Self-Esteem Questionnaire

Abstract

The Self-Esteem Questionnaire (SEQ), developed by David L. DuBois, Robert D. Felner, and colleagues (DuBois et al., 1996), is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to evaluate multidimensional and global self-evaluations among children and adolescents aged approximately 9 to 19 years. Grounded in a developmental-ecological framework, the SEQ bridges individual psychological self-appraisals with salient socio-environmental contexts. The instrument consists of 42 self-report items administered across six distinct subscales: Peer Relations (8 items), School / Academic Competence (8 items), Family Relations (8 items), Sports / Athletics Competence (6 items), Body Image (4 items), and Global Self-Esteem (8 items). Items are rated on a balanced 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree), with both positively and negatively worded statements to counteract response acquiescence. Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate high internal consistency reliability, with subscale Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently spanning 0.74 to 0.89 and the Global Self-Esteem dimension reaching approximately 0.85 to 0.90 across ethnically, socioeconomically, and demographically diverse adolescent cohorts. Test-retest reliability over intervals ranging from two weeks to six months confirms robust temporal stability. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have repeatedly corroborated the theoretical six-factor structure, demonstrating superior fit indices over unidimensional alternatives and supporting metric and scalar measurement invariance across gender and developmental stages. Furthermore, the SEQ displays rigorous convergent validity with external measures of depressive symptoms, peer sociometric status, objective academic achievement, and perceived familial support, as well as distinct discriminant validity separating domain-specific competencies from generalized self-worth. This comprehensive review examines the SEQ’s theoretical underpinnings, structural validity, administration guidelines, normative interpretations, and clinical-educational utilities.

Keywords

Self-Esteem Questionnaire, SEQ, David L. DuBois, adolescent self-esteem, multidimensional self-concept, developmental-ecological framework, psychometrics, confirmatory factor analysis, adolescent mental health, academic competence, body image

Authors

The Self-Esteem Questionnaire was conceptualized, developed, and validated through extensive collaborative research programs led by:

• David L. DuBois, Ph.D. — Professor of Community Health Sciences, Division of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago (UIC), Chicago, Illinois, United States. Dr. DuBois is an internationally recognized expert in youth mentoring, adolescent health promotion, ecological models of human development, and the psychometric evaluation of social-contextual self-evaluations.
• Robert D. Felner, Ph.D. — Formerly at the Center for Prevention Research and Development, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois; and former Dean of the College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States. Dr. Felner is renowned for his work on school transitions, ecological risk and protective factors, and preventive interventions in educational settings.
• Sharon Brand, Ph.D. — Center for Prevention Research and Development, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States.
• Robert C. Phillips, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States.
• A. Michelle Lease, Ph.D. — Department of Educational Psychology, Mary Frances Early College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire (SEQ) is to provide a developmentally sensitive, ecologically grounded assessment of how children and adolescents evaluate themselves across both generalized and contextualized domains of their lives. For decades, developmental and clinical psychologists debated whether self-esteem operates predominantly as a unitary construct of global self-worth or as a multidimensional constellation of distinct domain-specific appraisals. The SEQ was expressly engineered to resolve this dichotomy by incorporating both perspectives into an integrated assessment architecture.

During the critical transition into early and middle adolescence, youth experience profound biological, cognitive, and social reconfigurations. Changes associated with pubertal maturation, the transition from elementary to middle and high school environments, shifting peer dynamics, and developing autonomy from primary caregivers alter the sources from which youth derive their self-worth. Traditional unidimensional instruments, such as the classic Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), capture broad affective feelings of self-acceptance or self-derogation, yet they remain insensitive to specific contextual vulnerabilities—such as a student who excels academically and maintains strong familial attachments but experiences intense self-doubt within peer peer-group networks or athletic environments.

Consequently, the SEQ fulfills several distinct research, diagnostic, and intervention purposes:

• Diagnostic and Clinical Screening: In child and adolescent mental health clinics, the SEQ serves as an intake screening instrument to detect domain-specific affective distress. Clinicians can discern whether low global self-esteem is universally pervasive or primarily driven by severe dissatisfaction within one focal domain, such as peer alienation, negative body image, or academic failure.
• Educational and School Counseling Applications: School psychologists and guidance personnel employ the SEQ to assess students undergoing school transitions (e.g., transition to middle school or high school). By pinpointing deficits in academic self-concept versus physical self-concept, interventionists can deploy targeted academic supports or social-emotional learning (SEL) modules tailored to each student’s specific profile.
• Evaluation of Prevention and Intervention Programs: Community-based youth development organizations, such as mentoring initiatives (e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters) and positive youth development (PYD) programs, utilize the SEQ as an outcome metric. The instrument’s subscales possess sufficient sensitivity to detect differential intervention effects, showing, for instance, whether adult mentoring preferentially boosts relational domains (family, peers) or general self-worth.
• Basic Developmental Research: The SEQ provides researchers with a psychometrically rigorous vehicle to investigate the structural trajectories of self-esteem across longitudinal cohorts, the buffering effects of social support networks against environmental stress, and the causal pathways connecting social experiences to internalizing (e.g., depression, anxiety) and externalizing (e.g., conduct problems, substance misuse) symptom trajectories.

