seligman, 1996). The same principle should apply
before making judgments about self-esteem levels if inter-
ventions targeted toward self-esteem enhancement are to
be incorporated into treatment planning.
The use of standardized pencil-and-paper self-report in-
struments is the primary and most reliable means of ascer-
taining self-esteem levels and is discussed in greater detail
in the following section. Ratings by others, behavioral ob-
servations, and interview methods are subjective means of
assessment. The use of these methods as alternatives to
traditional paper-and-pencil tests can clarify distinctions
between experienced and presented self-esteem (Demo,
1985; Savin-Williams & Jaquish, 1981). Estimates of experi-
enced self-esteem, indicated by self-reports, and presented self-
esteem, most often assessed through observation, may vary
(Demo, 1985). Although self-ratings can capture meaning-
ful personal information unavailable to others (Hamilton,
1971), they are an inherently fallible source of data in which
minor changes in questions, wording, format, or context can
result in major differences in results (Schwarz, 1999). On the
other hand, observer ratings provide information about the
level of self-esteem communicated to others (Demo, 1985),
but ratings by others by their nature must infer information,
making them susceptible to obscuring and distorting perspec-
tives of an individual’s self-esteem (Demo, 1985). Vaac and
Juhnke (1997) stated that counselors have used the interview
as a powerful assessment tool and, although this is certainly
true in the assessment of self-esteem, this method is subject
to interviewer bias. However, despite the fact that many
useful structured and semistructured interview formats are

