The Dutch Self-Perception Profile for Children (CBSK)-Revised: Psychometric evaluation

Transcription

1 The Dutch Self-Perception Profile for Children (CBSK)-Revised: Psychometric evaluation Name: Gwen Aartsma Student number: Date: April 14, 2016 Abstract: 119 Words: 3578 Supervisor: Marija Maric University of Amsterdam

2 2 Abstract The format of the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA; Harter, 1988) has shown to be difficult to understand (Eiser, Eiser & Havermans, 1995). A revision improved the psychometric properties (Wichstraum, 1995). This had not been done for the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC; Harter, 1985) The question format of the Dutch version of the SPPC (CBSK; Veerman et al., 2004) was revised. A group of 94 Dutch children from 8 to 12 was administered. The factor structure contained several differences. The original domains were found, however there was support to delete questions. Also, there was some support for splitting or adding domains. Reliability and validity were found to be satisfactory. The psychometric properties were not improved after the revision.

3 3 Introduction Self-perception has been one of the most researched themes in psychology (Baumeister, 1991). Literature has been ambiguous on the precise definition of this term and its synonyms (Veerman, Straathof, van den Bergh & ten Brink, 2004). Next to self-perception, literature often discusses self-concept and self-esteem (Van der Meulen, 1993). In this article the term self-perception will be used, which can also be seen as self-concept and includes self-esteem. In summary, it means how people evaluate themselves as Harter (2012) describes it (p. 1). Previous research showed a relation between negative self-perception and psychological problems in children and adolescents (Van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999). These psychological problems were found to be symptoms of disorders, such as feelings of hopelessness and suicidal tendencies (Overholser, Adams, Lehnert & Brinkman, 1995) and multiple combined symptoms that formed disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), depression and learning disorders (Prins & Braet, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising that self-perception is used to predict general wellbeing in children (Karatzias, Chouliara, Power & Swanson, 2006). Furthermore, having a negative self-perception can predict internalizing problems (Leeuwis, Koot, Creemers & van Lier, 2015). More specific, a negative self-perception was found to predict depression later in life. The depression symptoms were not yet found early in life, but the negative self-perception was (Orth, Robin & Roberts, 2008). Having a negative self-perception can also interfere with successful development in later years (Van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999). These findings can be useful in clinical practice, as a negative self-perception can be used as a screening for children who have initial psychological problems. This way, psychological problems can be prevented and development can be improved. Suitably, self-perception is already used as an index on children s mental health (Muris, Meesters & Fijen, 2003; Van Dongen-Melman, Koot & Verhulst, 1993). Unfortunately, these measurements are not optimal, which will be discussed later on. There are two widely used questionnaires, the Rosenberg s Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965; Rosenberg, 1979) and the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC; Harter, 1985). The RSES only embodies global selfperception. However, self-perception is found not to be one global concept (Veerman et al., 2004).

