European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp.

142150
F. Gurin et al.: Con struct Validation of the Self-Description
EJPA 19Questionnaire
(2), 2003 Hogrefe
II with&aHuber
Fren ch
Publishers
Sample

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Construct Validation of the

Self-Description Questionnaire
II with a French Sample
Florence Gurin1, Herbert W. Marsh2, and Jean-Pierre Famose3
1

Universit Paris XI, France, 2University of Western Sydney, Australia, 3Universit Paris XI, France
Keywords: Adolescent self-concept, French validation, multidimensionality, hierarchy

Summary: This investigation is a French validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II, an instrument derived from the Marsh and Shavelson model and designed to measure adolescent self-concept. Previous
theoretical and methodological considerations in SDQ research provided guidelines for the instrument withinconstruct validity. 480 students completed the questionnaire. Reliability and confirmatory factor analyses were
used to demonstrate support for the good psychometric properties, the well-defined 11 facets of the multidimensional self-concept, the two remarkably distinct higher order academic areas, and the weak hierarchical ordering.
Third-order HCFA models resulted in a hierarchical general self-concept modestly related to most nonacademic
self-concepts and rather weakly to academic self-concepts. The present research strongly supports the multifaceted nature of self-concept, but cannot supply clear evidence for the usefulness of hierarchical representations
of adolescent self-concept.
Self-concept research has developed considerably in recent decades. It is the objective product of W. Jamess
findings on self-consciousness (James, 1909), the models
of intelligence proposed by British and American researchers such as Spearman, Thurstone, Guilford, or Cattell, and advances in the application of factor analysis and
related statistical techniques. The enhancement of selfconcept is the ultimate outcome in many disciplines such
as educational, developmental, clinical, social, and sport
psychology (Marsh & Hattie, 1996). Henceforth, the aim
of the psychologist is to describe and explain the complex
structure of the self in various environments, to predict a
persons behavior, to produce measures for intervention
scores, and to relate self-concept to other constructs.

The Marsh/Shavelson Model

In the 1970s a great deal of criticism was formulated
about the methodological shortcomings and the questionable quality of self-concept measurement instruments (Burns, 1979; Wells & Marwell, 1976; Wylie,
1974, 1979). Conducting their research in the educationEJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
DOI: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.142

al field, Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) reviewed and criticized prior self-concept research and
contended that it lacked sophistication in theory, measurement, and methodology. They addressed these critical deficiencies and subsequently developed a particularly complete and unified self-concept theory. They posited a self-concept construct identifying seven features
that described the model: organized, multifaceted, hierarchical, stable, developmental, evaluative, and differentiable. They elaborated a possible graphic representation
of self-concept which was dominated at its apex by a
General-self, which in turn was divided into Academic
and Nonacademic self-concepts. The latter separated into several different facets: Physical, Social, and Emotional self-concepts. Nevertheless, this theoretical model
by Shavelson et al. consistent and heuristic though it
was had not been empirically validated by its authors.
In order to address this concern, Marsh (Marsh, 1990c,
1993; Marsh & Craven, 1997) designed the SDQ instruments to measure different areas of self-concept for preadolescents (SDQ I), adolescents (SDQ II), and late adolescents (SDQ III). The results provided strong support
for the multidimensionality of self-concept. And al-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