Psychological Construct

The Self-Esteem Questionnaire operationalizes self-esteem as a differentiated, hierarchical construct comprising both a superordinate appraisal of overall personal worth and subordinate evaluative schemas rooted within critical developmental contexts. Rather than treating self-esteem as an isolated internal trait, the SEQ conceptualizes self-evaluations as social-cognitive representations continuously shaped by environmental feedback, interpersonal transactions, and perceived competence across six operational dimensions.

1. Peer Relations (8 Items)

This dimension assesses the adolescent’s subjective appraisal of their interpersonal popularity, peer acceptance, social belonging, and friendship-making efficacy. Items measure whether youth feel they have as many close friends as desired, whether their peers value their ideas and companionship, and how easily they establish new friendships (e.g., “I am as popular with kids my own age as I want to be”, “I have as many close friends as I would like to have”). Low scores reflect subjective social isolation, alienation, or perceived rejection, which are potent precursors of depressive symptomatology and school disengagement.

2. School / Academic Competence (8 Items)

The academic domain captures self-evaluations regarding scholastic performance, intellectual competence, and classroom self-efficacy. It includes evaluations across foundational subject areas (reading, writing, mathematics) as well as global academic self-judgments regarding test performance, report card grades, and general student identity (e.g., “I am doing as well on school work as I would like to do”, “I am good enough at math”). Negative evaluations within this subscale (e.g., endorsement of “I get too many bad grades on my report cards”) indicate academic helplessness, test anxiety, or demoralization within structured learning environments.

3. Family Relations (8 Items)

The family subscale captures the youth’s perception of love, emotional support, respect, and validation derived from immediate family members. It examines whether adolescents feel accepted, attended to, and held in high regard by their family, or conversely, whether they view themselves as a source of familial conflict, burden, or distress (e.g., “I am happy about how much my family likes me”, “I get in trouble too much at home”, “I am too much trouble to my family”). Strong positive family self-evaluations serve as a critical protective factor against externalizing behaviors and environmental stressors.

4. Sports / Athletics Competence (6 Items)

Reflecting the substantial social and physical value placed on athletic ability during youth, this subscale assesses satisfaction with physical conditioning, motor skills, participation breadth, and sports performance (e.g., “I am as good at sports/physical activities as I want to be”, “I wish it were easier for me to learn new kinds of sports/physical activities”). In early adolescence, athletic efficacy correlates strongly with peer social capital, particularly among male cohorts, influencing perceived peer status and physical mastery.

5. Body Image / Physical Appearance (4 Items)

This subscale gauges the individual’s satisfaction with physical appearance, body proportions, height, and weight (e.g., “I like my body just the way it is”, “I feel good about my height and weight”, “I wish I looked a lot different”). Rapid physical transformations during pubertal development make physical self-appraisals exceptionally salient. In cross-sectional and longitudinal research, this specific dimension displays the strongest direct association with global self-esteem and internalizing distress, particularly among adolescent girls navigating societal appearance pressures.

6. Global Self-Esteem (8 Items)

Distinct from domain-specific competencies, Global Self-Esteem measures the overall affective sense of self-acceptance, personal adequacy, and pride in one’s identity as a total person (e.g., “I am happy with myself as a person”, “I am the kind of person I want to be”, “I sometimes think I am a failure (a ‘loser’)”, “I often feel ashamed of myself”). It reflects an internalized, overarching evaluative stance that synthesizes diverse life experiences into a unified sense of human dignity and self-worth.

Theoretical Framework

The design and operationalization of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire are founded upon a synthesis of three influential paradigms in developmental and social psychology: William James’s foundational formulation of self-esteem, Susan Harter’s developmental-competence model, and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory.

