See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266223536

A Brief Version of the Self Description

Questionnaire II

Article

CITATION READS

1 2,031

3 authors, including:

Louise A Ellis Herb Marsh

Macquarie University Australian Catholic University
31 PUBLICATIONS 756 CITATIONS 529 PUBLICATIONS 43,540 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Expectancy(self-concept)-Value interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Louise A Ellis on 12 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

A Brief Version of the Self Description Questionnaire II

Louise A. Ellis, Herbert W. Marsh and Garry E. Richards

University of Western Sydney
Australia

Although the Self Description Questionnaire II (SDQ-II) has widespread applicability to many areas of research of
psychology, its length sometimes limits its utility. This article evaluates a brief, 51-item version of the SDQ-II in a
sample of 1319 secondary school students. The psychometric properties were good; the self-concept specific scales
were reliable (.77- .90; Md = .82), first and higher-order confirmatory factor models fit the data well, and
correlations among the scales were moderate (.04 - .60; Md = .22). Gender and age differences were suggestive of
developmental trends that are consistent with results based on responses on the longer version.

Over the past two decades, the general conception of
self-concept has undergone a dramatic transformation.
Early researchers treated self-concept as a unidimensional
construct, arguing that given the heavy dominance of an
overall, general self-concept factor; it is virtually
impossible to differentiate among its subcomponents.
Owing to a substantial amount of construct validity
research, most of which was directed by Marsh and
colleagues (see Marsh & Hattie, 1996), contemporary
theorists rely on a multifaceted, hierarchical construal,
which becomes increasingly differentiated as the
individual moves from infancy to adulthood.
The strongest evidence for the multidimensionality of
self-concept comes from the work with the Self
Description Questionnaires developed for primary school
students (SDQI), secondary school students (SDQII) and
young adults (SDQIII). These measures are frequently
used in self-concept research and have been evaluated to
be among the best in terms of psychometric properties and
construct validation (Hattie, 1992; 1996). In previous
research on the SDQ II, factor analysis clearly identified
the 11 SDQII scales (target factor loadings were at least
.48; median = .68), each scale was reliable (median alpha
= .86), and correlations among the factors were small
(median r = .15).
Investigations on self-concept will often require that
the SDQ be administered to students in conjunction with a
number of other measures. However, the length of the
SDQ instruments may strain students patience and
endurance, particularly if being administered with other
measures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a brief
version of the original 102-item SDQII measure. The brief
version consists of 51 of the original items and is aimed to
improve the instruments utility without sacrificing its
excellent psychometric properties.
Method
Participants
A total of 1319 students from Grade 7 (n = 934), Grade
10 (n = 725) and Grade 11 (n = 65) participated in the study.
The mean age of students within each of the grade levels
was 11.95 (Grade 7), 14.93 (Grade 10) and 16.09 (Grade
11). The overall sample consisted of 925 females (53.8 %)
and 795 males (46.2%). The participants were drawn from 7
secondary Catholic schools in New South Wales, Australia.
1
Instrument: Self-Description Questionnaire II Short
Fifty-one of the strongest items from the original 102-
item SDQII were selected, 31 of which are positively
worded (see Appendix 1). The SDQII-S was intended to
assess the same seven non-academic scales (physical
ability, physical appearance, same sex relations, opposite
sex relations, parent relations, emotional stability and
honesty/truthfulness), three academic scales (mathematics,
verbal and general school) and overall global self-concept.
A summary of the 11 scales is presented in Appendix 2.
The response format was not changed from the original
1-False to 6-True response scale.
Procedure
The SDQII-S was administered in group settings
during class hours in the sixth week of the school year.
The SDQII-S was the second measure in a battery of
questionnaires, which were administered by one of the
authors of study according to the standardised procedures
used in previous SDQ research.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses described in this study were
conduced with SPSS 10.0 and LISREL 8.2 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). Before any of the analyses were performed,
the responses to negatively worded items were reversed so
that all varied along the one scale, where 6 represented the
highest level of self-concept and 1 represented the lowest.
Results from the analyses on the SDQII-S were compared
with those presented in the SDQII manual (Marsh, 1990).
As there were much fewer students from Year 11
completing the SDQII-S in the present study, we combined
the results of Year 11 with those of Year 10 for analyses
comparing responses of students in different grades.
The confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were
conducted with LISREL 8.2 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2002).
For a detailed description of the CFA procedure using
LISREL refer to Byrne (1998), Joreskog and Sorbom
(1996) or Kelloway (1998). Separate factor analyses were
conducted on responses from students from Year 7 and
Year 10/11, as well as for the total sample. Following
Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1996), and Marsh, Balla, and
McDonald (1988), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the
relative noncentrality index (RNI), and root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
goodness of fit, but we also present the 2 test statistic.
