The range and variety of self-concept/self-esteem scales is vast. Blascovitch and Tomaka (1991) argue that there have been at least 200 measures of self-esteem that have been developed; Wylie (1961) claims that of these scales, many tend to be short lived and of debatable quality. The researcher looked at a number of self-concept scales and considered the value of each. A number of scales were looked at, including the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-concept Scale (SCS), which was regarded as the most frequently reported measure. Other self-concept scales were considered, including the Self-image Profile (Butler 2001), the Tennesse Self-concept Scale (Fitts and Warren 1996), the Multidimensional Self-concept Scale (Bracken 1992), the Self Perception Profile for Children (Harter 1985) and the Self Description Questionnaire (Marsh 1988). The researcher in this study discounted many of the frequently reported scales. The Tennessee SCS was disregarded because it focuses primarily on the adolescent years, with extensions into adulthood.
The researcher chose to use the SIP (Self-image Profile) because this is the only scale that frames the measure within a theoretical stance, drawing on principles of Personal Construct Psychology (Kelly 1955) in which items reflect children’s constructions of themselves. An assumption underlying the profile construction is that self-descriptions are contrasts and therefore bi- polar. For example, an individual can only hold self to be honest if one also holds a notion of dishonesty. However, the SIP only consists of one pole of contrast
to facilitate the child making judgements about self. The self-image profile encourages the individuals to describe themselves through verbalised self-representations across a series of domains from appearance, academic, and social to emotional behaviour (a completed profile can be seen in Appendix 15 of this research). The profile contains a set of descriptions along which children are invited to rate where they consider themselves to be. Items on the scale are of necessity and meaningful to the population for whom the scale is designed, and are representative of the events in a child’s life (Butler 1994). Because the self-descriptions or constructs are child generated, children are familiar with them. The SIP has been used as all the other scales have been developed and published in the USA, with American norms.
In addition to this, scales have been based on geographically limited samples with problems in generalizability. The SIP involved children and adolescents (males and females) from a range of schools with differing socio-cultural populations. What the scale does not do is provide norms for ethnicity, unlike the Piers Harris SCS and the Bracken (1992) Multidimensional Self-concept Scale that considers both gender and ethnicity with samples fairly closely representative of the USA population census. Butler and Gasson (2005) argue that current scales are of Western origins, which take little account of
“cultural philosophies”.
Western and Eastern cultures differ in how the self is defined. The Western
notions such as physical appearance and achievement. In contrast, the Eastern culture considers the self in relation to others and specific social contexts. The self is viewed as inter-dependently connected with the social context, (Markus and Kitayama 1999). Another disadvantage of the SIP is that it only has 25 items; it is not the shortest or the longest of scales. Wells and Marvwell (1976) argue that scales with a greater number of items yield a more heterogeneous and representative instrument with increased validity and generality. Given the child generated nature of the self-descriptions, Kelly (1955) equated validity with usefulness and increased understanding. If the profile makes sense to the child and it taps into his or her vision of self and reveals patterns, then it will have served its purpose. Winter (1992) argues that, given that personal construct psychology is primarily concerned with the viewpoint of its object of study, namely the child, any measures derived from the child are thus objective. Unlike other scales, Winter argues that the SIP has no hidden agenda, no intent to disguise the purpose of the scale, nor does it wish to catch the child out.
The self-image profile has 25 items in total, 12 of a positive nature and 12 of a negative tone; there is one neutral item on the scale. Individuals are presented with short self-descriptions where they are asked to consider how they see themselves. For most scales, items are generally “author generated”.
However, the SIP requires children to understand the concepts. A feature of the scale is that items on the scale were child generated. Because the SIP elicited self-descriptions from children and adolescents to form the items on
the scale, one can argue that there is a shared meaning of the items on the scale that can be readily understood by the population for whom the scale was designed to be employed (Butler and Gasson2005).
An assumption underlying scale construction was that self-descriptions are contrasts and therefore bi-polar in nature. For example, one can only consider self to be honest because an individual also has a notion of dishonesty. This is a central principle of personal construct theory (Bannister and Fransella 1986). Where scales are composed of items developed by psychologists influenced by particular models or structures of self, there is an assumption of shared meaning, as items derived by psychologists tend to reflect their thinking rather than the meanings common to the population being studied.
Hughes (1984) argues that only instruments that allow individuals to provide their own descriptions of their self-perception should be considered as measures of self-concept.
Items for the Butler SIP were in sympathy with such a view where the children generated items. When the scale was in its construction process, children were invited to describe themselves in three ways. The most frequently reported descriptions formed the items on the scale. Another reason why the SIP was chosen was because of the language that was used;
for example from “not at all – very much so” compared to “strongly agree-strongly disagree”. Because the SIP scores indicate different aspects of
self-functioning, it can provide a more comprehensive understanding than single self-concept scales (Butler and Green 1998).
Burns (1982) argues that although there are self-concept scales that are used to measure self-concept, caution needs to be taken when using these scales such as the extent to which the scales take into account a range of an individual’s possible self-concept element. One also needs to take into account whether the scale is valid and whether it measures what it says it is measuring. Further difficulties that the researcher may encounter include, does the participant answer honestly, or does he or she give answers that are socially desirable or which defend the “you” that you do not wish to acknowledge?
Family factors also play a key part in influencing a child’s reactions and attitudes, which also condition interaction with others (Leigh and Stinson 1991). This study uses a self-concept scale to establish the self-concept of children with learning difficulties and establishes to what extent there are similarities and differences between the two cultures. In particular, the research explores to what extent there are any similarities or differences in the self-concept of children, since a distinctive feature of this study is the collection of information from pupils from two different cultures.
Cambra and Silvestre’s (2003) research showed that children with learning difficulties had a positive self-concept, although it was significantly lower than
those who did not have SEN, especially in the social and academic dimensions. Cambra and Silvestre (2003) further argue that pupils with learning difficulties do not have a negative self-concept – although there are differences in personal, social and academic perceptions. Many multiple and interrelated factors play a role in the formation of self-concept, such as teaching style, which has an important bearing on peer relationships in that the teacher may be seen as a model in his or her attitude towards SEN pupils (Cambra and Silvestre 2003).