though they were consistent with Shavelson et al.s assumption (1976) that self-concept was hierarchically ordered, these findings failed to demonstrate the strength
of the hierarchy. While supporting most self-concept distinctive features assumed in the Shavelson et al. construct, Marsh was subsequently led to develop a different
hierarchical self-concept structure. In this model the students Verbal and Math self-concepts were so distinct that the two constructs could not be collapsed into
a single academic self-concept and had to be separated
(Marsh & Shavelson, 1985). To provide a plausible explanation for that near-zero correlation, Marsh (1986)
developed an internal/external (I/E) frame of reference
model that proposed that students Math and Verbal selfconcepts were formed on the basis of an external comparison (with other students) and an internal comparison
(between his/her subject-specific domains). These two
types of comparison could be expanded to most academic subjects (including P.E. or sports), and therefore illustrated the potential breadth of applicability of the I/E
model (Marsh & Hattie, 1996). The SDQ self-concept
research posits a General-self split into two academic
self-concepts (Maths/Academic and Verbal/Academic),
as well as two nonacademic self-concepts (Physical/Social) for preadolescents, and three nonacademic selfconcepts (Physical, Social and Moral) for late adolescents.
To date, the hierarchy has been thoroughly tested on
the SDQ I and III self-concept models but has not been
explored on the SDQ II responses.
The goal of the present investigation is, first, to establish a reliable French version of the SDQ II and then to
validate the construct presented in the revised model
(Marsh & Shavelson, 1985), focusing exclusively on
within-network studies. The internal structure of selfconcept will be examined in order to provide support for
its multidimensionality, to confirm the clear separation
of the two higher-order academic self-concepts, and to
test the hierarchical hypothesis that has previously been
examined for young and late adolescents (Marsh, 1987;
Marsh & Hocevar, 1985).

Methods
Sample
The sample consisted of 480 talented French students
(264 males, 216 females) enrolled in grades 10 to 12;
ages ranged from 15 to 17. The respondents attended a
high school specialized in sciences and tended to come
from upper-middle-class families.

143

The SDQ II Instrument

The SDQ II (Marsh, 1990b) was developed in Australia
for adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. This 102-item questionnaire yields 11 scale scores assessing seven nonacademic scales: Physical abilities (Pabl), Physical appearance (Appr), Opposite sex (Osex), Same sex (Ssex), Parents (Prnt), Honesty/Trustworthiness (Hnst), Emotional
stability (Emot); three academic scales: Maths (Math),
Verbal (Verb), General school (Schl); and one Global
Self-Esteem scale (Estm). Its factor structure was validated in numerous prior studies on general populations
(Marsh, 1990a,b; Marsh, Parada, & Ayotte, 2002; Marsh,
Parker, & Barnes, 1985) as well as on gifted and talented
populations (Marsh, Plucker, & Stocking, in press). The
response format is based on a 6-point Likert scale. Reliability estimates for the 11 scales ranged from .83 to .91.
Each a priori factor was identified through factor analysis. As to the relationships to the external criteria, the
SDQ II was correlated with academic achievement indicators, age, gender, locus of control, self-attribution for
success or failure, physical fitness, participation in
sports, self-concept enhancement interventions and
mental health. That previous research provided strong
support for the construct validity of responses to the
SDQ II. The instrument has already been tested in the
United States (Marsh, 1994) and in Canada (Marsh et al.,
2002), thus demonstrating its generalizability. Byrne
(1996) introduced the SDQ II as the most validated adolescent self-concept measurement instrument with sound
psychometric qualities.

Translation
The current study is the first validation of the SDQ II in
France. We followed the different steps described in the
translating approach for psychological tests developed
by Vallerand and Halliwell (1983) and Vallires and Vallerand (1990). First, the original English anchor version
was translated into French (the target language) by a first
translator. This version was then backtranslated into
English (the source language) by another translator. Both
English versions proved globally similar from a semantic point of view, indicating a significant degree of equivalence between the anchor and the target versions. Second, the French version was evaluated by the researchers. The following steps tested the clarity of the items and
minor cultural differences. Next, a committee formed by
six translators and the researchers examined the French
translation and developed a pilot version that was administered to 20 11th-grade students who were later interviewed individually on various aspects of the instrument.
A final version was then constructed.
EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