available (see Vaac & Juhnke, 1997), none specifically target
self-esteem.
These alternatives to standardized assessments may be useful
in yielding corroborative evidence but are susceptible to distor-
tion because of a lack of consistency and agreement on manifest
characteristics of self-esteem. To date, although few researchers
have addressed the characteristics of low and high self-esteem
per se, one multiple regression study indicated that interviewer
ratings were congruent with respondents’ self-reported self-
esteem (Tran & O’Hare, 1996). In a study of perceptions of
self-esteem by teachers, counselors, and school administra-
tors (Scott, Murray, Mertens, & Dustin, 1996), all groups were
uniform in how they perceived indicators of high self-esteem
but were not uniform about indicators of low self-esteem. One
viewpoint of low self-esteem indicates the opposite and holds
that its characteristics consistently involve a high level of mal-
adaptive behaviors and include anxiety and depression (Harter,
1993; Watson & Clark, 1984). Another viewpoint holds that
high self-esteem can be maladaptive and characterized by an
overinflated sense of self (Hoyle et al., 1999). Characteristics of
low or high self-esteem can be in the eye of the beholder. My
tentative and exploratory research survey that asked counselors
to describe self-esteem characteristics indicates little agreement
and in some cases diametrically opposed perceptions (e.g., aggres-
siveness is perceived as a characteristic of both high self-esteem
and low self-esteem).
Clearly, assessing self-esteem is an imprecise but neces-
sary activity. Findings to date suggest that no single assess-
ment procedure will accurately pinpoint self-esteem levels
and that no one individual rater can consistently make
accurate judgments regarding self-esteem in any one client.
Thus the best avenue to assess self-esteem is triangulation.
Triangulating results by using multimethod, multirater, and
multisetting assessment procedures will yield richer results.
It is recommended, therefore, that counselors use one or
more standardized assessment instruments and supplement
the information with one or more of the aforementioned
subjective, qualitative methods.
Self-Esteem Assessment Instruments
There are over 2,000 self-esteem-related assessment instruments
(Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989; Mruk 1999). Most are
self-report questionnaires and exhibit those problems inherent
in all self-report measures, such as semantic understanding, ques-
tion format, social desirability, and self-presentation (Schwarz,
1999). In a review of self-esteem assessments, Blasocvich and
Tomaka (as cited in Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991)
stated, “neither a firm body of evidence nor a convincing defi-
nitional rationale to justify many of the ‘self-esteem’ measures
exists” (p. 119).When reviewing any assessment instrument—and
this is especially critical in self-esteem assessment—counselors
should follow some basic steps in determining its appropriateness
for their particular situation.
1. Study the technical manual. When choosing any self-
esteem instrument, as with any instrument, the counselor
needs to evaluate its utility, reliability, and validity. This
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
To w a r d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n S e l f - E s t e e m U s a g e
means it is important to consider how the test developer
has defined self-esteem and to use the assessment only within
that context. Is the instrument suitable in assessing global
self-esteem only? Are there areas of selective self-esteem
that can be assessed by this instrument? If so, are these areas
indicative of global self-esteem levels or are they measuring
only transitory characteristics?
2. Read test reviews. Reviews of available instruments can
be found in the professional literature (Bracken & Mills,
1994; Chiu, 1988; Demo, 1985; Robinson et al., 1991), in
Test Critiques (Keyser & Sweetland, 1998), in Tests in Print
(Murphy, Conoley, & Impara, 1994), and in Buros Mental
Measurements Yearbook (Conoley & Impara, 1995). Readers
are directed to these sources of information.
3. Continually ask a set of questions:
A. Does this instrument measure what it purports to
measure? The technical manual should give an oper-
ating definition of self-esteem. Does this definition
fit the questions asked in the assessment? Does it
indicate strong empirical support for its validity?
B. Does this instrument measure what I need to know
about this client? Is it normed on a population ap-
propriate for this client? Does the instrument in fact
measure the general or specific trait or characteristic
in question? Does it have utility? Can its results be
used to indicate a direction for intervention?
It is beyond the scope of this work to critique self-esteem
assessment instruments, but it seeks rather to present a com-
pendium of those instruments historically recognized and
most widely used so that the counselor can make informed
choices. A search of the literature using an online query of
ERIC and PsycINFO databases yielded a selection of instru-
ments that seem to be most commonly used in many con-
texts, and this search substantiates an earlier review
(Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Crandall (1973) identified
an initial set of self-esteem scales for review. Blascovich and
Tomaka (1991) supplemented the original work through
online title and abstract queries that yielded over 30,000
references, leading them to limit their search through use of
the Social Sciences Citation Index. Blascovich and Tomaka
identified 40 self-esteem instruments, based on frequency of
citation. The resulting frequencies were divided by the num-
ber of years since publication of each individual instrument,
thus arriving at yearly frequencies, which were then rank
ordered. Using a similar method, I updated findings using
ERIC (1993 through March, 2000) and PsycINFO (1993
through June 2000) and found 58 self-esteem instruments.
The results of this search support Blascovich and Tomaka’s
(1991) findings of the wide array and usage of these instru-
ments in the literature and indicate their popularity, but
not necessarily their appropriateness, as measures of self-
esteem. The updated search yielded similar rank orderings
for the top four instruments. Table 1 presents Blascovich
and Tomaka’s earlier results in Columns 1 and 2. Columns
3 and 4 show a 1991 through 1999 updated parallel search
for Social Sciences Citation Index. It is worth noting that this
209
Guindon

TABLE 1
Self-Esteem and Self-Concept Scales Listed in Order of Number of Citations Per Year

Social Sciences Citation Index ERIC/PsycINFO

Through 1990 a 1991–1999 1993–2000
b c
Instrument Frequency Frequency/Year Frequency Frequency/Year Frequency Frequency/Yeard

Self-Esteem Scale (SES;

Rosenberg, 1965) 1,285 61.2 213 23.7 425 56.7
Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI;
Coopersmith, 1967, 1981) 942 54.6 123 13.7 192 25.6
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale
(TSCS; Roid & Fitts, 1988) 527 24.9 44 4.9 110 14.6
Piers-Harris Children’s Self-
Concept Scale (P-HCSCS;
Piers, 1984) 365 20.3 37 4.1 117 15.6
The Body-Esteem Scale (BES;
Franzoi & Shields, 1984)e 192 9.1 28 3.1 40 5.3
Culture-Free Self-Esteem
Inventories, 2nd edition (CFSEI-2;
Battle, 1992) n/a n/a 15 1.7 31 4.1