4 4 The SPPC includes multiple components of self-perception (Harter, 1985) and is a widely used theorybased questionnaire for self-perception in children from 8 up to 12 (Muris et al., 2003; Veerman et al., 1996). The first version of the SPPC was published in 1983 and evaluated and updated various times since (Veerman et al., 1996). It is comprised of five specific domains, scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance and behavioral conduct and one global domain, global self-worth. This global domain is not the sum of the specific domains but is measured separately (Harter, 2012). The SPPC has been translated into different languages (Van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999), like French (Boivin, Vitaro & Gagnon, 1992) and the Competentie Belevingsschaal voor Kinderen (CBSK) in Dutch (Veerman et al., 2004). For this current study, the CBSK will be used, since the sample is Dutch. For this purpose, only the psychometrical properties of the Dutch version will be reviewed. The five-dimensional structure, with a separate domain for global self-worth, of the CBSK has been confirmed by varies studies (Muris et al., 2003; Van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999; Van Dongen- Melman et al.,1993). Muris et al. (2003) did so most recently and comprehensive. They found the fivefactor structure to be a reasonable fit (χ²/df = 3.6, p <.001, GFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.83, RSMEA = 0.04) and all the individual items loaded on their intended factor. Convergent validity was measured with parent-, teacher- and child-reports of personality and psychopathology. Almost all correlations in a theoretically meaningful way were found to be significant (p at least <.05). Muris et al. (2003) also found a good reliability. Cronbach s alfas were between 0.73 and 0.81, which made a satisfactory internal consistency. However these properties are good, not all research on this questionnaire was positive. The format used by Harter was found to be too complex for some adolescents (Eiser, Eiser & Havermans, 1995) and has shown to give difficulties in clinical settings for children. For this reason, a new format was suggested and tested for the Self-Perception Scale for Adolescents (SPPA; Wichstraum, 1995). The format of Harter s SPPC is identical to the format of Harter s original SPPA. In this new format, adolescents no longer had to place themselves on a scale compared to others. They only had to choose how much the statement fitted them (For example Some kids often forget what they learn BUT Other kids can remember things easily was changed in I often forget what I learn ). This new format turned

5 5 out to have a higher reliability than the original format. On all subscales, Cronbach s alpha was higher except for the scale behavioral conduct. The mean alpha was 77.3 for the revised version compared to 66.2 for the original. They also found a better convergent validity; all subscales in the revised version correlated with the assumed convergent measurements. The other psychometrical properties stayed the same. Another additional benefit is the length of the questionnaire. In the original format, children had to read 72 statements. With this new format, children only have to read 36 statements. Also, the instructions will be limited, since the format is less complex. These alterations are timesaving, which is seen as an important aspect of a questionnaire (Wichstraum, 1995). As a last, the norms of the CBSK have to be discussed. For a test to be used in clinical settings, recent norms suitable for the target group are needed (Oosterveld & Vorst, 2010). The norms of the CBSK are outdated (Veerman et al., 2004). For the CBSK to be used as a screening tool, new norms are needed. Prior research has shown satisfactory psychometric properties. These properties could improve with a revised format, which showed good results for adolescents but has not yet been researched for children. The purpose of this article is to examine the psychometric properties of the revised version of the CBSK, which conclude the factor structure, reliability (internal consistency), convergent validity and norms. The factor structure is expected to stay the same as previous research has shown (Muris et al., 2013). The reliability and validity are expected to improve compared to previous research on the original version of the CBSK (Muris et al., 2013). Methods Participants This research was part of a more extensive research. Only the methods important to this research will be discussed. The CBSK was administered in a sample of 94 Dutch children. This sample was drawn from the upper grades of primary school, which consisted of children with ages eight to twelve (M = 10.20, SD = 0.80). This sample consisted of 38 boys and 56 girls with 47 children from Dutch origin, one of Turkish origin and one had a remaining ethnic background that was not listed. For 45 children the ethnical background was unknown.