144

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Statistical Analyses
The precision of a measurement includes two ordered
types of analyses: the estimation of reliability and construct validity. This latter study can be broadly subdivided
into internal and external validities (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955). In the course of construct validation, the researcher
seeks empirical evidence in support of hypothesized relations both among facets of the same construct (within-network studies) and among different constructs or other
external criteria (between-network studies). The present
study focused solely on the within-construct analysis. The
procedures we used were: confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), which identifies an a priori first-order factor structure; and hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis
(HCFA), which tests the ability of higher-order factors to
represent domain-specific self-concepts.
Estimation of Reliability
Reliability consists of estimating the internal consistency, stability, or both (Fleishman & Benson, 1987). Internal consistency was examined using the traditional coefficient estimate of reliability.
Data Description
All questionnaires containing more than five missing responses were discarded. Missing data (0.25% of total
responses) were handled by means of the SerialMean
transformation method from the MVA procedure in
SPSS 10.0. The SDQ II Test manual strongly advises the
use of item pairs in factor analysis (Marsh, 1990b) as this
increases the subjects-to-variables ratio and consequently results in more reliable variables (due to a smaller
component of unique variance). In addition, factor loadings are less affected by the idiosyncracies of individual
items, and this method proves most cost-efficient and
time-saving.

Factor Analyses
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Hierarchical
CFAs (HCFAs)
A detailed presentation of the conduct of the CFA and
HCFAs is beyond the scope of the present investigation
and is being developed elsewhere (e.g., Bollen, 1989;
Jreskog & Srbom, 1999). Analyses were conducted
with LISREL 8.30/Prelis 2 software (Jreskog & Srbom 2000), using the ML estimation method. LISREL
provides numerous overall goodness-of-fit indices. Following Marsh, Balla, and McDonald (1988) and McDonald and Marsh (1990), the present research emphaEJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

sized the RMSEA, TLI, and RNI to evaluate the goodness of fit. The test statistics and the /df ratio were
also presented. The statistics range between zero and
infinity, with zero indicating a perfect fit and a large
number indicating an important lack of fit. Moreover, it
is quite sensitive to sample size and the number of variables and increases proportionally to these two elements.
The TLI and RNI should vary between 0 and 1; values
greater than .90 and .95 reflect an acceptable and an
excellent fit, respectively. Acceptable values of the
RMSEA range between .05 and .08. Browne and Cudeck
(1993) suggest that a value of .05 indicates a close fit and
values up to .08 represent reasonable errors of approximation in the population. It contains, as does the TLI, a
penalty for lack of parsimony.
Whereas the SDQ II first-order model has been repeatedly replicated, its hierarchical structure has remained unexplored. That explains why our general
framework for testing structural equation models was
strictly confirmatory (SC) for the first-order factor structure, and somewhat in between the confirmatory and the
alternative modeling (AM) approach for higher-order
structure (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Model 1, a firstorder model was initially posited to test the a priori structure of the 11 SDQ II factors. Examination of correlation
patterns of the first-order model provided a strong basis
for the development of higher-order model fitting. The
rationale for fitting hierarchical models was firmly
grounded in the Marsh/Shavelson model, which primarily supported the following assumptions:
1. The separation of two self-concept areas (academic
and nonacademic domains as posited by Shavelson et
al.),
2. The clear distinction between two uncorrelated academic factors,
3. The diversity of nonacademic higher-order factors and
the complicated first-order cross-correlation pattern
existing among the different nonacademic factors.
Following a parsimonious ordering, several competing
hierarchical models were proposed to explain the relations among the first-order structure. First, Model 2, a
single global factor structure, was posited to explain the
relationships among the 11 lower-order factors. Model 3
tested the superiority of the academic and nonacademic
areas hypothesis over the structure of Model 2. The next
structure (Model 4) assessed, at the academic level, the
superiority of the Marsh/Shavelson model (separation of
two academic factors) over the Shavelson et al. model
(one single academic factor). Lastly, we developed two
alternative models proposing different higher-order factors the nonacademic area (Models 5 and 6) in order to
test the higher-order model that would better represent
the complex first-order factor covariations. Complying

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

with the rule of parsimony, when two models exhibited

an equivalent goodness-of-fit, the one requiring fewer
parameters and having the larger degrees of freedom was
preferred, provided it allowed a balance between statistical and substantive model fit.

