Physical Self Concept Page - Home - AARE · The Physical Self Concept (PSC) instrument (Richards, 1988) instrument has been used extensively in relation to the Outward Bound program,

Physical Self Concept Page

Multiple Dimensions of Self-concept and Sport/Exercise Psychology

Herbert W. Marsh, University of Western Sydney, Macarthur

Introduction

Self-concept is a multidimensional construct that cannot be understood adequately if its multidimensionality is ignored. Empirical and theoretical support for this claim comes from research with the Self Description Questionnaires and the Marsh/Shavelson self-concept model. Particularly strong support comes from academic self-concept research.

The purpose of the present presentation is to expand support for the claim to the area of physical self-concept. Discussion will focus on the content specificity of Physical self-concept.

Self-concept research can be broadly divided into two categories:

Within-network studies explore the internal structure of self-concept. They test the dimensionality of self-concept and whether the construct has consistent, distinct multidimensional components (e.g., physical, social, and academic). Empirical techniques such as factor analysis or multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analysis are used.

Between-network studies attempt to establish a theoretically consistent, logical pattern of relations between measures of self-concept and other constructs.

Within-Construct Studies

Let me begin with an overview of my Self Description Questionnaires:

There are SDQ instruments for preadolescents (SDQI), adolescents (SDQII), and late-adolescents and young adults (SDQIII). The self-concept scales in each instrument were derived largely from the Shavelson et al. model.

Psychometric support for the SDQ responses is very strong.

The internal consistency of the scales from the three SDQ instruments is good -- typically in the .80s and .90s.

The stability of SDQ responses is also good, particularly for older children. For example, the stability of SDQIII scales measured on four occasions varied from a median of .87 for a one-month interval to a median of r = .74 for intervals of 18 months or longer.

Dozens of factor analyses of diverse samples differing in gender, age, country, and language have consistently identified the factors that each SDQ instrument is designed to measure.

Correlations among the SDQ scales are surprisingly small. In factor analytic research the median rs among the SDQ factors vary between .1 and .2 for the three SDQ instruments.

Factor analytic research demonstrates that Physical Ability and Physical Appearance self-concepts are distinct from and only moderately related to general and non-physical components of self-concept (SEE Table 1).

Relations with External Criteria

One approach to between-construct validation is to demonstrate that:

Physical self-concept responses are substantially related to external criteria to which they are most logically related.

Non-physical components of self-concept are substantially less correlated to these external criteria.

SDQ responses have been related to a variety of potential criteria such as physical fitness, body mass index, sporting involvement, and physical activity levels (SEE Table 2).

Known Group Difference Approach

Another, related approach to between-construct validation is to demonstrate that groups known to differ in some characteristic related to Physical self-concept differ substantially in terms of

physical self-concept.

In different studies, SDQII responses were compared for groups of women who were or were not involved in athletics.

In the first study, comparisons were made between four groups of subjects (SEE Table 3) :

1. High school women who represented their school on a first-grade team and who trained at least 4 hrs/week for at least 6 months.

2. High school women from the same school who did not participate in sports.

3. Young adult women who were participants in 1984 Australia National Powerlifting Championships.

4. Young adult women from college students the SDQIII norms

For both high school and young adult samples, athletes have substantially higher Physical Ability self-concepts than do non-athletes. Athletes also have higher General self-concepts, although this difference is much smaller. Differences in Physical Appearance and Emotional Stability self-concept are not significantly different.

Experimental Manipulations

The Outward Bound Program

The juxtaposition of two Outward Bound intervention studies and their contrasting predictions provides a powerful test of the multidimensionality of self-concept.

The Outward Bound Standard Course is a 26-day residential that comprises physically and mentally demanding outdoor activities. The goals of the program were primarily nonacademic. Thus it was predicted a priori and found that the program affected primarily the Physical and other nonacademic components of self-concept and had much less impact on academic components of self. The size and pattern of results were maintained in an 18-month follow-up study.

The Outward Bound Bridging Course was developed for low-achieving high school males to produce significant gains in mathematics and reading achievement. The goals of the program were primarily academic. Thus it was predicted a priori and found that the program would primarily affect academic components of self-concept and have much less effect on nonacademic components of self. There were also corresponding effects on reading and mathematics achievement.

Support for both these contrasting sets of predictions provides particularly strong support for the use of multidimensional self-concept measures in intervention studies.


Competitive/Cooperative Aerobics Intervention

In this intervention (Marsh & Peart, 1988) high school women were randomly assigned to competitive, cooperative and control groups.

The cooperative group completed exercises in pairs; feedback emphasized individual improvement.

The competitive group completed individual exercises; feedback emphasized comparisons with whoever did best on each exercise.

Consistent with a priori predictions:

The cooperative intervention substantially increased physical fitness and increased Physical self-concept.

The competitive intervention also substantially increased physical fitness. This intervention, however, PRODUCED SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER LEVELS OF PHYSICAL SELF-CONCEPT.

Other areas of self-concept were unaffected by either intervention.


Competitive/Cooperative Aerobics Intervention

Critical features in this study are frame of reference effects and social comparison processes. Students in the competitive group knew they were more fit at the end of the study. However,

they were forced to compare their performances with whoever did best on each exercise. Thus, the frame of reference that these students used to evaluate their own performances changed even more than did their fitness levels. Hence, the net effect of the competitive intervention on Physical self-concept was negative.

These effects are important, because short-term gains in physical fitness are unlikely to be maintained unless students maintain levels of physical activity. Although no long-term followup was conducted, it is likely that the cooperative group (with increased Physical self-concept) are more likely to remain physically active than the competitive group (with lower Physical self-concept).

