Psychological Medicine, 1989, 19, 513-518

Printed in Great Britain

PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Development of a new self-report questionnaire to measure

self esteem
PHILIP ROBSON1
From the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford

SYNOPSIS In constructing a new self-report questionnaire for measuring self esteem, the aim has
been to satisfy psychometric requirements without sacrificing the intuitive meaning of the concept.
Self esteem is seen as a composite, and examination of its components may have more analytic or
predictive value than ' global' scores. Preliminary reliability and validity data are encouraging.

investigators have argued that it may in some

INTRODUCTION circumstances have a causal or maintaining role.
Self esteem is an idea rather than an entity and Doubts have often been cast on these claims for
the term signifies different things to different methodological reasons, but if reliable con-
people. Measuring instruments inevitably reflect firmation were available there might be im-
the theoretical stance of the inventor and portant practical implications for treatment.
sometimes intercorrelate poorly, suggesting that Pre-treatment levels of self esteem may, in certain
they are identifying different constructs, or circumstances, be an important predictor of
different elements of the same construct (Bridle, outcome (Fairburn et al. 1987).
1984; Lloyd et al. 1979). Wells & Marwell (1976) Thirdly, therapists of many different persua-
and Wylie (1974, 1979) have provided wide sions feel that improvement in self esteem is an
ranging critiques of construct definition, re- important element in the process of treatment,
search design and measurement techniques, and and this is a hypothesis which requires empirical
it is clear that most, if not all, of the existing confirmation.
means of measurement are in some way un- The inherent vagueness of the concept has led
satisfactory. to attempts to reduce and refine it, but these may
In the face of such difficulties, what is the result in measures whose content lacks intuitive
justification for attempting to pursue the concept credibility, or are, in the words of Ingham et al.
more effectively? First, it seems logical to (1986)'... conceptually primitive (though psycho-
suppose that a person's concern about the metrically sophisticated)'. This is the main
consequences of his actions must depend to shortcoming of the scale most widely used in this
some extent on the value he attaches to himself country, namely that devised by Rosenberg
and his existence. His opinion of himself is also (1965). Alternatively, self esteem has been
likely to influence his expectancies and explana- abandoned in favour of different constructs such
tion of what happens to him. It should therefore as self efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
be possible to predict certain aspects of be- To be useful in clinical research, a scale for
haviour from an accurate estimate of self measuring self esteem must be easily compre-
esteem. hensible to patients and quick to complete, and
Secondly, a review of the literature (Robson, demonstrate satisfactory psychometric proper-
1988) demonstrates that low self esteem has ties without sacrificing intuitive breadth of
been associated with a large number of undesir- meaning. No existing scale fulfils these require-
able traits, symptoms or behaviour, and some ments.
In attempting to quantify abstract notions
'Address for correspondence: Dr Philip Robson, University of
Oxford, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford
some assumptions are required which are initi-
0 X 3 7JX. ally untestable. One assumption adopted by
513
PSM 19
514 P. Robson

several theorists (e.g. James, 1890; McDougall, Coopersmith (1967, JV=8) or Rogers &
1928; Rosenberg, 1965; Fleming & Courtney, Dymond (1954, N=l). Using a card-sort
1984) is that self esteem is based on beliefs technique, and having been given working
stemming from self evaluation of character, definitions for each component, nine experienced
abilities and behaviour. These beliefs gradually psychiatrists and psychologists were asked to
develop as a result of experiences during allocate each item to a component on face
childhood (Coopersmith, 1967) and later (Beck, validity, and to discard those items that did not
1967). Deficits in some of these aspects may be appear to fit any component. Items that did not
balanced by excesses in others, and if this is the achieve unanimous or near unanimous categor-
case it may be that shifts in the subordinate ization were rejected. Further items were dis-
elements which together give rise to self esteem carded on the basis of instability on test-retest,
have more analytic or predictive usefulness than heavily skewed response in a normative popu-
'global' self esteem scores. A scale which lation, or poor correlation with the mean overall
permitted examination of these individual com- score.
ponents would, therefore, constitute a logical This process of attrition resulted in a pool of
advance. 30 items (see Appendix) categorized as follows :
significance (5); worthiness (5); appearance/
DEFINITION OF SELF ESTEEM social acceptability (5); resilience and deter-
mination (5); competence (4); control over
The studies of Rosenberg (1965) have demon- personal destiny (4); value of existence (2). Since
strated the contribution of a sense of personal the relative scores of items and components is of
worthiness, appearance and social competence primary interest, a Likert scale was chosen for
to self esteem. Coopersmith (1967) has empha- scoring. The numerical scale for each item
sized the need for a feeling of competence and ranges from 0-7, giving a maximum score for
power, and Beck (1967) has pointed out the 'global' self esteem of 210. Four anchor points
importance of interpretation of events in ar- range from 'completely disagree' to 'completely
riving at a self view. Abramson et al. (1978) have agree'.
shown how attributional style may effect self The phrasing and ordering of the items were
esteem. arranged to minimize the commoner response
Drawing this work together, self esteem can errors (Oppenheim, 1966). Thus, there is a
be defined as follows: balance of positive and negative items to counter
' The sense of contentment and self acceptance the tendency to acquiesce, categories are well
that results from a person's appraisal of his own mixed to reduce the halo effect and the logical
worth, significance, attractiveness, competence, error, and double barrelled statements are
and ability to satisfy his aspirations.' avoided. The instructions for the questionnaire
A measuring instrument must aim to quantify requested a response ' as you typically feel most
this sense, or the individual elements of self of the time' in an attempt to capture trait, rather
appraisal. than state, attributes.

