Psychometric Properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Overall and Across Demographic Groups Living Within the United States

• Published in: Evaluation & the health professions Vol. 33; no. 1; pp. 56 - 80
• Main Authors: Sinclair, Samuel J., Blais, Mark A., Gansler, David A., Sandberg, Elisabeth, Bistis, Kimberly, LoCicero, Alice
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-03-2010; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Age differences; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analysis of Variance; Anxiety - diagnosis; Clinical variables; Cohabitation; Competence; Demographic aspects; Demography; Depression - diagnosis; Employment status; Female; Health administration; Health Surveys; Health technology assessment; Humans; Liking; Male; Marital status; Middle Aged; Normative data; Personality Inventory; Psychometric properties; Psychometric tests; Psychometrics; Quantitative psychology; Scales; Self Concept; Self esteem; Selfesteem; Statistics as Topic; Stress, Psychological - diagnosis; United States; Young Adult; United States; United States > US; self-esteem; psychometric; Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; scaling assumptions
• ISSN: 0163-2787; 1552-3918
• DOI: 10.1177/0163278709356187

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to evaluate the scaling assumptions and component structure of and present normative data for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) using a sample of US adults (N = 503), both overall and across demographic subgroups and (b) to provide new data regarding the relationship between the two RSES subcomponents of self-competence (SC) and self-liking (SL), and other demographic and clinical variables. As hypothesized, all psychometric tests supported the underlying structure of the RSES. Overall RSES scores varied significantly across age, racial and ethnic, education, employment status, income, and marital status groups. Furthermore, differences between SC and SL were also found across groups differing in gender, age, employment status, and marital status groups. The implications and limitations of this study are discussed, with an emphasis on clinical relevance.