RMSEA values less than .05 indicate good fit and values
as high as .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation
in the population (see Marsh et al., 1996; Schumacker &
Lomax, 1996). The TLI and CFI vary along a 0-to-1
continuum in which values greater than .90 and .95 are
typically taken to reflect acceptable and excellent fits to
the data (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonett, 1980). An index
of .90 can be roughly interpreted as being able to explain
90% of the covariation among the measured variables.
Correlations among the SDQII-S scales were also
examined. The correlations were then analysed separately
for Year 7 versus Year 10/11 to determine whether or not
the correlations are reasonably similar for different ages.
Finally, the effects of grade level and gender were
determined by a series of univariate and multivariate
analyses.
Results and Discussion
Reliability Estimates.
Internal consistency estimates for the SDQII-S scales
for the total sample reached an acceptable level at both the
combined scale (range = .87 to .90) and subscale (range =
.77 to .90) levels, with a median alpha coefficient of .82.
As shown in Table 1, subscale coefficient alphas were
somewhat higher for Year 10/11 students (range = .81 to
.92) than Year 7 students (range = .67 to .89).
Interestingly, for the three combined scale scores, the
reliability estimates for Year 7 versus Year 10/11 students
were more similar than the estimates for the individual
scales. Coefficient alphas for the SDQII scales in the
normative archive (median = .86) were higher than those
based on Year 7 responses (median = .80), but very similar
to those based on Year 10/11 responses in the present
investigation (median = .85).
Factor Analysis
For the CFA each measured variable was allowed to
load only on the factor that it was designed to measure and
all other factor loadings were constrained to be zero. This
restrictive, a priori factor structure provided a fairly good
fit to the data (TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.07),
and all factor loadings were statistically significant
(varying from.41 to .94; median = .71). The mean
factor loading for Year 10/11 students (.74) is higher than
that for Year 7 students (.69).
Correlations among the factors ranged from .04 to .60
(median r = .22). Seventy percent of the correlations were
less than .30. These statistics provide support for the
distinctive nature of each factor. In addition, compared
with the average of all correlations, a) correlations were
generally higher among the 3 academic factors, b)
correlations were generally higher among the 7 non-
academic factors (particularly the first 4), and c)
correlations between academic and non-academic factors
tended to be lower.
2
Effects of Gender and Age
A series of one-way analysis of variance procedures
was carried out to detect gender and age differences on
each of the SDQII-S scales. Due to the sizeable number of
tests and considerable sample size, statistical significance
was set at the .01 level. Previous research on the SDQII has
consistently found sex differences in Physical Ability,
Appearance and Math favouring males and in Verbal,
Honesty/Trustworthiness and Same-Sex Relations favouring
females (Marsh, 1987; Marsh, Parker, & Barned, 1985;
Marsh, Smith, Marsh, & Owens, 1988). Consistent with the
original SDQII, we found that Males scored significantly
higher on Math [F(1, 1718) = 38.64, p = .000] and
Appearance [F(1, 1718) = 11.51, p = .00], whereas
females scored significantly higher on
Honesty/Trustworthiness [F(1, 1718) = 56.55, p = .00],
Same-Sex Relations [F(1, 1717) = 33.26, p = .00] and
Verbal [F(1, 1717) = 6.94, p = .01]. For the three
combined scales (Academic, Nonacademic and Total
Self), the effect of gender was not statistically significant.
We also sought to examine whether these effects varied
with age. At an alpha level of .05, we found no significant
age X gender interactions, suggesting that the effects of
gender may remain relative from Year 7 through Year
10/11. This finding is concordant with previous research
with the SDQII (Marsh, 1990).
Marsh (1990) reported that there is a consistent
pattern of age effects across the range of early and middle
adolescents responding to the SDQII. Self-concept
declines through about grade 8 or 9, levels out, and then
starts to increase in grades 10 and 11. We found a decline
on many of the SDQII-S scales with age. Students in Year
7 scored significantly higher than Year 10/11 students on
Physical Ability [F(1, 1722) = 36.47, p = .00], Appearance
[F(1, 1715) = 14.78, p = .00], Parent Relations [F(1, 1721)
= 101.61, p = .00], Opposite-Sex Relations [F(1, 1721) =
13.96, p = .00], Math [F(1, 1722) = 26.77, p = .00], Verbal
[F(1, 1721) = 12.04, p = .00], General School [F(1, 1721)
= 35.04, p = .00] and General Self [F(1, 1722) = 43, p =
.00].
Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) proposed that
self-concept becomes more differentiated with age.
Consistent with this proposal, Marsh, Barnes, Cairns, and
Tidman (1984) found that the size of correlations
substantially decrease in the preadolescent years. Marsh
(1990) has also reported that there is a weak tendency for
correlations to be smaller for the youngest and oldest
subjects completing the SDQII. The pattern of correlations
for Year 7 versus Year 10/11 students is presented in
Table 4. Consistent with the findings reported by Marsh
(1990), the size of the correlations was somewhat lower
for Year 10/11 students (Range = .01 to .55; Median = .20)
than Year 7 students (Range = .08 to .63; Median = .22).
In conclusion, this preliminary study suggests that the
psychometric properties of the SDQII-S are almost as
good as those of the full-length measure. Although
additional data needs to be gathered from a wider range of
secondary school year groups, and information is needed
regarding the validity of the SDQII-S, it appears that the
shorter measure will serve most research needs quite well
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