DERIVATION AND ARRANGEMENT OF
ITEMS FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Based on the theoretical and empirical infor-
mation reviewed elsewhere (Robson, 1988),
seven components of self esteem were defined.
These consist of the subjective sense of sig-
nificance; worthiness; appearance and social
acceptablity; competence; resilience and deter-
mination; control over personal destiny; and
the value of existence.
Based on these components, 50 trait items
were either devised (N = 35) or modified from
SUBJECTS (See Table 1 for mean ages and
sex ratios)
Control group
Seventy people who showed no evidence of
psychological disorder were approached indi-
vidually by the author and asked to complete
the questionnaire. This was not a random
sample, but an attempt was made to obtain a
wide range of ages and occupational back-
grounds. The first 50 of these subjects also
completed the 10 items of the Rosenberg Self
Esteem Scale.
 Measurement of self esteem by questionnaire
Table 1. Mean age and sex ratio of the three
samples
Mean age Range Females
(years) S.D. (years)
Control group 31 90 20-60
Anxiety group 35 10 6 18-61
Psychotherapy 33 9-9 20-62
referrals
The mean self esteem of this sample as
measured by the Rosenberg scale (10+1-2
(standard deviation (s.D.)) did not differ sig-
nificantly from that reported in 'normal' popu-
lations elsewhere (e.g. 1-1 + 1-4 (s.D.) Ingham
et al. 1986).
Anxiety group
Fifty-one out-patients who met DSM-III criteria
for generalized anxiety disorder completed the
questionnaire. The first 24 subjects also com-
pleted the 10 Rosenberg items.
Psychotherapy group
A consecutive group of 47 patients referred to
the Psychotherapy Department for assessment
completed the questionnaire on first contact,
and again at the assessment interview.
MEASURES OF RELIABILITY
(a) Control group
'Global' self esteem scores showed a normal
distribution with a mean of 137 + 2-41 (standard
error (s.E.)), giving 9 5 % confidence limits of
132-142. Global scores did not relate to age (r
= - 0 0 3 , P = 0-8) or sex (females = 135-4 + 21-5
(s.D.), males = 137-8+19-1 (s.D.)). Split half
correlation was 0-931 (P < 0-0001) giving a
reliability score of 0-96 using the Spearman-
Brown formula.
Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0-89. Reli-
ability coefficient, derived from intraclass cor-
relation of items and the total number of items
in the test (Nunnally, 1967), gave an identical
value. The square root of this figure, 0-94, gives
the theoretical correlation of the test with 'true'
scores (Nunnally, 1967).
Test-Retest stability was measured in a group
of 21 students assessed at intervals of at least 4
weeks. Correlation of global scores was 0-87
515
(P < 0-0001) and mean stability of individual
items was 0-63 + 0-16 (s.D.).
(b) Patient groups
(%) In the anxiety sample split half correlation was
49 0-96 and the reliability coefficient derived from
76 intraclass correlation was 0*91.
52
Eighteen of the psychotherapy referrals were
sent the questionnaire by post following initial
contact and completed it again when they
attended for assessment, a mean interval of
40 ± 18 (S.D.) days. Mean global scores at these
two times were not significantly different
(100-5 + 25 and 101-7 + 28 (s.D.) respectively,
giving a test-retest correlation of 0-88 (P
< 00001).
MEASURES OF VALIDITY
Convergent validity
Rosenberg's (1965) self report measure of self
esteem has been widely used, and it is to be
expected that a new measure of self esteem
should correlate highly with this instrument.
This proved to be the case, with a positive
correlation of 0-804 (P < 00001) being demon-
strated in the first 50 control subjects.
A similar comparison was carried out in the
first 24 patients in the anxiety group, and here
the correlation was 0-85 (P < 00001).
Clinical validity
Nine experienced clinicians (four psychiatrists,
three clinical psychologists, two psycho-
therapists) were asked to estimate the self esteem
of patients well known to them on a 10-point
visual analogue scale, and then to request the
patient to complete the questionnaire. Patients
with organic or functional psychosis, acute
mental disorder, or current substance abuse
were excluded.
Thirty-seven patients were studied in this way.
The correlation between the clinicians' estimate
and the questionnaire was 0-7 (P < 00001).
Comparison with subjective assessment
Twenty patients from the anxiety group who
said that they had heard of self esteem and
understood the term were asked to estimate
their own self esteem on an 8-point visual
analogue scale. They then completed the ques-
tionnaire and the Beck Depression Inventory
19-2
516 P. Robson