Results
Reliability
Reliability estimates for the SDQ II were good (Table 1).
Internal consistency for the total self-concept score was
.94. Coefficients for the 11 facet scores varied from .85
for Honesty to .95 for Math (median = .91).

Heywood Cases

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

145

An important source of concern and consternation in

structural covariance modeling is the appearance of undesirable results such as negative variance estimates
Heywood cases which necessarily yield improper solutions. These offending estimates typically mean that a
model is unidentified or unstable. Several solutions have
been discussed for handling Heywood cases (Bentler &
Weeks, 1980; Rindskopf, 1983; Jreskog & Srbom,
1999; Marsh, 1987).

Factor Analyses
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Model 1 (Table 2) was a simple structure model in which
each measured variable was assigned a non-zero loading
on only the one factor it was supposed to measure. This
restrictive a priori factor structure provided a good fit to
the data (TLI = .925; Table 2). All factor loadings were
statistically significant (from .63 to .96; Md = .83) and
clearly identified the 11 components the SDQ II instrument was designed to measure. The most positive correlations involved were the following: first, the global Esteem factor that substantially correlated with General
school (.58), Appearance (.60), Opposite sex (.50),
Emotion (.47), then General school, which correlated with Math (.65) and Verbal (.43); and lastly, Opposite sex with Appearance (.55) and Same sex
(.51). As predicted, the Academic Math and Verbal
self-concepts were nearly uncorrelated with each other
(0.1). Correlations among the 11 factors, varying from
.08 to .65, were moderate and revealed remarkably distinct factors (Table 1). The evaluation of the parameter

Explained Variance Ratio (EVR; Table 3)

An EVR is designed to provide a summary of the variance in first-order factors explained by higher-order factors. The smaller the residual variance, the better the
lower-order factor is explained by a higher-order factor
and conversely. The EVR is estimated as one minus the
ratio of the residual variance to the factor variance; it
varies between 0 and 1.0. Zero indicates that none of the
variance is explained by higher-order factor, and one
means that all of the variance is explained by higher-order factor (for details on EVR estimation, see Marsh
1987).

Table 1. Self-concept factor structure.

Indicator

Math Verb

Schl

Pabl

Appr

Factor
Ssex Osex

Prnt

Hnst

Emot

Estm

Factor Correlations
Math
Verb
Schl
Pabl
Appr
Ssex
Osex
Prnt
Hnst
Emot
Estm

1.00
.01
.65
.02
.14
.07
.10
.26
.09
.17
.38

1.00
.43
.08
.09
.04
.07
.12
.24
.06
.27

1.00
.05
.22
.13
.14
.35
.14
.24
.58

1.00
.32
.24
.29
.15
.06
.13
.28

1.00
.31
.55
.17
.06
.35
.60

1.00
.51
.22
.08
.31
.40

1.00
.11
.02
.25
.50

1.00
.37
.24
.46

1.00
.05
.18

1.00
.47

1.00

Reliability estimates
Indicator
Math Verb

Schl

Pabl

Appr

Ssex

Osex

Prnt

Hnst

Emot

Estm

.92

.91

.93

.92

.93

.91

.85

.86

.87

.95

.89

Maths (Math), Verbal (Verb), General school (Schl), Physical ability (Pabl), Physical appearance (Appr), Opposite sex (Osex), Same sex
(Ssex), Parents (Prnt), Honesty (Hnst), Emotion (Emot), Global self-esteem (Estm)
EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

146

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2. Summary of goodness-of-fit for SDQ II models (N = 480).