and also has the advantage of requiring less time in

administration than the original.

Contact Details

Ms Louise Ellis, PhD Student,

SELF Research Centre, Bldg 1,
University of Western Sydney, Bankstown Campus,
Locked Bag 1797,
Penrith South DC 1797 NSW Australia
Email: lellis@smartchat.net.au

References

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural

models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Byrne, B. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life
span: Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with
LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts,
applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.
Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.2.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kelloway, K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural
equation modelling: A researchers guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Masculinity, femininity and
androgyny: Their relations with multiple dimensions
of self-concept. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
22, 91-118.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-Description Questionnaire II
manual. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988).
Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor
analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological
Bulletin, 102, 391-410.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J (1996). Theoretical perspectives
on the structure of self-concept. In B. A. Bracken
(Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp 38-90). New
York: Wiley.
Marsh, H. W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985).
Multidimensional adolescent self-concept: Their
relationship to age, sex and academic measures.
American Educational Research Journal, 22, 422-
444.
Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., Marsh, M., & Lee, O. The
transition from single-sex to coeducational high
schools: Effects on multiple dimensions of self-
concept and on academic achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 25, 237-269.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976).
Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.

3
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 1
Coefficient Alpha Estimates of Reliability at Time 1 for Year7 students, Year 10/11 students, and the
Total Sample, as well as the Number of Items within Each Scale
Coefficient Alpha
Scale Year 7 Year 10/11 Total Normative
(N = 691) (N = 628) (N = 1319) Data on
SDQ II
(N = 5494)
Subscales:
Physical Abilities .79 .86 .83 .85
Physical Appearance .87 .89 .88 .91
Same-Sex Relationships .75 .81 .77 .86
Opposite-Sex Relationships .80 .84 .82 .90
Honesty/Trustworthiness .79 .84 .81 .84
Parent Relations .67 .84 .78 .87
Emotional Stability .79 .78 .78 .83
Verbal .88 .92 .89 .86
Math .89 .90 .90 .90
School .80 .87 .84 .87
General .80 .85 .82 .88
Combined scores:
Nonacademic .87 .87 .87
Academic .88 .89 .89
Total .90 .89 .90