6 6 Questionnaires As mentioned before, this research forms part of a more extensive research. Not all measurements in the whole research were relevant for this particular research and will only be discussed briefly. The other two, the CBSK and the RSES, will be discussed more thoroughly. The questionnaires conducted that were not included in this research, were the Competentie Belevingsschaal voor Adolescenten (the Dutch version of the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, CBSA; Harter, 1988), a new version of the Implicit Association Test to measure implicit self-esteem, the short version of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED-NL; Muris, Bodden. Hale, Birmaher & Mayer, 2007) and the Zelf-Beoordelings Vragenlijst voor Kinderen (Selfreport Questionnaire for Children, ZBV-K; Bakke, van Wieringen, van der Ploeg, & Spielberger) as a screening for anxiety symptoms and the Child Depression Index (CDI; Timbremont, Braet & Roelofs, 2008) for depression symptoms. The Competentie Belevingsschaal voor Kinderen (Dutch version of the Self-Perception Profile for Children; Veerman et al., 2004) was revised before use. The first revision was a modification of the question format. To illustrate Some kids like the kind of person they are BUT other kids often wish they were someone else was changed in I like the person I am. A 4-point Likert scale was used with the following options; 1: Describes me very poorly, 2: Describes me quite poorly, 3: Describes me quite well, 4: Describes me very well. Second, due to clarification of the item Some kids are happy with their height and weight (item 10), height and weight were split up in two different questions. This made the total of items 37 instead of 36 in the original questionnaire. After a pilot study with three children (3 boys, age 9 and 1 boy age 10), some words used in the questions were found to be too difficult or outdated for children, therefore these words were adjusted. For example item 23 in the original version (item 24 in the revised version). The word difficulties was changed into problems. The revised version of the CBSK has a maximum score of 111. The minimum score is 0. For the full questionnaire (in Dutch), see Veerman et al. (2004). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for children (RSES-K; Rosenberg, 1965) consisted of 10 items and assesses global self-esteem. The RSES has had some minor adaptions in word use (Kramer, 2016). All tests were conducted on a computer. The total test battery did not take longer than one hour.

7 7 Procedure The research was approved by the Psychology Ethical Committee of the University of Amsterdam. All participants participated voluntarily and with consent from their parents. The children without parental consent did not participate. The questionnaires were all conducted in their own school setting on computers or laptops available at school. A teacher and at least two Clinical Developmental Psychology students were present during the whole assessment who could answer potential questions. The participants were instructed to follow the instructions given on their computer screen. The sequence of the questionnaires was randomly assigned to the children. Statistical analysis The Statistical Package for Social Sciences was used for all analysis except factor analysis; descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability coefficients and Principal Component Analysis. Results Principal Component Analysis A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation was conducted for the 30 items about scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance and behavioral conduct. The eight factors accounted for 63.65% of the variance. The fluctuation points in the scree plot suggested two to six factors (Field, 2010), see figure 1. The items loadings are displayed in Appendix A, table 3. The eigenvalues suggested eight factors, for they were all above 1 (Field, 2010). Factor loadings showed four obvious factors for behavioral conduct, physical appearance and scholastic competence. Athletic competence was a smaller factor and consisted of four items, all about athletics. The other two items about athletics were mixed and divided over the remaining four factors. The fifth factor consisted of three items, all about many other children and were originally about social acceptance and athletics. This factor could exist due to the part about may other children for no other items contained this sentence. The sixth factor consisted of two items, which did not seem to have anything in common. This were item 10 I am satisfied with my length and items 22 I know other children like me. Item seven I think I am as smart as other children of my age was a factor by itself (factor 7). It is the only scholastic item that compared the participant with other children on their scholastic competence. Scholastic competence might be divided by how smart someone finds themselves and how smart compared to others. The eighth factor

8 8 consisted of four items. The items were all about wanting more of something (friends, better at sports or being liked), except for the last items. This item was about finding it hard to make friends. None of the other items of the questionnaire were about wanting more of something. This might make it an item about thinking you have enough of something or wanting more. Figure 1 Scree plot for the Principal Component Analysis with an oblique rotation Given the scree plot and the suggestion that some factors were difficult to explain, a PCA with six fixed factors was examined. The first six components accounted for 56,11% of the variance. The expected five factors, scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance and behavioral conduct were found. A sixth factor consisted of three random items, 10, 21 and 22. There was no explanation for this sixth factor, for they seemed to have no connection. Therefore, a PCA with five fixed factors was conducted. The first five components accounted for 50.71% of the variance. Most items had a high factor loading on their intended factor. For the items 5, 10, 20 and 33 there was no unsubstantial loading, for they were lower than 0.4 (Field, 2010). Also, these items did not load on their intended factor. All other items did load on their intended factor, except for item 9 I want to do better in sports. This item had a factor loading of 0.412, which is almost not substantial (Field, 2010). For item 7 and 27 it was questionable whether the loadings were substantial, for they were and

