Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Kit-Tai Hau
The internal/external frame of reference (I/E) model explains a seemingly paradoxical pattern of relations
between math and verbal self-concepts and corresponding measures of achievement, extends social
comparison theory, and has important educational implications. In a cross-cultural study of nationally
representative samples of 15-year-olds from 26 countries (total N 55,577), I/E predictions were
supported in that (a) math and verbal achievements were highly correlated, but math and verbal
self-concepts were nearly uncorrelated; (b) math achievement had positive effects on math self-concept,
but negative effects on verbal self-concept; and (c) verbal achievement had positive effects on verbal
self-concept, but negative effects on math self-concept. Supporting the cross-cultural generalizability of
predictions, multigroup structural equation models demonstrated good support for the generalizability of
results across 26 countries participating in the Programme for International Student Assessment project
sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Herbert W. Marsh, SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Kit-Tai Hau, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
This research was funded in part by grants from the Australian Research
Council. We thank Codula Artelt, Jurger Bamert, Oliver Ludtke, Ken
Rowe, Wolfram Schulz, and Ulrich Trautwein for comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Herbert
W. Marsh, SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Bankstown Campus, Locked Bag 1797 Penrith South, Sydney, New South Wales
1797, Australia. E-mail: h.marsh@uws.edu.au
56
57
comparison theory was not able to explain the seemingly paradoxical pattern of relations he found between math and verbal selfconcept measures and corresponding measures of math and verbal
achievement, the focus of the present investigation. To explain
these results, he developed the I/E model that is an extension of
social comparison theory.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
If the role of self-concept research is to better understand the complexity of self in different contexts, to predict a wide variety of
behaviors, to provide outcome measures for diverse interventions, and
to relate self-concept to other constructs, then the specific domains of
self-concept are more useful than a general domain.
Support for this claim is particularly strong in educational psychology, where academic self-concept is substantially related to a
wide variety of academic outcomes, whereas global and nonacademic measures of self-concept are much less highly correlated
with these outcomes (Marsh, 1993).
2.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
58
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
59
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
60
Method
Data Source and Sample
The present investigation was based on the Program of Student Assessment (PISA) database compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which consists of nationally representative responses by 15-year-olds collected in 32 countries in the year
2000 (see Adams & Wu, 2002; OECD, 2001a, 2001b, for a description of
the database and variables). The PISA database was collected in response
to the need for internationally comparable evidence of student performance
and related competencies within a common framework that is internationally agreed on. Selection of the measures was made on the basis of advice
from substantive and statistical expert panels and results from extensive
pilot studies. Substantial efforts and resources were devoted to achieving
cultural and linguistic breadth in the assessment materials, stringent
quality-assurance mechanisms were applied in the translation of materials
into different languages, and data were collected under independently
supervised test conditions. Paper-and-pencil assessments consisted of a
combination of multiple-choice items and written responses. Whereas all
students completed some reading assessment items (which were the focus
of the 2000 data collection), only random samples of students completed
Statistical Analysis
Structural equation models (SEMs) were conducted with LISREL 8
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) using maximum likelihood estimation (for
further discussion of SEM, see Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 1998; Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993). Following Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1996) and Marsh, Balla,
and McDonald (1988), we emphasize the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the
relative noncentrality index (RNI), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate goodness of fit, but also present the chisquare test statistic and an evaluation of parameter estimates. Whereas tests
of statistical significance and indices of fit aid in the evaluation of the fit
of a model, there is ultimately a degree of subjectivity and professional
judgment in the selection of a best model (Marsh, Balla, et al., 1988).
