Measurement Invariance of Self-Esteem between Male and Female Adolescents and Method Effects Associated with Negatively Worded Items

하나의 척도에 긍정 및 부정문항을 동시에 포함하고 있는 검사들의 경우 신뢰도가 과소 추정되거나 단일요인이 아닌 서로 다른 요인으로 밝혀지는 등 문제점들이 제기되었다. 본 연구는 긍정 및 부정문항을 동시에 포함하는 Rosenberg 자기존중감 척도의 요인구조와 관련해서 제기되는 문제점들을 해결하기 위해 본 척도를 가장 잘 설명하는 요인모형을 찾고자 하였다. 또한, 자기존중감 척도의 성차간 요인구조의 차이검증과 방법효과를 고려한 후 성차간 자기존중감의 요인평균을 비교하였다. 본 연구는 한국 아동․청소년패널조사의 1차년도 조사자료 중에서 중학교 1학년 2,351명(남학생 1,177명, 여학생 1,174명)의 응답을 사용하였다. 연구결과, 자기존중감 척도의 문항 간의 공분산을 설명하는 여섯 개의 요인모형 중, 일반요인과 방법요인을 고려한 2요인 모형이 가장 적합한 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 성차간 측정모형의 동일성 검증을 실시한 결과, 측정모형의 동일성 가정이 지지되었다. 셋째, 자기존중감척도의 부정문항에 대한 방법효과를 고려한 2요인구조모형의 남녀 간에 부정문항에 대한 반응 수준에 차이가 있음을 확인하였다. 끝으로, 본 연구의 제한점과 의의를 제시하였다.

keywords: Rosenberg 자기존중감척도, 방법효과, 요인구조모형, 측정모형의 동일성, 성차, Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale, method effect, factor structural model, measurement equivalence, gender difference

Abstract

In many scales in social science, negatively worded items were often employed to prevent bias of response tendency. However, using the negatively worded items in the scale might reduce its reliability and distort its factor structure. In order to clarify those problems, researchers have suggested to employ a factor structure including a method factor accounting for negatively worded items. In this study, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem scale which employs two types of items(i.e., positively and negatively worded items) was investigated to uncover its factor structure. Additionally, measurement invariance and latent mean difference between males and females were studied. In conclusion, the factor model considering the method factor of negatively worded items was preferred over others. Measurement invariance between males and females were supported and females showed the lower self-esteem level than males after controling for the effect of the method effect. Finally, limitation and implication of the current study are discussed.

keywords: Rosenberg 자기존중감척도, 방법효과, 요인구조모형, 측정모형의 동일성, 성차, Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale, method effect, factor structural model, measurement equivalence, gender difference

참고문헌

이미리 (2005) 청소년기 자아존중감과 가족, 친구, 학업, 여가, 직업 변인들의 관계: 긍정적 자아평가와 부정적 자아평가를 중심으로. 한국청소년연구, 16(2), 263-293.

이순묵, 이찬순, 이현정, 여성칠 (2012). 캐나다 도박행동 척도에서 개념적 구조 및 심리측정적 특성의 일반화 가능성: 남녀간 다집단 분석. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 31(1), 1-26

이자영, 남숙경, 이미경, 이지희, 이상민 (2009). Rosenberg의 자아존중감 척도: 문항수준 타당도분석. 한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료. 21(1), 173-189.

정병삼 (2010) 부모-자녀관계애착과 부모지도감독이 청소년의 자아존중감의 변화에 미치는 종단적 영향. 한국청소년연구, 21(4), 5-30.

최보가, 전귀연 (1993). 자아존중감 척도 개발에 관한 연구 I. 대한가정학회지, 31(2), 1- 14.

홍세희, 노언경, 정 송 (2011). 부정문항이 포함된 검사의 요인구조: 자아존중감 검사의 예. 교육평가연구, 24(3), 713-732.

홍세희, 황매향, 이은설 (2005). 청소년용 여성 진로장벽 척도의 잠재평균비교. 교육심리연구, 19(4), 1159-1177.

American Educational Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.

10.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1993). Assessing construct validity in personality research: Applications to measures of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49-87.

11.

Browne, W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

12.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

13.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for teting measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.

14.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrene Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

15.

Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson & P. Shaver(Eds.), Measurements of social psychological attitudes (pp.45-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

16.

Silbert, E., & Trippett, J. (1965). Self-estteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16, 1017-1071.

17.

DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2009). Self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items: Investigating factorial invariance by sex. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22, 134-146.

18.

Hancock, G. R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means, Measurement Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(2), 91-105.

19.

Horan, P. M., DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2003). Wording effects in self esteem scales: Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 444-455.

20.

Hu, L. & Benter, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

21.

Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470-500.

22.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 132-140.

23.

Marsh, H. W. (1986). The bias of negatively worded items in rating scales for young children: A cognitive-developmental phenomenon. Developmental Psychology, 22, 37-49.

24.

Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 810-819.

25.

Motl, R. W., & DiStefano, C. (2002). Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 562-578.

26.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus 6.0 [Computer Software] Los Angeles CA: Muthén & Muthén.

27.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic.

28.

Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M., & Risko, E. (2006). Correlates of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 99-117.

29.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

30.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

31.

Schrisheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981). Controlling acquiescence bias by item reversals: The effect on questionnaire validity. Education and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1101-1114.

32.

Steenkamp, E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-107.

33.

Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg's self-esteem scale: Two factors or method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 84-98.

34.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1991). Self-versus peer ratings of specific emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505.

35.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierachical arrangement of negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505.

36.

Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affects: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1020-1030.

37.

Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555-561.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.32 No.3

부정문항이 포함된 척도의 요인구조 및 방법효과 검증과 남녀 간의 차이 비교: Rosenberg 자기존중감 척도를 중심으로

Measurement Invariance of Self-Esteem between Male and Female Adolescents and Method Effects Associated with Negatively Worded Items

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 일반