The Jamesian Ratio and Competence-Importance Discrepancy

In The Principles of Psychology, William James (1890) famously posited that self-esteem is defined by the ratio of an individual’s actual achievements (“successes”) relative to their personal aspirations (“pretensions”):
$$\text{Self-Esteem} = \frac{\text{Successes}}{\text{Pretensions}}$$
DuBois and colleagues built upon this formulation by crafting items that directly capture this subjective discrepancy. Rather than asking respondents merely to rate objective ability on an absolute scale, SEQ items repeatedly embed the comparison between current functioning and aspirational standards (e.g., “I am as good a student as I would like to be”; “I have as many close friends as I would like to have”). Consequently, the SEQ operationalizes self-esteem not as detached performance, but as perceived congruence between real and ideal self-states.

Harter’s Multidimensional Competence Formulation

The SEQ strongly aligns with the cognitive-developmental paradigm formulated by Susan Harter (1982, 1985, 1999). Harter demonstrated that children older than age eight no longer view their competence as a monolithic attribute; instead, cognitive maturation allows for differentiated self-appraisals across scholastic, athletic, social, and physical appearance domains. Furthermore, Harter emphasized Charles Horton Cooley’s “looking-glass self,” demonstrating that self-evaluations are internalized reflections of the regard shown by significant others (parents, peers, educators). The SEQ expands Harter’s framework by explicitly embedding discrete subscales for both family and peer social contexts alongside cognitive and physical domains.

Bronfenbrenner’s Developmental-Ecological Systems Model

The overarching architecture of the SEQ reflects Urie Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). DuBois et al. (1996) argued that adolescent psychological adaptation cannot be detached from the immediate microsystems in which youth live. The SEQ’s subscales mirror the primary ecological microsystems of early adolescence:

• The Family Microsystem (Family subscale): captures relational security, warmth, and systemic inclusion within the home environment.
• The Peer Microsystem (Peers subscale): reflects egalitarian social status, dyadic friendships, and acceptance within informal youth networks.
• The School Microsystem (School subscale): assesses formal cognitive and behavioral adaptation within academic institutions.
• The Physical/Recreational Microsystem (Athletics and Body Image subscales): contextualizes the biological self within culturally valued leisure and aesthetic standards.

By mapping assessment domains onto specific ecological niches, the SEQ allows researchers to explore how stress, trauma, or enrichment in a specific microsystem translates into global self-derogation or resilience.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire has been rigorously examined across multiple community, school, and clinical samples, confirming its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established through extensive confirmatory factor analyses conducted by DuBois et al. (1996) across large cohorts of young adolescents (totaling over 1,500 participants across diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic strata). CFA models specifying the six theorized latent dimensions demonstrated excellent goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > 0.92, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > 0.91, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < 0.05). Competing nested models testing unidimensional or two-factor structures (e.g., combining all competence domains into a single factor) demonstrated substantial deterioration in model fit ($\Delta \chi^2$ values statistically significant at $p < .001$), confirming that the six distinct subscales represent unique cognitive and affective self-evaluation dimensions.

Convergent Validity

The SEQ demonstrates moderate-to-high correlations with existing, validated psychological instruments designed to measure related constructs:

• Global Self-Esteem: Correlates strongly with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .72$ to $.81$) and Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) Global Self-Worth subscale ($r = .68$ to $.78$).
• Academic Subscale: Correlates positively with standardized educational achievement scores ($r = .38$ to $.52$) and cumulative grade point averages (GPA; $r = .45$ to $.61$), confirming that academic self-evaluations mirror objective scholastic achievement.
• Peer Relations Subscale: Correlates significantly with positive sociometric peer nominations, teacher ratings of peer competence ($r = .35$ to $.48$), and inversely with self-reported social loneliness ($r = -.58$).
• Family Subscale: Displays strong positive correlations with standardized measures of family cohesion and parental acceptance ($r = .50$ to $.65$) and negative correlations with domestic conflict measures ($r = -.42$ to $-.56$).
• Body Image Subscale: Exhibits robust inverse correlations with body dissatisfaction inventories ($r = -.60$ to $-.74$) and eating disorder risk indices ($r = -.45$ to $-.62$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the relatively modest intercorrelations among the five domain-specific subscales (typically ranging from $r = .25$ to $.55$), indicating that youth evaluate their abilities across disparate domains with substantial autonomy. For instance, athletic self-esteem shares minimal variance with academic self-esteem ($r \approx .22$), demonstrating that students clearly separate cognitive capabilities from physical prowess. Furthermore, multitrait-multimethod evaluations have confirmed that SEQ subscales correlate more strongly with external criteria in matching domains (e.g., Sports subscale with athletic participation logs) than with criteria in non-matching domains (e.g., Sports subscale with reading grades).