9 9 Internal consistency All alpha s are listed in table 1. Since the factor structure is indecipherable, all items with their original factor were used. The highest alpha score was on the total score (α = 0.87). The other alpha s ranged from 0.58 to Table 1 Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients) for the scales and total score of the CBSK Domain Mean (SD) Reliability Total Boys Girls α scholastic competence 11.67(3.24) (3.70) 11.66(2.89) 0.74 social acceptance 13.08(3.42) 12.84(3.88) 13.18(3.15) 0.76 athletic competence 12.18(3.075) 12.47(2.93) 11.91(3.20) 0.58 physical appearance 16.91(3.492) 17.58(2.70) 16.36(3.90) 0.76 behavioral conduct 12.31(3.236) 11.08(3.67) 13.06(2.67) 0.76 global self-worth 14.83(2.79) 14.76(2.94) 14.84(2.76) 0.68 Total score 80.98(12.89) 80.21(14.01) 81.00(12.14) 0.87 Convergent validity The assumption were not violated; The CBSK and RSESK were normally distributed, homoscedastic, linear and measured on a scale level. Pearson correlation between CBSK and RSES was r(92) = 0.74, p <.001. Normative data Norms are established with the use of standard deviations. 15,9% of the participating children fell in the high group (one standard deviations above the mean and higher), 68,2% falls in the average group (one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean), 13,6% in the low-average group (between two and three standard deviations below the mean), 2.3% in the low group (three standard deviations below mean and lower). See table 1 for means and standard deviations. See table 2 for all norms. The sample contained only one child with the age of 8. For this, there are no norms established for 8 year olds.

10 10 Table 2 Norms on the total score of the CBSK for boys and girls per age Total score Classification Age Gender Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl 0-61 < 67 < 44 < 63 < 42 < 52 Low Low-average Average >90 >96 >99 >93 >92 >91 High Discussion Key findings This study tried to improve the Dutch version of the SPPC (CBSK) by revising the format of the questionnaire. The psychometric qualities of this revised version were investigated to see whether these adjustments resulted in an improvement. The structure of the CBSK was slightly different than expected. There is some support for deletion of some questions that did not have a high contribution to the existing domains. This was only found when the items were forced to fit the original model. No items had to be deleted when the model was not forced. Without forcing the model, support was found for splitting some domains and adding domains. The possible interpretations of these results will be discussed later. The reliability per scale was satisfactory and the overall reliability was good. Validity was tested with a convergent measure, which was satisfactory. Norms were given for the total score on the CBSK for boys and girls by age. The norms per subscale were not conducted, for the factor structure of this revised version did not show a good enough fit to be sure what scales with which questions should be used. The format of the SPPC has been found to be too complex for some adolescents (Eiser, Eiser & Havermans, 1995). A new format was suggested and improved the reliability and validity of the questionnaire (Wichstraum, 1995). Previous research on the CBSK with its original format showed a good fit for the data with a five structural model with the domains scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance and behavioral conduct and a global component,