When there are parallel data from more than one groupthe 26 countries in this studyit is possible to test the invariance of the solution by
requiring any one, any set, or all parameter estimates to be the same in two
or more groups. Byrne (2003) argued that this analysis is particularly
appropriate for making cross-cultural comparisons. In applying this approach, there is a well-developed methodology in which the goodness of fit
of alternative models are compared, including the least restrictive model
that does not require any of the parameter estimates to be the same in
different groups and the most restrictive model that requires all parameter
estimates to be the same in the different groups (e.g., Byrne, 1998; Marsh,
1994a; but also see Cheung & Rensvold, 1999). In preliminary analyses,
we tested the a priori baseline model separately for each of the 26 groups
and found that the goodness of fit was excellent for each country considered separately (see subsequent discussion of Table 3). Typically, the
minimal condition for factorial invariance is the equivalence of all factor
loadings in the multiple groups, and this is one of the first tests of
invariance in the sequence. There is no clear consensus in recommendations about the ordering of subsequent invariance constraints (e.g., Bentler,
1988; Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 1998; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), although
Bentler (1988) and Byrne (1998) noted that the equality of parameters
associated with measurement errors is typically the least important hypothesis to test and is unlikely to be met in most applications. Whereas under
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
61
Table 1
Parameter Estimates for Total-Group Solution (Model TG1) and
Multiple-Group Solution (MG15)
Total-group
solution
Factor
Multiple-group
solution
Factor loadings
MAch
.95
.00 .00
VAch1
.00
.85 .00
VAch2
.00
.89 .00
VAch3
.00
.78 .00
MSC1
.00
.00 .84
MSC2
.00
.00 .85
MSC3
.00
.00 .83
VSC1
.00
.00 .00
VSC2
.00
.00 .00
VSC3
.00
.00 .00
Path coefficients
MAch
.00
.00 .00
VAch
.00
.00 .00
MSC
.44 .20 .00
VSC
.26
.47 .00
Variance
covariances
MAch
1.00
VAch
.78 1.00
MSC
.00
.00 .90
VSC
.00
.00 .11
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.55
.72
.83
.00
.00
.00
.00
.90
.10
.28
.22
.39
.29
.27
.30
.70
.48
.31
.94
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.84
.85
.83
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.60
.71
.81
.00
.00 .00
.00
.00 .00
.48 .19 .00
.19
.45 .00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
.76
.00
.00
.00
.83
.87
.77
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
.00 .87
.00 .04
.89
62
Table 2
Goodness of Fit for I/E Model Fit to the Total Group and Multiple (Country) Groups
Model
df
RNI
TLI
RMSEA
Model description
Total sample
TG1
5,026.06
30
.98
.97
.05
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Multiple-group CFA
MG1
MG2
MG3
MG4
MG5
MG6
5,784.36
7,650.34
9,846.64
9,070.34
12,515.47
18,513.56
780
930
1030
1005
1180
1405
.98
.97
.97
.97
.96
.93
.97
.97
.96
.96
.96
.95
.05
.06
.06
.06
.07
.08
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
CFA
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
SEM
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
INV
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
FL,
Multiple-group SEM
MG7
MG8
MG9
MG10
MG11
MG12
MG13
MG14
MG15
9,497.48
8,078.61
8,273.18
10,577.99
10,520.63
11,445.96
11,234.89
11,153.97
12,515.47
1030
980
980
1080
1080
1130
1130
1130
1180
.97
.97
.97
.96
.96
.96
.96
.96
.96
.96
.97
.97
.96
.96
.96
.96
.96
.96
.06
.06
.06
.06
.06
.07
.06
.06
.07
Note. N 55,582. In Model TG1 (see parameter estimates in Table 1) the internal/external frame of reference (I/E) model was fit to the total group,
whereas for Models MG1MG13 the I/E model was fit separately for each of the 26 groups representing different countries. For Models MG2MG13, some
combination of parameters is required to be invariant across the 26 groups (countries). RNI relative noncentrality index; TLI TuckerLewis index;
RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; CFA confirmatory factor analysis; SEM structural equation model; FL factor loading; FC
factor covariances; FV factor variances; PC path coefficient; PC horizontal path coefficients predicted to be positive (see Figure 1); PC cross
path coefficients predicted to be negative (see Figure 1); Uniq. uniqueness; MG multiple group; TG total group; INV invariant; Free freely
estimated (not constrained to be invariant).
In summary, even the extremely demanding model with complete invariance of all parameters provided a good fit to the data.
Because no one of these multiple-group models stood out as
clearly the best model, we evaluated parameter estimates based
on several of these models.