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Longitudinal studies demonstrate that SEQ baseline scores predict behavioral, emotional, and academic trajectories over 1- to 2-year periods (DuBois et al., 1994, 1998, 2002). Lower scores on the Global Self-Esteem and Body Image subscales prospectively predict the emergence of depressive symptoms (as measured by the Children’s Depression Inventory) and generalized anxiety symptoms, even after controlling for baseline psychological distress. Conversely, low scores on the Family and School subscales reliably predict escalating externalizing behaviors, such as school disciplinary infractions, truancy, and early conduct disturbances.

Reliability

The reliability of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire has been confirmed across diverse adolescent populations, demonstrating high internal consistency, strong temporal stability, and minimal standard error of measurement.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Internal consistency estimates across large normative and clinical cohorts confirm that all subscales meet or exceed conventional psychometric benchmarks for both research and diagnostic screening (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Representative Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients reported in seminal publications (DuBois et al., 1994, 1996, 1999; DuBois & Tevendale, 1999) include:

• Peer Relations (8 items): $lpha = 0.82 – 0.86$
• School / Academic (8 items): $lpha = 0.81 – 0.85$
• Family Relations (8 items): $lpha = 0.79 – 0.84$
• Sports / Athletics (6 items): $lpha = 0.80 – 0.86$
• Body Image (4 items): $lpha = 0.76 – 0.83$
• Global Self-Esteem (8 items): $lpha = 0.85 – 0.90$
• Total Scale Composite (42 items): $lpha = 0.92 – 0.95$

McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$ and $\omega_h$) coefficients calculated in modern psychometric re-evaluations consistently mirror or exceed these alpha values, confirming that item variance is overwhelmingly driven by the targeted latent constructs.

Test-Retest Stability

The temporal stability of the SEQ has been verified across various time intervals:

• Short-Term Stability (2- to 4-week intervals): Test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) range between $0.78$ and $0.88$ across subscales, indicating that the instrument captures stable psychological states rather than transient, momentary mood fluctuations.
• Medium-Term Stability (6-month intervals): Subscale stability coefficients range from $0.62$ to $0.74$, demonstrating that while self-esteem maintains developmental continuity, it remains adequately sensitive to ecological and life-course transitions.
• Long-Term Stability (1- to 2-year longitudinal intervals): Autoregressive stability coefficients range from $0.48$ to $0.65$, reflecting normative developmental realignment in response to school transitions and pubertal maturation.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have confirmed the multi-component architecture of the Self-Esteem Questionnaire.

Exploratory Factor Analyses

During initial instrument design, DuBois and colleagues subjected broad item pools to principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax and Oblimin) rotations, accommodating theoretical correlations among self-evaluation domains. The scree test and eigenvalue criteria ($lambda > 1.0$) converged on a six-factor solution accounting for approximately 52% to 58% of the total item variance. Items demonstrated high primary factor loadings (predominantly $ge 0.50$) onto their designated conceptual factors, with cross-loadings remaining low (rarely exceeding $0.20$).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Structural Modeling

Subsequent validation studies verified this latent structure via CFA utilizing maximum likelihood estimation. In a landmark structural evaluation (DuBois et al., 1996), a six-factor first-order oblique model was fitted to data from 1,287 adolescents:

• Model Fit Indices: The six-factor model exhibited excellent fit to the empirical data: $\chi^2(799) = 1745.32, p < .001$; $\text{CFI} = 0.932$; $\text{TLI} = 0.925$; $\text{RMSEA} = 0.038$ ($90% \text{ CI } [0.035, 0.041]$); $\text{SRMR} = 0.042$.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across items were robust, with Peer items ranging from $0.52$ to $0.76$, Academic items from $0.51$ to $0.78$, Family items from $0.48$ to $0.74$, Sports items from $0.58$ to $0.81$, Body Image items from $0.59$ to $0.84$, and Global Self-Esteem items from $0.55$ to $0.82$. All factor loadings were statistically significant at $p < .001$.
• Hierarchical Second-Order Modeling: Researchers evaluated whether a single, higher-order Global Self-Esteem factor accounted for the covariation among first-order subscales. While a second-order model displayed acceptable fit ($\text{CFI} = 0.908, \text{RMSEA} = 0.046$), the first-order oblique model demonstrated statistically superior fit, substantiating the recommendation that subscale scores should be retained and interpreted individually rather than collapsed into an indiscriminate aggregate total.