Note. An estimate may be inflated due to nonscale-related citations.

a
The data in Columns 1 and 2 are from “Measures of Self-Esteem,” by J. Blascovich and J. Tomaka, in Measures of Personality and Social
Psychological Attitudes (pp. 115–160), by J. P. Robinson, P. S. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), 1991, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Copyright 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. Reprinted with permission. bNumber of years since inception of publication of instrument. cNumber of
years = 9. dNumber of years = 7.5. eRevision of the Body-Cathexis Scale (Secord & Jourard, 1953).

source did not show the citations available elsewhere. Con-
sequently, Columns 5 and 6 indicate results for a combined
ERIC (1993 through March, 2000) and PsycINFO (1993
through June 2000) search. The four instruments for the
measurement of self-esteem that appear consistently and
most frequently are the Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg,
1965), Self-Esteem Inventory (SEI; Coopersmith, 1981),
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS; Roid & Fitts, 1988),
and Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (P-HCSCS;
Piers, 1984). Other assessment instruments reported by
Blascovich and Tomaka (1991) had either fallen out of usage
altogether, did not yield results high enough to be consid-
ered for the purposes of this article, had serious method-
ological inadequacies (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991), or did not
appear to add any qualitatively new or different additional
information about self-esteem. Two additional instruments are
included in this article because they fill a need in the field. The
Body-Esteem Scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields, 1984), a form of
which ranked 9th in the earlier study, was chosen for inclusion
because it is a reliable measure of one kind of selective self-
esteem and because body image has been shown to be highly
correlated with global self-esteem. The Culture-Free Self-
Esteem Inventories, second edition (CFSEI-2; Battle, 1992), was
chosen because it adds a dimension that seems to be overlooked
in the other self-esteem assessments. Although not truly “culture
free,” this assessment attempts to address cultural bias.
Although there are many other useful instruments, these
six assessments have wide appeal and are straightforward to
complete. They may assist counselors to assess self-esteem
in their clients and can be easily administered individually
or in groups. Information provided in Table 2 is intended to
help counselors in making suitable choices. It presents the
test developers’ purpose; indicates the appropriateness of
the instrument in assessing global self-esteem and selective
self-esteem areas, or both; and provides information about
format, age range, number of items, and special concerns.
SES (Rosenberg, 1965). The SES is a unidimensional mea-
sure of global self-esteem. It can be administered individu-
ally or in groups. Widely used as a research instrument and
considered by most reviewers to be a valid measure of
global self-esteem, it is available only in the original text,
now out of print, and may be difficult for practitioners to
locate. Although its uses and applications are not described,
it is considered the standard by which other self-esteem
instruments are judged.
SEI (Coopersmith, 1981). Also a unidimensional measure
of self-esteem, the SEI is available in two forms for children.
The longer Form A has three subscales, which purport to
measure three possible broad selective self-esteem areas
(peers, parents, school), plus a lie scale. Suitable for individual
or group administration, suggested uses include screening,
instructional planning, program evaluation, and clinical
studies. A third, less-used form adapted for adults is also
available from the publisher.
TSCS (Roid & Fitts, 1988). The TSCS is a multidimensional
measure of the self-concept. It can be administered individu-
ally or in groups. A highly popular assessment instrument, the
TSCS can be used as a measurement of self-esteem because
it provides a total score that purports to reflect overall
(global) self-esteem. Ten of its 100 items assess “self-criticism.”
It is available in a counseling version (Form C) and a re-
search version (Form R). Subdomains (subscales) include
Identity, Self-Satisfaction, Behavior, Physical Self, Moral-
Ethical Self, Personal Self, Family Self, and Social Self. The

210 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80

 To w a r d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n S e l f - E s t e e m U s a g e