MODEL

DF

/DF

RNI

TLI

RMSEA

0
First-Order (FO)
1A
Higher Order (HO)
2
3
4
5
6

20150.34

1275

15.80

.266

2472.47

1169

2.11

.931

.925

.049

3047.30
2862.86
2803.26
2722.85
2705.49

1213
1213
1211
1210
1211

2.51
2.36
2.31
2.25
2.23

.903
.913
.916
.920
.921

.898
.908
.911
.916
.917

.058
.056
.054
.053
.053

Note. RNI = Relative noncentrality index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
Model Description
0
Null model; 51 uncorrelated FO factors
1
11 correlated first-order factors, no higher order factors.
2
One higher order factor defined by all 11 first-order factors.
3
Two correlated higher order (Academic/Nonacademic) factors.
4
Three 2nd order factors (Math/academic, Verbal/academic, Nonacademic) and one 3rd order (General self) factor. (First-order
Esteem loading directly on General self)
5
Five 2nd order factors (Math/academic, Verbal/academic, Physical, Social, Moral) and one 3rd order (General self) factor.
(First-order Esteem loading directly on General self)
6
Four 2nd order factors (Math/academic, Verbal/academic, Physical/social, Moral) and one 3rd order (General self) factor.
(First-order Esteem loading directly on General self)

estimates, the well-defined 11 factors, the reliability estimates, and the ability of the a priori first-order model
to fit the data provided good support for the multidimensionality of adolescent self-concept, and for the frequently reported need to separate Math and Verbal self-concepts. This finding confirmed the Marsh/Shavelson fundamental hypothesis of a clear separation between the
two first-order facets and provided further support for the
multidimensionality of the academic self-concept.

Hierarchical Factor Analyses (HCFAs)

Heywood cases were encountered in four higher-order
models (models 3, 4, 5, 6; Figure 1). Improper solutions
were probably due to an insufficient number of indicators per factor. They were solved by constraining firstorder loadings to equality in the academic area (see
Figure 1, note b). After elimination of the offending
estimates, these models yielded acceptable fit to the data.
In Model 2, a single second-order factor explained the
11 first-order factors. Most of them loaded significantly
on the General factor (with the exception of the Honesty factor: .231). The fit was barely acceptable (TLI =
.898).
Model 3 was a two second-order factor model. It had
a better fit than did Model 2 (TLI = .908; Table 2). EVRs
showed a much better representation of the three academic facets than in the preceding model (Table 3).
EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Model 4 differed from Model 3 in that its academic

area was divided into two second-order factors, Math/academic and Verbal/academic, as posited by Marsh and
Shavelson (1985) and Marsh (1990c). The nonacademic
area remained unchanged with the exception of the Esteem factor, which loaded directly on the third-order
General self-concept factor because of its superordinate
status. Moreover, the three second-order factors loaded
on a third-order General factor (Figure 1). This model
did better than Model 3 (TLI = .911); in addition, examination of EVRs showed a better representation of firstorder facets than second-order factors. And among second-order factors, Verbal/academic was more poorly
represented by a General self-concept factor than
Math/academic.
Model 5 proposed the same academic structure as
Model 4. Except for the Esteem factor loading directly
on the General self-concept, the nonacademic area was
divided into three second-order factors (Physical, Social,
and Moral). All five higher-order factors loaded on a
General third-order factor (Figure 1). This model was
able to fit the data better than Model 4 (TLI = .916).
EVRs revealed that first- and second-order factors were
better represented by higher-order structure than in the
preceding model.
Model 6 is different from Model 5 in that the Physical
and Social second-order factors were collapsed into a
single facet. Comparison of these two models (Table 2)
showed, for Model 6, a slightly better and better goodness-of-fit indices (TLI = .917). EVRs suggested a nearly

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

147

Figure 1. The five HCFA models.

Note (a): G = General self-concept; A = Academic self-concept; N = Nonacademic self-concept; M/A = Math/Academic self-concept; V/A =
Verbal/Academic self-concept; Phy = Physical self-concept; Socl = Social self-concept; Morl = Moral self-concept; P/S = Physical/Social self-concept.
Note (b): In the academic area, in models 4, 5, and 6, proper solutions were obtained by constraining first-order General School (Schl) to load equally on
each of the two higher-order academic factors. In model 3, General School was constrained to a fixed value. In the nonacademic area, in models 4, 5,
and 6, first-order factor Esteem was constrained to a fixed value.