Measurement Invariance

Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) has demonstrated configural, metric (weak), and scalar (strong) measurement invariance across:

• Gender Groups: Factor patterns, item factor loadings, and item intercepts function equivalently across adolescent boys and girls, permitting unbiased latent mean comparisons.
• Racial and Ethnic Subgroups: Invariance testing confirmed equivalence across African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic youth cohorts, confirming that items carry identical structural meanings across cultural backgrounds.
• Age and Grade Cohorts: Longitudinal invariance was documented across transitions from elementary to middle and high school cohorts, confirming that the SEQ reliably captures genuine developmental shifts rather than psychometric instability.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Self-Esteem Questionnaire (SEQ) is a standardized, self-report psychometric instrument. The structural attributes, administration requirements, and scoring protocols are outlined below:

• Test Type: Multidimensional and global psychological self-report rating scale.
• Target Population: Children, early adolescents, and older adolescents (approximate age range: 9 to 19 years; grades 4 through 12).
• Administration Format: Individual or group paper-and-pencil questionnaire, as well as computerized/digital survey administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Number of Items: 42 items.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type response format:
  • Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1 point
  • Disagree (D) = 2 points
  • Agree (A) = 3 points
  • Strongly Agree (SA) = 4 points
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Peer Relations (8 items): Items 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 30, 35, 39
  • School / Academic (8 items): Items 2, 8, 14, 20, 26, 31, 36, 40
  • Family Relations (8 items): Items 3, 9, 15, 21, 27, 32, 37, 41
  • Sports / Athletics (6 items): Items 5, 11, 17, 23, 28, 33
  • Body Image (4 items): Items 4, 10, 16, 22
  • Global Self-Esteem (8 items): Items 6, 12, 18, 24, 29, 34, 38, 42
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Positively Phrased Items: Scored directly as $\text{SD} = 1, \text{D} = 2, \text{A} = 3, \text{SA} = 4$. Items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41.
  • Negatively Phrased (Reverse-Scored) Items: Must be reverse-scored prior to calculating subscale sums or averages ($1 to 4, 2 to 3, 3 to 2, 4 to 1$). Reverse-scored items include: 9, 11, 12, 15, 22, 28, 29, 30, 40, 42.
  • Subscale Calculation: Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean score across completed subscale items (ranging from 1.0 to 4.0), or by summing item values. The mean metric is preferred because it facilitates direct comparisons across subscales of unequal length (e.g., comparing 4-item Body Image to 8-item Global Self-Esteem). Higher numerical values denote higher self-esteem and greater perceived competence within that domain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Esteem Questionnaire was developed and published in primary form in 1996 by David L. DuBois, Robert D. Felner, Sharon Brand, and Robert C. Phillips within the Journal of Research on Adolescence (DuBois et al., 1996), following earlier developmental studies (DuBois et al., 1994). The full instrument, scoring protocols, and psychometric documentation have also been reproduced in published clinical handbooks, including Tools for Strengths-Based Assessment and Evaluation (Simmons & Lehmann, Eds., Springer Publishing, 2013, pp. 506–508).

Licensing and Fee Structure: The SEQ is considered an open-access, non-commercial academic research instrument. It is free of licensing charges and royalty fees when utilized for educational, academic, non-commercial research, or clinical screening purposes. Researchers and mental health practitioners must appropriately cite the primary foundational publications (DuBois et al., 1994, 1996). Commercial redistribution, automated digital commercial packaging, or integration into fee-for-service enterprise software platforms requires formal written permission from the copyright holders or primary developers.

References

• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2607144
• DuBois, D. L., Bull, C. A., Sherman, M. D., & Roberts, M. (1998). Self-esteem and adjustment in early adolescence: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(5), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022878120359
• DuBois, D. L., Burk-Braxton, C., Swenson, L. P., Tevendale, H. D., Lockerd, E. M., & Moran, B. L. (2002). Getting by with a little help from self and others: Self-esteem and social support as resources during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.822
• DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & George, G. R. (1999). Profiles of self-esteem in early adolescence: Identification and investigation of adaptive correlates. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 899–932. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022204603348
• DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., & Phillips, R. C. (1996). Early adolescent self-esteem: A developmental–ecological framework and assessment strategy. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(4), 543–579.
• DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Phillips, R. C., & Lease, A. M. (2013). Self-Esteem Questionnaire. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation (pp. 506–508). Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826197825
• DuBois, D. L., Felner, R. D., Sherman, M. D., & Bull, C. A. (1994). Socio-environmental experiences, self-esteem, and emotional/behavioral problems in early adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(3), 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506871
• DuBois, D. L., & Tevendale, H. D. (1999). Self-esteem in childhood and adolescence: Vaccine or epiphenomenon? Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(99)80002-3
• Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128643
• Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. University of Denver.
• Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Guilford Press.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10538-000
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)