TABLE 2
Assessment Instruments Appropriate for Self-Esteem Measurement

Instrument
With Citation Purpose G/Sa Format Age Range Number of Items Concerns
Self-Esteem Scale G only. Unidimen- 4-point responses to High school through 10 Susceptible to social
(SES; Rosenberg, sional measure of self-descriptive adult desirability re-
1965) (Also global feelings of statements sponse. Tends to be
available is a 6-item self-worth and negatively skewed
SES targeted acceptance; for college age.
toward children estimates positive
below high school or negative feelings
age, see Rosenberg about the self.
& Simmons, 1972.)
Self-Esteem Inventory Form A: G and S with Forced choice (“like Ages 8 through 15 Form A: 50 Susceptible to social
(SEI; Coopersmith, caution. Form B: G me,” “not like me”) Form B: 25 desirability
1981)b only. Measures “self- responses to self- (first half of Form A) response. Tends to
regard”; Form A has descriptive be negatively
three subscales: statements skewed.
Social Self-Peers,
Home-Parents,
School-Academic,
plus a lie scale.
Tennessee Self- G (total score). S 5-point responses to Ages 12 and above 100 Support only for
Concept Scale (social, family, self-descriptive family, physical, and
(TSCS; Roid & Fitts, physical, moral- statements social subscales
1988) ethical, personal (Marsh & Richards,
categories). 1988).
Multidimensional
view of the self-
concept; popular as
a general measure
of self-esteem.
Piers-Harris G only. Measures Forced choice (yes/ Ages 8 through 18 80 Susceptible to social
Children’s Self- self-concept; no) responses to desirability
Concept Scale synonymous with predominantly self- response; most
(P-HCSCS; Piers, self-esteem/regard. descriptive suitable to younger
1984) Subscales demon- statements. groups.
strate substantial
overlap (Blascovich
& Tomaka, 1991).
The Body-Esteem S only. Measures 5-point responses College age 40 Social desirability
Scale (BES; Franzoi degree of feelings rating feelings about response bias not
& Shields, 1984) with various body body parts and determined but
parts or processes. functions including considered moder-
gender-specific ate (Blascovich &
subscales. Tomaka, 1991).
Culture-Free Self- Measures perception Forced choice (yes/ Forms A & B: Grades Form A: 60 True “culture free”
Esteem Inventories, of self/self-esteem no) self-report 3–12. Form AD: Form B: 30 status in question.
2nd edition (CFSEI- independent of checklists. Adults Form AD: 40 Tends to be
2; Battle, 1992) cultural context. Form negatively skewed.
A: G (general items
subscale), S with
caution. Subscales
are Social/Peers
Related; Academic/
School Related;
Parents/Home
Related; and lie items.
Form B: G only. Form
AD: G (general items
subscale). S with
caution. Subscales
are social, personal,
and lie items.

Note. See Table 1 Note.

a
G = suitable as a measure of global self-esteem. S = suitable as a measure of selective self-esteem. bAdult form adapted from Form B is also
available.