11 11 self-worth (Muris et al., 2003). The same research showed a good reliability and a satisfying convergent validity. Altogether, the findings of this current study do not show an improvement on the psychometric qualities of the revised version of the CBSK. The revision did not improve the questionnaire for children from 8 to 12 on its psychometrical qualities, compared to previous research. Interpretations and limitations The domains of the questionnaire have been constructed after research done before 1985 (Harter, 2012). Society has a great influence on self-perception (Baumeister, 2013). Harter acknowledged the change of self-perception over time within a person (Harter, 2012). Self-perception might also change over time, if society does. For example, selfperception is influenced by television, advertisements, movies and video clips (Baumeister, 2013). These information channels have, among others, provided a new desired body image, the thinness ideal (Baumeister, 2013). It is likely that the domains stated by Harter have changed and thinness might be more important in the physical appearances scale than before. Not only could this have changed the domains itself, there could be new domains that contribute to the self-perception of children. People now also evaluate others on what they have, and not just on who they are (Dittmar & Pepper, 1994). Children nowadays need more than the basics like food and housing (Brusdal & Fraunes, 2014). Their consumption is also visible in the symbolic value of products (Brusdal & Fraunes, 2014). There was a domain constructed in analysis that reflected this new need. This domain comprises of questions that mostly consisted of wanting more. Feeling like you do not have enough and wanting more could indicate a negative self-perception. This supports adding domains, as well as deleting items in the exciting domains. There was one methodological limitation that should be noted on this topic. 100 participants is seen as a poor sample size to analyze the factor structure (Field, 2010). A overall sample size should be at least 300, or 10 to 15 per item, to analyses the factor structure (Field, 2010). The format of the CBSK has been changed in this research to improve the reliability (internal consistency) and the convergent validity. Harter designed the original format to overcome socially acceptable answers (Harter, 2012). By changing the format, this might not be accounted for anymore. This could indicate children now answer what they think they should answer, instead of what they really think of themselves. This could have suppressed the increased in convergent validity. The new

12 12 format was designed to make the questionnaire less complicated for children. This would create a more reliable questionnaire. However, the reliability of the questionnaire remained the same. This could be due to the extra instructions Harter introduced after it became evident children had problems with the format. These extra introductions might have made the questionnaire less complicated, which could explain the lack of raise in reliability. Recommendations for further research There are many ways to measure reliability and validity (Oosterveld & Vorst, 2010). Comparing the CBSK only with another test for self-perception might not be sufficient to be sure this questionnaire is valid. It is now clear that both questionnaires measure the same construct. Whether this construct is what it is ought to measure, self-perception, is not completely clear. For example, Muris et al. (2003) also tested for correlations with other traits, like the correlation between agreeableness and behavioral conduct. It would be a good addition to research the validity more in further research. The same problem arises in reliability. This was measured with an internal consistency measurement. Reliability can also be measured in different ways (Oosterveld & Vorst, 2010). An important way to measure reliability is test-retest reliability. For this, a follow-up measurement is necessary. It should be noted that self-perception changes over time (Harter, 2012). A follow-up measure should not take too long. This research only conducted norms for children from 9, 10 and 11. The norm groups were very small, with some groups of only 9 children. Further research should examine the norms establish these norms at the hand of a larger sample. Conclusions Previous research showed the value of a good screening tool for self-perception in children to obviate emerging problems (Karatzias, Chouliara, Power & Swanson, 2006; Orth, Robin & Roberts, 2008; Van den Bergh & Marcoen, 1999). The CBSK as it is, is not an optimal tool (Eiser, Eiser & Havermans, 1995; Veerman et al., 2004). This research showed satisfactory psychometric qualities for the new format of the CBSK. The aim of this study was to improve the psychometric qualities, which did not occur. Still, there are some indications for further research on this new format. Further research is required before the use of this questionnaire as a screening tool for children.

13 13 References Bakker, F.C., van Wieringen, P.C.W., van der Ploeg, H.M. & Spielberger, C.D. (2004). Handleiding bij de ZelfBeoordelings-Vragenlijst voor kinderen. ZBV-K. Een Nederlandstalige bewerking van de State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) van Spielberger e.a. [Instructions for the self-assessment questionnaire for children. A Dutch adaption of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) from Spielberg a.o.] Amsterdam: Harcourt Assessment B.V. Baumeister, R. F. (2013). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press. Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press. Brusdal, R. & Fraunes, I. (2014). Handbook of child well-being. Dordrecht: Springer Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Gagnon, C. (1992). A reassessment of the Self-Perception Profile for Children: Factor structure, reliability, and convergent validity of a French version among second through sixth grade children. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 15, Dittmar, H. & Pepper, L. (1994). To have is to be: Materialism and person perception in working-class and middle-class British adolescents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(2), pp Eiser, C., Eiser, J., & Havermans, T. (1995). The measurement of self-esteem: practical and theoretical considerations. Personality and Individual Differences, 18(3), Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children, Denver, CO, University of Denver. Harter, S. (2012). Self-Percetion Profile for Children: Manual and questionnaires, Denver, CO, University of Denver. Karatzias, A., Chouliara, Z., Power, K., & Swanson, V. (2006). Predicting general wellbeing from self-esteem and affectivity: An exploratory study with Scottish adolescents. Quality of Life Research, 15, Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125,