Median subscale score .80 .85 .82 .86

Mean subscale score .80 .85 .83 .87

4
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 2
Summary of Parameter Estimates for Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Different Grade Levels and the
Total Group for the Eleven-Factor A Priori Model
Scale Year 7 Year 10/11 Total Group
Physical:
1 .79 .81 .80
2 .92 .95 .94
3 .43 .57 .48
4 .64 .70 .67
Appearance:
1 .84 .86 .86
2 .89 .91 .91
3 .70 .73 .73
4 .73 .74 .74
Same Sex:
1 .71 .72 .67
2 .54 .81 .66
3 .65 .56 .59
4 .63 .65 .63
5 .51 .68 .61
Opp. Sex:
1 .53 .62 .57
2 .88 .88 .88
3 .84 .80 .83
4 .57 .70 .62
Hon/Trust:
1 .51 .68 .60
2 .74 .72 .72
3 .64 .63 .63
4 .59 .75 .67
5 .57 .57 .55
6 .67 .71 .70
Parent:
1 .74 .78 .77
2 .69 .78 .75
3 .74 .79 .79
4 .36 .64 .50
Emot. Stab:
1 .62 .64 .63
2 .59 .62 .59
3 .57 .57 .57
4 .59 .60 .60
5 .82 .83 .83
Verbal:
1 .61 .71 .65
2 .78 .82 .80
3 .75 .87 .81
4 .86 .91 .88
5 .83 .87 .85
Math:
1 .84 .86 .85
2 .88 .93 .90
3 .88 .87 .88
4 .65 .71 .68
School:
1 .51 .72 .60
2 .73 .76 .76
3 .83 .87 .85
4 .85 .87 .86
General:
1 .67 .73 .71
2 .74 .77 .77
5
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

3 .75 .78 .78

4 .68 .66 .67
5 .64 .60 .62
6 .35 .56 .41
Mean Factor Loading .69 .74 .71
Note. All parameter estimates are presented in completely standardised format. For the total sample,2 (1169) = 8355.34, p
= .00; Tucker Lewis Index = 0.94; comparative fit index = 0.95; root mean square residual = 0.07.

Table 3
Correlations among the SDQII-S Scales
Scale Phys Appr Sm Op Hon Prnt Emt Ver Math Schl Genl
Sx Sx n
Physical 1.00
Appearance .33 1.00
Same. Sex .23 .24 1.00
Opp. Sex .28 .36 .46 1.00
Honesty .10 .08 .28 .12 1.00
Parent .18 .20 .23 .08 .32 1.00
Emot Stab .19 .20 .28 .25 .20 .14 1.00
English .10 .22 .16 .13 .22 .17 .13 1.00
Math .14 .19 .12 .04 .18 .17 .12 .15 1.00
School .17 .26 .21 .13 .32 .30 .17 .56 .58 1.00
General .36 .48 .38 .28 .36 .42 .28 .38 .38 .60 1.00
Note. Self-concept factors are: Phys = Physical, Appr = Appearance, Sm Sx = Same-sex relations, Op Sx =
Opposite-sex relations, Hon = Honesty/Trustworthiness, Prnt = Parent Relations, Emtn = Emotional Stability,
Ver = Verbal, Schl = School, and Genl = General.

