Cited by 80Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

The Rasch Analysis of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities

Open access
Park, Ju-Young, Park, Eun-Young·2019·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) using the Rasch model and to determine whether the scale is valid and reliable for use with this population. METHODS: Rasch analysis was carried out on data from 223 respondents to the 8th Panel Survey on Employment for the Disabled conducted by the Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled. The validity and reliability of scale items were verified through analyses of item fit, item difficulties, the rating scale, and separation indices. RESULTS: Item infit mean square values were found to range between 0.71 and 1.25, and item outfit mean square values between 0.71 and 1.26. Additionally, item difficulties were appropriate; Item 4 was the most difficult item, while Item 10 was the easiest item. The 4-point rating scale was appropriate, and the separation indices were at an acceptable level. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, the validity and reliability of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for use with individuals with ID were verified. Thus, this scale can be regarded as a useful tool for evaluating the level of self-esteem of individuals with ID.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01992

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Schalock R. L. Luckasson R. Bradley V. Buntinx W. Lachapelle Y. Shogren K. (2012). User’s Guide to Accompany the 11th edition of Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
  2. Wright B. D. Masters G. N. (1982). Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago, IL: MESA press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, J.-Y., & Park, E.-Y.
Affiliations
Jeonju University (KR)
Corresponding author
Park, Eun-Young
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2019-09-06
Volume
10
Pages
1992-1992
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2967951947
Cited by
80
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, self-esteem, intellectual disability, psychometric validation, scale reliability, item fit, item difficulty, rating scales, separation index, disabled workers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review