Table 3. Explained variance ratios (EVRs) for first-order and second-order factors in models 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
2
First-order factors
Math
16.74
Verb
7.14
Schl
34.74
Pabl
9.41
App
37.76
Ssex
19.64
Osex
28.52
Prnt
21.50
Hnst
3.33
Emot
24.33
Estm
92.00
Second-order factors
MTAC
VBAC
ACAD
NACAD
PHYS
SOCL
MORL
PHSO

EVRs for each model

3
4
5

49.68
17.27
99.09
10.89
40.94
21.75
31.71
20.54
2.93
25.44
90.09

72.1
67.7
92.7
16.8
53.9
31.6
57.2
30.3
7.0
28.4
97.3

74.10
70.11
91.72
15.00
49.29
30.29
44.73
15.78
1.37
25.85
93.57

71
67.39
92.34
15.65
67.47
40.88
63.35
29.10
6.05
29.41
96.19

43.90 37.71 41.8

8.15 8.94 8.98
67.41
54.51
41.83
73.31 73.17
49.20

Note. EVR is defined as: [(1 (Residual Variance/Variance estimate)) 100]; Maths (Math), Verbal (Verb), General school (Schl),
Physical ability (Pabl), Physical appearance (Appr), Opposite sex
(Osex), Same sex (Ssex), Parents (Prnt), Honesty (Hnst), Emotion
(Emot), General self-esteem (Estm).

similar explained variance for the two models. Consistent with the rule of parsimony, Model 6, having one
parameter less than Model 5 (115 parameters), and one
more degree of freedom (df = 1211), was preferable to
Model 5 as the best structure to explain responses to the
SDQ II.
In summary, though not the best solution, Model 4,
which was designed to explain the organization of academic facets, demonstrated its superiority over more
parsimonious Models 2 and 3; it also provided support
for the Marsh and Shavelson model (Marsh, 1990c).
Models 5 and 6, explaining the structure of the nonacademic area, provided a reasonable improvement over
Model 4.

Discussion
Previous SDQ research carried out within the Marsh/
Shavelson theoretical framework posited a multidimensional self-concept for preadolescents (SDQ I; Marsh &
Hocevar, 1985), adolescents (SDQ II; Marsh, Parker &
Barnes, 1985), and late adolescents (SDQ III; Marsh,
1987). The findings of the present investigation, based
on responses by adolescents to the French SDQ II, substantiated the multifaceted nature of self-concept.
Prior SDQ research, based on responses by preadolescents and late adolescents, also posited a complicated
EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