63
Table 3
Reliability Estimates, Goodness-of-Fit Indexes, and Selected Parameter Estimates for Each Country
Reliability
Factor corr
Path coefficients
Goodness of fit
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Country
Total
55,582
1. Australia
2,642
2. Austria
2,380
3. BelgiumFlemish 1,962
4. Brazil
2,218
5. Czech Republic
2,698
6. Denmark
2,087
7. Finland
2,576
8. Germany
2,502
9. Hungary
2,550
10. Iceland
1,720
11. Ireland
2,041
12. Italy
2,678
13. Korea
2,705
14. Latvia
1,920
15. Liechtenstein
153
16. Luxembourg
1,441
17. Mexico
2,275
18. Netherlands
1,282
19. New Zealand
1,809
20. Norway
2,050
21. Portugal
2,378
22. Russia
3,398
23. Sweden
2,282
24. Switzerland
2,982
25. Scotland
1,211
26. United States
1,642
M
SD
Mdn
25th percentile
75th perecentile
VAch
.87
.87
.87
.86
.81
.84
.87
.84
.87
.86
.86
.86
.86
.78
.88
.83
.88
.82
.84
.88
.88
.89
.84
.85
.88
.87
.89
.86
.03
.86
.84
.88
.88
.86
.88
.86
.85
.85
.86
.93
.90
.87
.91
.87
.88
.89
.85
.85
.88
.83
.89
.89
.90
.87
.87
.88
.88
.88
.86
.88
.02
.88
.86
.89
.74
.78
.81
.71
.63
.75
.77
.80
.81
.67
.78
.79
.81
.68
.66
.76
.75
.55
.74
.80
.74
.73
.67
.76
.76
.82
.76
.74
.07
.76
.70
.79
.76*
.77*
.76*
.81*
.69*
.74*
.78*
.71*
.79*
.76*
.75*
.79*
.73*
.77*
.61*
.76*
.74*
.76*
.84*
.80*
.73*
.79*
.68*
.81*
.76*
.82*
.84*
.76
.05
.74
.76
.79
VSC
MSC
.06*
.08*
.07*
.11*
.14*
.08*
.10*
.28*
.12*
.08*
.31*
.11*
.06*
.13*
.09*
.06
.01
.52*
.07*
.07*
.14*
.06*
.29*
.18*
.20*
.12*
.11*
.06
.17
.08
.07
.14
.48*
.41*
.47*
.34*
.23*
.51*
.65*
.70*
.62*
.43*
.68*
.53*
.49*
.58*
.37*
.41*
.40*
.14*
.89*
.80*
.72*
.55*
.22*
.58*
.54*
.69*
.42*
.51
.18
.52
.41
.66
.19*
.16*
.25*
.24*
.07
.22*
.18*
.06
.45*
.15*
.09*
.22*
.21*
.19*
.20*
.27*
.30*
.03
.75*
.38*
.17*
.28*
.12*
.20*
.39*
.27*
.15*
.22
.16
.20
.27
.15
.19*
.19*
.26*
.20*
.08
.17*
.16*
.04
.41*
.17*
.08
.44*
.35*
.04
.14*
.37*
.27*
.10*
.25*
.53*
.20*
.18*
.16*
.08*
.28*
.38*
.20*
.21
.14
.20
.30
.13
.45*
.39*
.56*
.26*
.25*
.48*
.48*
.46*
.60*
.49*
.40*
.47*
.62*
.48*
.47*
.55*
.57*
.20*
.34*
.68*
.59*
.48*
.49*
.37*
.42*
.45*
.55*
.47
.12
.48
.40
.55
2(30)
12,515.47
181.96
181.57
178.97
256.04
395.87
350.22
257.61
185.00
318.31
194.20
146.14
199.84
115.65
212.20
50.11
152.48
184.50
103.33
198.64
312.61
334.03
446.98
243.33
274.55
85.45
224.79
222.47
95.27
199.24
172.35
284.06
RNI TLI
.957
.988
.987
.982
.970
.968
.969
.984
.989
.974
.982
.988
.987
.992
.978
.969
.982
.980
.988
.983
.974
.974
.971
.980
.983
.991
.977
.980
.007
.982
.974
.987
.957
.982
.981
.974
.955
.952
.953
.976
.983
.961
.973
.981
.981
.988
.966
.954
.973
.970
.981
.975
.961
.961
.957
.971
.975
.987
.965
.971
.011
.973
.961
.981
Note. All parameter estimates are present in completely standardized form. Factor correlations for each country are based on MG3 (Table 2), and the path
coefficients are based on MG10 (Table 2). The total results based on all 26 countries are based on Model MG15 (Table 1; also see Table 2) in which only
uniquenesses were allowed to differ from country to country. The a priori model (see Figure 1) was fit separately to responses from each country, and the
total sample and goodness of fit for each analysis is summarized by the chi-square test statistic, relative noncentrality index (RNI), and the TuckerLewis
index (TLI). MAch math achievement; VAch verbal achievement; MSC math self-concept; VSC verbal self-concept; corr correlation; MG
multiple group.
* p .05.
64
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
concept measures to be uncorrelated, much of the research reviewed earlier has found these two self-concept scores to be nearly
uncorrelated. In order to evaluate the cross-cultural generalizability of this pattern of results, the two correlations were presented
separately for each country in Table 3 (based on results from
Model MG3 in which factor loading and factor variances were
invariant across countries, but factor correlations were not). Consistent with a priori predictions, in every country the correlation
between the two self-concept scores (M .06, SD .17) was
consistently much smaller than the correlation between the two
achievement scores (M .76, SD .07).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
65
I/E model, Marsh and Roche found that (a) dance, music, and
drama self-concepts were positively correlated for non-PA students, but uncorrelated for PA students and (b) PA students had
high self-concepts in their specialty area, but had much lower
self-concepts in their nonspecialty areaslower even than non-PA
students who did not specialize in any areas of PA.