(BDI). The correlation between the self evalua- therapy referrals were compared with the control
tion and the questionnaire was 07 (P = 00006). group, the former had significantly lower scores,
The correlation between the self evaluation and mean 'global' scores being 99-8±24 (S.D.) and
the BDI was -0-449 (P = 005). 137±20-2 respectively (P < 00001, / test).
When the effect of the BDI was partialled out,
the association between self evaluation and the
DISCUSSION
questionnaire remained significant (r = 0-624,
P < 001). This suggests that the relationship is The new self esteem scale was found to be
not mediated through the level of depression. acceptable to patients, and generally took only a
few minutes to complete. The reliability data
Discriminant validity detailed above compare favourably with that
reported for other self esteem measures (e.g.
Hypothesis Wylie, 1974). Preliminary investigations of con-
Low self esteem is generally held to be highly vergent and discriminant validity are also en-
associated with depressive disorder (e.g. Beck, couraging, and further assessment in larger
1967; Ingham et al. 1986) so that one would populations now seems appropriate.
predict a significant negative correlation between A factor analysis is being carried out in order
level of depression and self esteem score. In the to determine how the individual items inter-
anxiety sample the correlation between the BDI relate. The components upon which the scale is
and the new scale was -0-69 (P < 00001). based overlap, so that it might be expected, for
example, that 'significance' and 'worthiness'
Hypothesis may load together. This does not necessarily
A strong association between anxiety and low imply redundance since retaining breadth of
self esteem has frequently been reported (e.g. content is a primary aim of the 30-item format,
Rosenberg, 1962; Bagley et al. 1979). A group of which is intended to provide a rapid and
anxious patients should, therefore, be dis- systematic means of assessing self concept.
tinguishable from control subjects on the basis Responses to individual items, or patterns or
of self esteem score. When the anxiety group response, may reveal irrational, self defeating
was compared with the control group the attitudes or beliefs which are amenable to
mean global scores were 108 + 24-8 (S.D.) and modification by methods such as cognitive
137 + 20-2 respectively, a highly significant differ- behaviour therapy (Beck et al. 1979). The main
ence ( P < 0-0001, /test). function of the factor analysis is to provide the
basis for the construction of a shorter form of
Hypothesis the measure for research use, with items repre-
Anxious patients who have been successfully senting each component selected in order to
treated should demonstrate a significant improve- maximize reliability and validity.
ment in self esteem. Thirteen patients from the Self esteem is clearly a composite rather than
anxiety group whose anxiety ratings had normal- a single entity (Robson, 1988), and the main
ized following psychological treatment were purpose in adopting a component approach in
studied. Mean global scores were 109 + 39 (S.D.) devising the items was to ensure that the
before treatment and 166-4+17-2 afterwards, a questionnaire taps a broad view of the concept
significant improvement (P < 00001, paired t in a balanced way without overstressing any
test). single aspect. A second major motive stems from
my belief that in conditions which cause similar
Hypothesis changes in 'global' self esteem, for example
Many psychotherapists believe that low self anxiety and depression, the contribution made
esteem is a particular characteristic of patients by individual components may be quite different.
referred for dynamic psychotherapy (Bloch, Thus, in the same way that the presence or
1988). One would, therefore, predict that a absence of certain components of depressive
consecutive group of psychotherapy referrals disorder, such as diurnal mood variation or
should score significantly less on the self esteem weight loss, aid classification and give pointers
scale than control subjects. When the psycho- for choice of therapy, so might analysis of the
 Measurement of self esteem by questionnaire
components of self esteem give clues to aetio-
logical or maintaining factors and facilitate
more focused psychological treatment. Changes
in component scores over time may be useful in
investigating treatment process.
It is clear that abnormal mood states such as
depression distort many cognitive processes
including memory (Clark & Teasdale, 1982),
attributions and expectancies (Abramson et al.
1978), and evaluation of the world and oneself
(Beck, 1967). Responses to self report question-
naires are bound to be biased in these circum-
stances and seem unlikely to represent accurately
the targeted concept. This would be especially
true of an abstract, subjective value judgement
such as self esteem.
For this reason it would seem sensible at this
stage to concentrate on investigating self esteem
and its components in circumstances in which
acute disorders are not central. Interest in this