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80 211

Guindon
second edition of this instrument (Fitts & Waren, 1998) has
an additional subscale measuring academic and work self-
esteem. Although it might be considered in assessing selec-
tive self-esteem, it must be noted that it is has come under
considerable criticism by reviewers (Marsh & Richards, 1988)
and is generally recommended for this use only with caution.
P-HCSCS (Piers, 1984). This instrument is used as a unidi-
mensional measure of self-esteem because it defines self-con-
cept as “a relatively stable set of self-attitudes reflecting both
a description and an evaluation of one’s own behavior and
attitudes” (Piers, 1984, p. 1). It can be administered individu-
ally or in groups. Items include the six subdomains (subscales):
Behavioral, Intellectual and School, Physical Appearance and
Attributes, Anxiety, Popularity, and Happiness and Satisfac-
tion, but the P-HCSCS is not recommended as a measure of
selective self-esteem because of substantial overlap in
subscales. It is currently used in both research and in clinical
settings and may be the most psychometrically sound instru-
ment available (Hughes, 1984; Wylie, 1974).
BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984). The BES is a multidimen-
sional measure of body self-esteem. A revised version of the
Body-Cathexis Scale (Secord & Jourard, 1953), it measures
feelings about various body parts and bodily processes. Use-
ful as a measure of selective self-esteem targeting physical
attributes, it may also give an indication of global self-esteem
insofar as body image is correlated with general self-esteem
levels. It can be administered individually or in groups. It is
used in research and clinical settings and is the only one of
these six instruments that includes gender-specific subscales.
CFSEI-2 (Battle, 1992). The CFSEI-2 is a multidimensional
measure of self-esteem available in three forms. For young
children, individual oral administration is recommended;
for older children or adults, individual or group administra-
tion is possible. This is a battery of self-esteem statements
using a standardized oral administration. In addition to a
general level of self-esteem appropriate to assessing global
self-esteem, it claims to assess several subdomains (three
subscales; Social/Peers Related, Academic/School Related,
and Parents/Home Related, plus lie items) and thus can be
considered a measure of selective self-esteem. Although
not really “culture free,” it attempts to address cultural
bias and is available in three languages (English, French,
and Spanish). It can be valuable as a screening device in
identifying individuals who may need counseling (Chiu,
1988). In addition, it claims to assess therapeutic progress
and evaluate posttherapy effects.
CONCLUSION
This article has called for accountability in the use of the
self-esteem construct, presented a review of its development,
offered definitions of the self-esteem system grounded in the
professional literature, discussed its assessment, and presented
a compendium of widely used self-esteem assessments.
To work toward accountability and systematically address
issues associated with self-esteem in their clients, counselors
and other helping professionals can benefit from these principles:
212 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
1. Be familiar with self-esteem definitions and terms. Con-
sistency in the use of the concepts of global and se-
lective self-esteem is a first step. Counselors need to
understand that competence, sense of accomplish-
ment, and feedback are critical elements in develop-
ing and maintaining self-esteem. Counselors should
keep in mind that self-esteem varies across charac-
teristics and situations and its constituent elements
are weighted differently by different clients.
2. Use multiple assessment methods. Accountability
means not only using definitions appropriately but
also being careful not to prejudge behavior or overt
characteristics as indicating self-esteem problems.
Accountability means assessing levels of self-esteem
and using more than one approach whenever possible.
Use of qualitative methods are critical and necessary.
When standardized self-esteem instruments are
used, choosing the most reliable, valid, and useful
instrument to fit the needs of the individual should
be common practice.
3. Become well versed in differences in behavior style
across cultures and contexts. Varying family dynamics and
environmental factors may account for attitudes
and behaviors assumed to be related to self-esteem
problems when no such problem may exist. Defer-
ence to authority, for example, can be misconstrued
as low self-esteem when, in fact, it may be a cultur-
ally bound phenomenon. Whereas most counselors
continue to become culturally aware and sensitive,
the manifestations of self-esteem across cultures is
underrepresented in the research literature.
4. Be aware of personal self-esteem issues. Counselors need
to consider their own reactions to low self-esteem
manifestations. They may wish to consider partici-
pation in peer counseling groups attending to their
own self-esteem needs. As with other concerns, peer
supervision is also recommended.
5. Attempt to use suitable intervention strategies. Greater
precision in the use of the self-esteem construct will
enable the counselor to discriminate effective versus
ineffective strategies among the abundance of self-
esteem resources so easily available to them. Inter-
ventions aimed at enhancing self-esteem can be de-
veloped that are appropriate and meaningful and
grounded in its definition and assessment.
REFERENCES
American Counseling Association. (1995). Code of ethics and standards
of practice. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bachman, J., & O’Malley, P. (1986). Self-concepts, self-esteem, and
educational experiences: The frog pond revisited (again). Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 35–46.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behav-
ioral change Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Battle, J. (1992). Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventories (2nd ed.). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.