6
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 4
Correlations among the SDQII-S Scales for Year 7 and Year 10/11 students
Scale hys Appr Sm Op Hon Prnt Emtn Eng Math Schl Genl
Sx Sx
Year 7
Physical 1.00
Appearance .36 1.00
Same. Sex .21 .24 1.00
Opp. Sex .29 .37 .42 1.00
Honesty .11 .15 .34 .16 1.00
Parent .17 .25 .30 .10 .34 1.00
Emot Stab .18 .17 .24 .23 .18 .09 1.00
English .13 .21 .17 .13 .24 .17 .02 1.00
Math .16 .22 .16 .08 .20 .18 .12 .18 1.00
School .22 .29 .24 .15 .35 .31 .10 .59 .59 1.00
General .38 .47 .39 .28 .37 .38 .18 .40 .44 .63 1.00
Year 10/11
Physical 1.00
Appearance .28 1.00
Same. Sex .27 .23 1.00
Opp. Sex .32 .38 .52 1.00
Honesty .09 .00 .20 .07 1.00
Parent .15 .13 .20 .10 .31 1.00
Emot Stab .20 .24 .34 .28 .23 .19 1.00
English .04 .22 .15 .16 .19 .14 .05 1.00
Math .08 .13 .06 .01 .16 .13 .05 .10 1.00
School .10 .21 .17 .14 .29 .26 .13 .53 .56 1.00
General .32 .48 .40 .34 .34 .41 .32 .34 .30 .55 1.00
Note. Self-concept factors are: Phys = Physical, Appr = Appearance, Sm Sx = Same-sex relations, Op Sx =
Opposite-sex relations, Hon = Honesty/Trustworthiness, Prnt = Parent Relations, Emtn = Emotional Stability,
Eng = English, Schl = School, and Genl = General.

7
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Appendix 1

Items in the SDQII-S

MATHEMATICS is one of my best subjects

I have a nice looking face
Overall, I have a lot to be proud of
I am honest
I enjoy things like sports, gym, and dance
I am hopeless in ENGLISH classes
I worry more than I need to
I get along well with my parents
I get bad marks in most SCHOOL SUBJECTS
I am not very popular with members of
the opposite sex
It is difficult to make friends with members
of my own sex
I get good marks in MATHEMATICS
I am good looking
Most things I do, I do well
I often tell lies
I am good at things like sports, gym, and dance
Work in ENGLISH classes is easy for me
I am a nervous person
My parents treat me fairly
I learn things quickly in most SCHOOL SUBJECTS
I make friends easily with boys
I make friends easily with girls
I have always done well in MATHEMATICS
Other people think I am good looking
Overall, most things I do turn out well
I sometimes cheat
I am awkward at things like sports, gym, and dance
ENGLISH is one of my best subjects
I often feel confused and mixed up
My parents understand me
I do things as well as most people
I do things as well as most people
I am better than most of my friends at things like sports, gym, and dance
I get good marks in ENGLISH
I get upset easily
I do not like my parents very much
I am good at most SCHOOL SUBJECTS
I do not get along very well with boys
I do not get along very well with girls
If I really try I can do almost anything I want to do
I sometimes take things that belong to other people
I learn things quickly in ENGLISH classes
I worry about a lot of things
I make friends easily with members of my own sex
Overall I am a failure
I sometimes tell lies to stay out of trouble

8
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Appendix 2

Summary Description of the 11 SDQII scales

Scale Description No. of Items No. of Items
in SDQII-S in SDQII
Physical Abilities Student ratings of their skills and interest in sports, 4 8
games and physical activities.
Physical Appearance Student ratings of their physical attractiveness, how 4 8
their appearance compares with others, and how
others think they look.
Same-Sex Student ratings of their popularity with members of 5 10
Relationships the same sex and how easily they make friends with
members of the same sex.
Opposite-Sex Student ratings of their popularity with members of 4 8
Relationships the opposite sex and how easily they make friends
with members of the opposite sex.
Honesty/ Student ratings of their honesty and trustworthiness. 6 10
Trustworthiness
Parent Relationships Student ratings of how well they get along with 4 8
their parents, whether they like their parents, and
the quality of their interactions with their parents.
Emotional Stability Student ratings of themselves as being calm and 5 10
relaxed, emotional stability, and how much they
worry.
Verbal Student ratings of their skills and ability in English 5 10
and reading.
Math Student ratings of their skills and ability in 4 10
mathematics.
School Student ratings of their skills and ability in school 4 10
subjects in general.
General Student ratings of themselves as effective, capable 6 10
individuals, who are proud and satisfied with the
way they are.

View publication stats