department is currently focused on its role in the
process of psychotherapy, its effect on pattern of
substance abuse and the outcome of treatment,
and the way its components correlate with
outcome measures in chronic generalized anxiety
disorder.
I should like to thank Professor Michael Gelder for
advice and encouragement, and Pavlos Anastasiades
and Dr John Marzillier for their helpful comments on
the manuscript.
APPENDIX
The 30 items
I am not embarrassed to let people know my
opinions.
I seem to be very unlucky.
I'm easy to like.
If a task is difficult that just makes me all the more
determined.
There are lots of things I'd change about myself if
I could.
I can never seem to achieve anything worthwhile.
I don't care what happens to me.
I have control over my own life.
Most people find me reasonably attractive.
I'm glad I'm who I am.
Most people would take advantage over me if they
could.
I am a reliable person.
It would be boring if I talked about myself.
When I'm successful there's usually a lot of luck
involved.
517
I have a pleasant personality.
I never feel down in the dumps for very long.
I often feel humiliated.
I can usually make my mind up and stick to it.
Everyone else seems much more confident and
contented than me.
Even when I quite enjoy myself there doesn't seem
much purpose to it all.
I often worry about what other people are thinking
about me.
There's a lot of truth in the saying: " what will be,
will be."
I look awful these days.
If I really try I can overcome most of my problems.
It's pretty tough to be me.
I feel emotionally mature.
When people criticise me I often feel helpless and
second rate
When progress is difficult, I often find myself
thinking it's just not worth the effort.
I can like myself even when others don't.
Those who know me well are fond of me.
REFERENCES
Abramson, Lyn Y., Seligman, M. E. P. & Teasdale, J. D. (1978).
Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 87, 49-74.
Bagley, C , Verma, G. K., Mallick, K. & Young, L. (1979).
Personality, Self Esteem & Prejudice. Saxon House: England.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: towards a unifying theory of
behaviour change. Psychological Review 84, 191-215.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, Experimental and Thera-
peutic Aspects. Harper & Row: New York.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F. & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
Therapy of Depression Guilford Press: London.
Bloch, S. (1988). Personal Communication.
Bridle, M. J. (1984). Comparison of the Tennessee self concept scale
and the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale. Occupational Therapy
Journal of Research 4, 51-52.
Clark, D. & Teasdale, J. D. (1982). Diurnal variation in clinical
depression and accessibility of memories of positive and negative
experiences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 91, 87-95.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self Esteem. W. H.
Freeman: San Francisco.
Fairburn, C. G., Kirk, J., O'Connor, M., Anastasiades, P. & Cooper,
P. J., (1987). Prognostic factors in bulimia nervosa. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology 26, 223-224.
Fleming, J. S. & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self
esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement
scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 46, 404-421.
Ingham, J. G., Kreitman, N. B., Miller, P. M c C , Sashidharan, S. P.
& Surtees, P. G. (1986). Self esteem, vulnerability and psychiatric
disorder in the community. British Journal of Psychiatry 148,
375-385.
James, W. (1890) The Principles of Psychology. Macmillan:
London.
Lloyd, C , Chang, A. F. & Powell, B. J. (1979). Relationship of
different measures of self esteem to locus of control. Psychological
Reports 45, 160-162.
McDougall, W. (1928) An Outline of Psychology, 4th Edition.
Methuen: London.
Nunnally, J. M. (1967) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill: New
York.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966). Questionnaire Design & Attitude Measure-
ment. Heinemann: London.
518 P. Robson

Rogers, C. R. & Dymond, R. F. (1954). Psychotherapy and Person-
ality Change University of Chicaco Press: Chicago.
Robson, P. i. (1988). Self esteem: a psychiatrist's view. British
Journal of Psychiatry 153, 6-15.
Rosenberg, M. (1962). The association between self esteem and
anxiety. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1, 135-152.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self Image.
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Wells, L. E. & Marwell, G. (1976). Self Esteem: Its Conceptualisation
and Measurement. Sage Publications: Beverley Hills.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The Self Concept, (Volume 1: a review of
methodological considerations and measuring instruments). Uni-
versity of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
Wylie, R. C. (1979). The Self Concept, (Volume 2: Theory and
research on selected topics). University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.