Measures vs.Theories of self-esteem

I think we agree and here's why.

The whole point is that it supposedly IS defined !!
No one should be using a scale that isn't validated by the usual criteria, which means everyone is testing the same thing and it is a stable thing. If they are, you and I both agree that the research is pointless (?)

The question remains of what the measure *means*, and that can only be defined in the context of a theory. Theories are far more subtle, nuanced, and changing things than are measures. Often the "meaning" of a measure changes so much that it's original name no longer makes sense.

For example, changing theories of intelligence have made the "Intelligence Quotient," a very stable and well validated measure, something that is interpreted by one researcher (Spearman) as a measure of general intelligence, by another (Sternberg) as a measure of academic ability, and by a third (Gardner) as almost an artifact overshadowed by multiple more speciallized abilities. All three views are reasonable depending on the application and the selection of findings emphasized. None detracts from the stability of the measure itself.

Self-esteem is a more complex idea and can be represented, I suspect, as a stable measure, partly independent of it role in different theories.

So I see your argument as being (1) over whether the measure was well-validated, and (2) over whether their validated scales are the same as the concept as you might want to use it. If we trust the researchers in the various studies, they did use well-validated measures of self-esteem. The measure may still not be how you want to define self-esteem. And of course that trust may always be misplaced.

kind regards,

Todd

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.