The extreme domain specificity of academic self-concepts that
led to the development of the I/E model also has practical implications for teachers and parents and for educational practice.
Teachers, in order to understand the academic self-concepts of
their students in different content areas, must understand the implications of the I/E model. When teachers were asked to infer the
self-concepts of their students (see discussion by Marsh & Craven,
1997), their responses reflected primarily the external comparison
process so that teachers inferences were not nearly so domain
specific as responses by their students; students who were bright in
one area tended to be seen as having good academic self-concepts
in all areas, whereas students who were not bright in one area were
seen as having poor academic self-concept in all areas. Similarly,
Dai (2002) reported that inferred self-concept ratings by parents
reflected primarily the external comparison process typically emphasized in social comparison research, but not the internal comparison process that is the unique feature of the I/E model. In
contrast to inferred self-concept ratings by significant others
(teachers and parents), students academic self-concepts in different domains are extremely differentiated. Hence, understanding
the implications of the I/E model will allow significant others to
better understand children and to infer childrens self-concepts
more accurately. Thus, for example, our results demonstrate that
even bright students may have an average or below-average selfconcept in their weakest school subject that may seem paradoxical,
in relation to their good achievement (good relative to other
students, but not to their own performance in other school subjects). Similarly, even poor students may have an average or
above-average self-concept in their best school subject that may
seem paradoxical in relation to their below-average achievement in
that subject. Particularly for poorer students, understanding these
principles should assist teachers and parents in giving positive
feedback that is credible to students.
In summary, there exists a very strong and growing body of
support for the I/E model. In evaluating this support, it is important
to establish the limits of the models generalizability. Tests of the
cross-cultural support for predictions from a theoretical model
developed in one culture to another culture provide an important
basis for testing this generalizability. Importantly, previous tests of
the I/E model have been conducted primarily in western countries
and, typically, in those where the native language is English.
Although there exists support for the I/E predictions in some
non-Western countriesparticularly ChinaI/E studies typically
have been based on ad hoc samples within a single country and had
idiosyncratic design features that hindered comparisons across
different countries. From this respect, the results of the present
investigation based on large, representative samples of students
from 26 different countries and common materialsprovide a
much stronger test of the cross-cultural generalizability of predictions based on the I/E model than any previous research. Because
there was good support both for the predictions based on the I/E
model and for the generalizability of these results across the 26
countries, the results clearly support the construct validity of the
I/E model and its cross-cultural generalizability. Although it may
66
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
References
Abu-Hilal, M. M. (2002, April). Frame of reference model of self-concept
and locus of control: A cross gender study in the United Arab Emirates.
Paper presented at the 87th Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Abu-Hilal, M. M., & Bahri, T. M. (2000). Self concept: The generalizability of research on the SDQ, Marsh/Shavelson model and I/E frame of
reference model to the United Arab Emirates students. Social Behavior
& Personality, 28, 309 322.
Adams, R., & Wu, M. (2002). PISA 2000 Technical Report. Retrieved May
5, 2003, from Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Web site: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/tech/intro.htm
Bentler, P. M. (1988). Theory and implementation of EQS. A structural
equations program. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:
Wiley.
Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external frames of reference model
with subject-specific academic self-efficacy and frame-specific academic self-concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 102110.
Brown, J. D. (1993). Self-esteem and self-evaluation: Feeling is believing.
In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp.
59 98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: Issues and
instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS,
and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. M. (2003). Measuring self-concept across culture: Issues, caveats, and practice In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. McInerney (Eds.),
International advances in self research (Vol. 1, pp. 291313). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance
across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal
of Management, 25, 127.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on
motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dai, D. Y. (2001). A comparison of gender differences in academic
self-concept and motivation between high-ability and average Chinese
adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 2232.
Dai, D. Y. (2002). Incorporating parent perceptions: A replication and
extension study of the internal external frame of reference model of
self-concept development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 617
645.
Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1997). Social comparison and subjective wellbeing. In B. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and
well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 329 358).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117140.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. M. (1987). Social comparison theory:
Self-evaluation and group life. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.),
Theories of group behavior (pp. 21 47). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Kagitcibasi, C., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2000). Cross-cultural psychology:
Issues and overarching themes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
31, 129 147.
Kaplan, D., & Ferguson, A. J. (1999). On the utilization of sample weights
in latent variable models. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 305321.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
67