Bednar, R. L., & Peterson, S. R. (1995). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and innova-
tions in clinical theory and practice (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality
and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Bracken, B. A., & Mills, B. C. (1994). School counselors’ assessment of
self-concept: A comprehensive review of 10 instruments. The School
Counselor, 42, 14–33.
Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing.
In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 27–58). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bubenzer, D., Zimpfer, D., & Mahrle, C. (1990). Standardized individual
appraisal in agency and private practice: A survey. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 12, 51–66.
Chiu, L. (1988). Measures of self-esteem for school-age children. Jour-
nal of Counseling and Development, 66, 298–301.
Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1995). Mental measurements year-
book (12th ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Buros Mental
Measurement Institute.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
Scribner.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Coopersmith, S. (1981). SEI: Self-Esteem Inventories. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related con-
structs. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social
psychological attitudes (pp. 45–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for So-
cial Research.
Demo, D. H. (1985). The measurement of self-esteem: Refining our
methods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1490–1500.
Fitts, W. H. (1972). The self-concept and behavior: Overview and supple-
ment. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recording and Testing.
Fitts, W. H. , & Warren, W. L. (1998). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, second
edition. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Fleming, J. S., & Watts, W. A. (1980). The dimensionality of self-esteem:
Some results for a college sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 921–929.
Fong, M. (1993). Teaching assessment and diagnosis within a DSM-III-R
framework. Counselor Education and Supervision, 32, 276–286.
Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body-Esteem Scale: Multidi-
mensional structure and sex differences in a college population. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173–178.
Frey, D., & Carlock, C. (1989). Enhancing self-esteem. Muncie, IN: Accel-
erated Development, Inc.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1–33.
Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review
of Sociology, 15, 291–316.
Ginter, E. J., & Dwinell, P. L. (1994). The importance of perceived dura-
tion: Loneliness and its relationship to self-esteem and academic
performance. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 456–460.
Giordano, F. G., Schwiebert, V., & Brotherton, W. (1997). School counselors’
perceptions of the usefulness of standardized tests, frequency of their use,
and assessment training needs. The School Counselor, 44, 198–205.
Gladding, S. T. (2000). The counseling dictionary. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Gurney, P. W. (1986). Self-esteem in the classroom. School Psychology
International, 7, 199–209.
Hamilton, D. L. (1971). A comparative study of five methods of assess-
ing self-esteem, dominance, and dogmatism. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 31, 441–452.
Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: To-
ward a comprehensive model of self-worth. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The
development of the self (pp. 55–121). London: Academic.
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in chil-
dren and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle
of low self-regard (pp. 87–106). New York: Plenum.
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
To w a r d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n S e l f - E s t e e m U s a g e
Hohenshil, T. (1995). Editorial: Role of assessement and diagnosis in counsel-
ing. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 64–67.
Holly, W. (1987). Student self-esteem and academic success. OSSC Bulletin
Series, Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council, University of Oregon.
Hoyle, R. H., Kernis, M. H., Leary, M. R., & Baldwin, M. W. (1999). Selfhood:
Identity, esteem, regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hughes, H. M. (1984). Measures of self-concept and self-esteem for children
ages 3-12: A review and recommendations. Clinical Psychology Review, 4,
657–692.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA:
Goodyear Publications.
Kaplan, L. (1995). Self-esteem is not our national wonder drug. The School
Counselor, 42, 341–345.
Keyser, D. J., & Sweetland, R. C. (Eds.). (1998). Test critiques (Vols. 1–4). Kansas
City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
Leahy, R. L. (1985). The development of the self. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lerner, B. (1985). Self-esteem and excellence: The choice and the paradox.
American Educator, 9, 10–16.
London, T. (1997). The case against self-esteem: Alternate philosophies
toward self that would raise the probability of pleasurable and produc-
tive living. Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy,
15, 19–29.
Marsh, H. W., & Richards, G. E. (1988). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale:
Reliability, internal structure, and construct validity. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 55, 612–624.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York:
Van Nostrand.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mecca, A., Smelser, N., & Vasconcellos, J. (Eds.). (1989). The social impor-
tance of self-esteem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mruk, C. (1995). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice. New York:
Springer.
Mruk, C. (1999). Self-esteem: Research, theory, and practice (2nd ed.).
New York: Springer.
Murphy, L. L., Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1994). Tests in print
IV: An index to tests, test reviews, and the literature on specific tests (Vols.
1 & 2). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.
Piers, E. V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual.
Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Pope, A., McHale, S., & Craighead, E. (1988). Self-esteem enhancement with chil-
dren and adolescents. New York: Pergamon Press.
Pottebaum, S., Keith, T., & Ehly, S. (1986). Is there a causal relationship between
self-concept and academic achievement? Journal of Educational Research,
79, 140–144.
Ridley, C., Li, L., & Hill, C. (1998). Mulitcultural assessment: Reexamination,
reconceptualization, and practical applications. The Counseling Psychologist,
26, 827–910
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Robson, P. J. (1988). Self-esteem: A psychiatric view. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 153, 6–15.
Roid, G. H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Revised
manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal
relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S.
Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science: Vol. 3. Formulations of the
person and the social context (pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Some unresolved issues in theories beliefs, atti-
tudes, and values. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 261–304.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, M. (1985) Self-concept and psychological well-being in ado-
lescence. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 205–246).
Orlando, Fl: Academic Press.
213
Guindon
Rosenberg, M., & Simmons, R. G. (1972). Black and White self-esteem:
The urban school child. Washington, DC: American Sociological
Association.
Savin-Williams, R., & Jaquish, G. (1981). The assessment of adolescent self-
esteem: A comparison of methods. Journal of Personality, 49, 324–336.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Scott, C., Murray, G., Mertens, C., & Dustin, E. (1996). Student self-esteem
and the school system: Perceptions and implications. The Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 89, 286–293.
Secord, P. F., & Jourard, G. A. (1953). The appraisal of body-cathexis: Body-
cathexis and the self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 342–347.
Seligman, L. (1996). Diagnosis and treatment planning in counseling. New
York: Plenum Press.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: The
interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology,
74, 3–17.
Skaalvik, E. (1986). Sex differences in global self-esteem: A research review.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 30, 167–179.
Smelser, N. (1989). Self-esteem and social problems: An introduction. In
A. M. Mecca, N. J. Smelser, & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), The social impor-
tance of self-esteem (pp. 294–326). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (1998). Assessement
and diagnosis of conduct disorder. Journal of Counseling & Develop-
ment, 76, 189–197.
Steenbarger, B., & Smith, H. (1996). Assessing the quality of counseling
services: Developing accountable helping systems. Journal of Counsel-
ing & Development, 75, 145–150.
214 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2002 • VOLUME 80
Street, S., & Isaacs, M. (1998). Self-esteem: Justifying its existence. Pro-
fessional School Counseling, 1, 46–50.
Szymanski, J., & O’Donohue, W. (1995). Self-appraisal skills. In W. O’Donohue
& L. Krasner (Eds.), The handbook of psychological skills training: Clinical
techniques and applications (pp. 161–179). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tran, T. V., & O’Hare, T. (1996). Congruency between interviewers’ ratings
and respondents’ self-reports of self-esteem, depression and health status.
Social Work Research, 20, 43–50.
Vaac, N., & Juhnke, G. (1997). The use of structural clinical interviews for
assessment in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75,
470–480.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition
to experience negative emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96,
465–490.
Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and mea-
surement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
White, R. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory: A proposal regard-
ing independent ego energies. Psychological Issues, 3, 125–150.
Whitson, S. C. (1996). Accountability through action research: Research
methods for practitioners. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74,
616–623.
Witmer, J. M., & Sweeney, T. J. (1992). A holistic model for wellness and
prevention over the life span. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71,
140–147.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). A review of methodological considerations and measuring
instruments: Vol. 1. The self-concept (Rev. ed.). Lincoln: The University of
Nebraska Press.
Ziller, R. (1969). The alienation syndrome: A triadic pattern of self-other
orientation. Sociometry, 15, 87–93.