148

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

and relatively weak hierarchical ordering. Our study

confirmed this result and expanded this finding to adolescents as a new area of self-concept. It also provided a
strong test of the generality of SDQ II results to a French
population.
In the academic area, we supported the clear distinction between the two second-order academic facets proposed in the Marsh and Shavelson revision (Marsh,
1990c). In addition, in the present study, these two facets
were not equally represented. General self-concept was
better defined by Math/academic than by Verb/academic
(Table 3). This could be explained as a typical educational setting effect (importance of Math in French high
schools) reinforced by an even greater predominance of
Math in this science-oriented high school. However, further research would be needed on this aspect.
In the nonacademic domain, the reason for favoring
Model 6 over Model 5 stemmed from the study of their
Physical and Social facets. In Model 5, Physical (Physical appearance, Physical ability) and Social (Same sex,
Opposite sex) factors were distinct. Yet, correlations between Physical appearance and Opposite sex were higher
than correlations among the Physical and among the Social facets. A similar feature had been found in SDQ I
(Marsh, 1988), SDQ II (Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985),
and SDQ III (Marsh, 1987) research. Moreover, the correlation between Physical and Social factors (.477) was
the highest among the second-order facets. All these reasons argued in favor of the single-Physical/Social factor
that was tested in Model 6. It revealed a slightly better fit
than Model 5. It also corresponded to the best fitting
model proposed by Marsh and Hocevar in 1985 for preadolescents and was quite similar to the authors secondbest solution for late adolescents (Marsh, 1987). This
choice of a single factor seemed intuitively consistent
with an adolescent population.
The last second-order factor, Moral, in the nonacademic area was composed of first-order Parents, Honesty, and Emotion self-concepts (Table 2). The very poor
correlation between Emotion and Honesty (.05; Table 1)
was a definite weakness in this higher-order factor and
contributed to the weakness of the hierarchical representation.
In Models 4 to 6, the first-order factor Esteem loaded
on the General self-concept (the Esteem self-concept is
an adaptation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(1979) incorporated in all three SDQ instruments). It
was hypothesized that Esteem, as a superordinate factor, would contribute directly to the hierarchical General self-concept. For that reason, overall correlations of
Esteem self-concept among first-order factors, as well
as with the General self-concept, were found to be the
highest.
In summary, the present investigation demonstrates
EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

the existence of a clearly defined multidimensional

structure of self-concept, which is the essential and recurrent finding in SDQ research. However, the negative
evidence because much of the variance in many lowerorder factors was not explained by higher-order factors,
the generalized improper solutions found in Models 3,
4, 5, 6 and hence, the need for so much constraining
(especially in the academic facet) for solving the offending issue did not argue in favor of a strong hierarchy. It seemed very clear that the best-fitting model
was by far the CFA first-order model. Each of the HCFA
models did significantly poorer than the first-order
model that was the basis of comparison for each HCFA
model, which argues against an overemphasis on the
HCFA structure. In previous studies, similar results on
the hierarchy of general self-concept led Marsh and colleagues to the conclusion that General self-concept was
not a particularly useful construct (Marsh, Byrne, &
Shavelson, 1992). In fact, it could not adequately reflect
the diversity of specific self-facets. In a different age
range, recent self-concept research on preschool children (SDQP) brought further support in favor of the
first-order model (Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991,
1998; Marsh, Ellis, & Craven, 2002). Their results
showed that self-concept hierarchy was so weak that it
would have been useless to use a higher-order representation instead of a first-order structure. Moreover, in the
SDQ academic area, it had been found that each selfconcept domain was more highly correlated with external criteria relevant to its corresponding facet rather
than with other self-concept domains (Marsh, 1993).
These considerations strongly support the particular relevance of specific self-concept research in various areas: Academic (Marsh, 1990c; 1992; 1993), Physical
(Marsh, Hey, Johnson, & Perry, 1997; Marsh, Richards,
Johnson, Roche, & Tremayne, 1994), Social (Byrne,
1996) or, performing Arts (Vispoel, 1995), especially if
researchers wish to understand, explain and predict the
persons specific behavior in order to help implement
appropriate interventions.

References
Bentler, P.M., & Weeks, D.G. (1980). Linear structural equations
with latent variables. Psychometrika, 45, 289308.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: Wiley.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445455). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Burns, R.B. (1979). The Self-concept: Theory, measurement, development and behavior. London: Longman.
Byrne, B. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span:

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302.
Fleishman, J., & Benson, J. (1987). Using LISREL to evaluate
measurement models and scale reliability. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 47, 925939.
James, W. (1909). Prcis de psychologie [Principles of psychology]. Paris: Marcel Rivire.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with simplis command language. Chicago: SSI:
Scientific Software international.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (2000). LISREL 8.30/Prelis 2. Chicago: SSI: Scientific Software international.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.30: Users reference guide. Chicago: SSI: Scientific Software International.
Marsh, H.W. (1986). Verbal and Math self-concepts. An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 129149.
Marsh, H.W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept
and the application of HCFA. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 1739.
Marsh, H.W. (1988). Self-Description Questionnaire-I: Manual
and research monograph. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corp.
Marsh, H.W. (1990a). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77172.
Marsh, H.W. (1990b). Self-Description Questionnaire-II: Manual
and research monograph. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corp.
Marsh, H.W. (1990c). The structure of academic self-concept: The
Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82, 623636.
Marsh, H.W. (1992). The content specificity of relations between
academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 4350.
Marsh, H.W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 4, pp. 5998). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, H.W. (1994). Using the national longitudinal study of 1988
to evaluate theoretical models of self-concept: The Self-Description Questionnaire. Journal of Educational Psychology,
86, 439456.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-offit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample
size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391410.
Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B., & Shavelson, R.J. (1992). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept. In T.M. Brinthaupt & R.P.
Lipka (Eds), The self: Definitional and methodological issues
(pp. 4495). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom
assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131
198). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., & Debus, R.L. (1991). Self-concepts
of young children aged 5 to 8: Their measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
377392.
Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., & Debus, R.L. (1998). Structure,
stability, and development of young childrens self-concepts:

149

A multicohort-multioccasion study. Child Development, 69,

10301053.
Marsh, H.W., Ellis, L., & Craven, R.G. (2002). How do preschool
children feel about themselves? Unravelling measurement and
multidimensional self-concept structure. Developmental Psychology, 38, 376393.
Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the
structure of self-concept. In B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of
self-concept (pp. 3890). New York: Wiley.
Marsh, H.W., Hey, J., Johnson, S., & Perry, C. (1997). Elite Athlete
Self-Description Questionnaire: Hierarchical confirmatory
factor analysis of responses by two distinct groups of elite.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 237258.
Marsh, H.W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory
factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 562582.
Marsh, H.W., Parada, R.H., Ayotte, V. (2002). Multidimensional
self-concepts and adolescents mental health: A new French
version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Marsh, H.W., Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional
adolescent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and
academic measures. American Educational Research Journal,
22, 422444.
Marsh, H.W., Plucker, J.A., & Stocking, V.B. (2001). The Self-Description Questionnaire II and gifted students: Another look at
Plucker, Taylor, Callahan & Tomchins (1997) Mirror, Mirror
on the Wall. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
93, 87102.
Marsh, H.W., Richards, G.E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., & Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical self-description questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of
relations to existing instruments. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 16, 270305.
Marsh, H.W., & Shavelson, R.J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20,
107123.
Mc Donald, R.P., & Marsh, H.W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate
model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 247255.
Rindskopf, D. (1983). Parameterizing inequality constraints on
unique variances in linear structural models. Psychometrika,
48, 7383.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic
Books.
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of educational research, 46, 407441.
Vallerand, R.J., & Halliwell, W.R. (1983). Vers une mthodologie
de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la psychologie du sport [Toward a
cross-cultural validation methodology for psychological inventories: Implications in sport psychology]. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 8, 918.
Vallires, E.F., & Vallerand, R.J. (1990). Traduction et validation
Cannadienne-Franaise de lchelle de lestime de soi de Rosenberg [Translation and French-Canadian validation of the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale]. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 305316.
Vispoel, W.P. (1995). Self-concept in artistic domains: An extenEJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

150

F. Gurin et al.: Construct Validation of the Self-Description Questionnaire II with a French Sample

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

sion of the Shavelson, Hubner and Stanton (1976) model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 134153.
Wells, L.E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wylie, R.C. (1974). The self-concept. Volume 1: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (revised
ed., Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Wylie, R.C. (1979). The self-concept. Volume 2: Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.

EJPA 19 (2), 2003 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Florence Gurin
Universit Paris-Sud
U.F.R. S.T.A.P.S
F-91405 ORSAY Cedex
France
Tel. +33 1 6915-4309
E-mail florenceguerin@wanadoo.fr