14 14 Kramer, A. (2016). De psychometrische kenmerken van de Nederlandse Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Kinderversie (RSEK) [The psychometrical features of the Dutch Self-Esteem Scale for children] (Undergraduate). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Leeuwis, F. H., Koot, H. M., Creemers D. H. M., & Lier, P. A. C. (2014). Implicit and explicit selfesteem discrepancies, victimization and the development of late childhood internalizing problems. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 43, Muris, P., Bodden, D., Hale, W., Birmaher, B. & Mayer, B. (2007). SCARED-NL. Vragenlijst over angst en bang-zijn bij kinderen en adolescenten. Handleiding bij de gereviseerde Nederlandse versie van de Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders [Questionnaire for anxiety and being scared for children and adolescents in the revised version of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders]. Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers. Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Fijen, P. (2003). The self-perception profile for children: Further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, Oosterveld, P., & Vorst, H. C. M. (2010). Testconstructie en testonderzoek [Test construction and research]. University of Amsterdam, Departement of Psychologie. Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). Low self-esteem prospectively predicts depression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, Overholser, J. C., Adams, D. M., Lehnert, K. L., & Brinkman, D. C. (1995). Self-esteem deficits and suicidal tendencies among adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, Prins, P. J. M., & Braet, C. (2014). Handboek Klinische Ontwikkelingspsychologie [Manual for Clinical Developmental Psychology]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu VanLoghum/Springer Media. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books

15 15 Timbremont, B., Braet, C. & Roelofs, J. (2008). Handleiding Children's Depression Inventory. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V. Van den Bergh, B., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Harter s Self-Perception Profile for Children: Factor structure, reliability, and convergent validity in a Dutch-speaking Belgian sample of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Psychologica Belgica, 39, Van Dongen-Melman, J., Koot, H., & Verhulst, F. (1993). Cross-cultural validation of Harter s Self- Perception Profile for Children in a Dutch sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, Veerman, J. W., Straathof, M. A. E., Treffers, P. D. A., Van den Bergh, B. R. H., & Ten Brink, L. T. (2004). Competentiebelevingsschaal voor kinderen [The self-perception scale for children], Lisse, The Netherlands: Harcourt Assessment. Wichstraum, L. (1995). Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents: Reliability, validity and evaluation of the question format. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65,

16 16 Appendix A Table 3 Component loadings of the CBSK items (PCA, oblique rotation) CBSK item with Component hypothetical factor Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Behavioral conduct Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Social appetence Athletic competence Social acceptance Physical appearance Social acceptance Scholastic competence Social acceptance Athletic competence Social acceptance Social acceptance Highest loadings are shown in bold, except for loadings <.40.

17 17 Table 4 Component loadings of the CBSK items (PCA, oblique rotation, six fixed factors) Component CBSK items Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Behavioral conduct Social acceptance Social acceptance Social acceptance Physical appearance Social acceptance Social acceptance Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Athletic competence Social acceptance Physical appearance Highest loadings are shown in bold, except for loadings <.40.

18 18 Table 5 Component loadings of the CBSK items (PCA, oblique rotation, five fixed factors) Component CBSK items Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Behavioral conduct Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Physical appearance Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Scholastic competence Social acceptance Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Athletic competence Social acceptance Social acceptance Social acceptance Social acceptance Social acceptance Behavioral conduct Highest loadings are shown in bold, except for loadings <.40.