These effects in the physical domain are apparently related to well established findings in the academic domain. When students attend academically selective schools in which the school-average ability level is high, their academic self-concepts and educational aspirations decline.

These results also demonstrate why it is important to assess the appropriate components of self-concept even when the focus of the intervention is on skill development or fitness enhancement. Short-term gains in skill levels are more likely to be maintained where there is a corresponding increase in self-concept. Particularly if the intervention inadvertently undermines self-concept, short-term skill gains are unlikely to be maintained.

Physical Fitness Self-concept: Relations to Field and Technical Indicators of Physical Fitness For Boys and Girls Aged 9-15 (The Australian Health and Fitness Survey)

As part of the Australian Health and Fitness survey, students (aged 9-15) gave self-perceptions of their physical fitness, health, and academic achievement as well as completing a diverse battery of physical fitness indicators.

The purpose of this study (Marsh, 1993b) was to evaluate relations between multiple indicators of physical fitness with physical self-concept, to evaluate the consistency of these relations over gender and age, and to compare these results with relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept in the present investigation and in other studies. The following a priori predictions were supported (SEE Table 4) .

1. Physical fitness and academic self-concepts will be distinct, as evidenced by low to moderate correlations between the two constructs and their contrasting pattern of relations

with indicators of physical fitness and academic achievement.

2. In support of the contention that the facets of self-concept become more distinct with age, correlations between physical and academic self-concepts will decline with age. Also, the size of correlations between each self-concept measure and its corresponding indicators will increase with age.

3. Relations between physical fitness indicators and physical fitness self-concept will be similar for boys and girls.

4. Consistent with a multidimensional perspective of physical fitness, indicators representing a many different components of physical fitness will contribute substantially to physical fitness self-concept.

A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Physical Self-concept and Its Relation to Multiple Components of Physical Fitness

Physical self-concept has been treated as a reasonably global facet of self-concept in my presentation. However, this self-concept domain can be divided into subcomponents (in the same way academic self-concept is subdivided into self-concepts associated with specific school subjects).

A particularly fruitful direction for such research would be to relate a multidimensional profile of physical fitness indicators like that considered in the Australian Health and Fitness Survey to a parallel set of multidimensional physical self-concept scales (see Marsh, 1992a, for related research in the academic domain).

Marsh and Redmayne (1993) related responses to a precursor to the Physical Self Description Questionnaire (PDSQ) and a set of physical fitness indicators. This study examines relations between six components of physical self-concept [Endurance, Balance, Flexibility, Strength, Appearance, and general Physical Ability] and five components of physical fitness [Endurance (12 minute run), Balance, Flexibility, Static Strength, Explosive Strength/Power (shuttle run)] for a sample (N=105) of young adolescent girls aged 13 and 14.

Hierarchical confirmatory factor analyses identified the six physical self-concept scales and provided support for a multidimensional, hierarchical model of physical self-concept. The pattern of correlations between specific components of

physical self-concept and physical fitness generally supported the construct validity of the self-concept responses, and the correlation between second-order factors representing general physical self-concept and general physical fitness (r=.76) was substantial (SEE Table 5 and Figure 1) .

Relations Between Multiple Dimensions of Physical Self-concept and Multiple Components of Physical Fitness

The Marsh & Redmayne study supports a multidimensional, hierarchical representation of the physical self-concept domain. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses clearly identified the six a priori physical self-concept scales. Consistent with a hierarchical representation, the general Physical Ability scale from the SDQII was substantially correlated with all the specific components of physical self-concept.

There were also substantial correlations between the self-concept responses and five components of physical fitness indicators. General (second-order) factors reflecting the two constructs were substantially correlated (r = .76).

Also, self-concepts of Endurance, Strength, and Flexibility were all significantly correlated with matching components of physical fitness. Physical Appearance was not posited to be correlated with any of the physical fitness indicators so that this lack of correlation may be consistent with support for the divergent validity of the self-concept responses (also see Fox and Corbin, 1989). The lack of correlation between the Balance self-concept and fitness may, however, call into question the validity of responses to this component of physical self-concept.

Different Multidimensional Physical Self-concept Instruments

Multitrait Multimethod Study Comparing Three Multidimensional Self-Concept Instruments

There currently exist at least three multidimensional physical self-concept instruments based at least in part on the Shavelson and Marsh/Shavelson self-concept models

The Physical Self Perception Profile (PSPP) (Corbin, 1990; Fox & Corbin, 1989) instrument is probably the best known of these

instruments. It measures 5 scales: Physical Condition, Physical Strength, Body Attractiveness, and Physical Self Worth.

The Physical Self Concept (PSC) instrument (Richards, 1988) instrument has been used extensively in relation to the Outward Bound program, but has not been formally published. It measures seven scales: Activity, Appearance, Health, Competence, Strength, Body Build, General Satisfaction. Previous factor analytic research with the instrument indicates that its 7-factor solution is remarkably robust over gender and age (ages 10 or younger thru early 60s).

The new Physical Self Description Questionnaire (PSDQ) instrument measures 11 scales: Strength, Body Fat, Activity, Endurance, Sports Competence, Coordination, Health, Appearance, Flexibility, General Physical Self Concept, and Self-Esteem.

In an "in progress" study (Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche & Tremayne, 1993), 320 adolescents (mostly 14-16 years of age) completed the three instruments. Preliminary exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with each of the three instruments. Exploratory factor analyses of the particularly the Richards instrument but also the new PSDQ provided well-defined factor structures, whereas the factor structure of the Fox instrument was not so well-defined as the other two. Confirmatory factor analyses, however, provided good support for the a priori factor structures of all three instruments.

Comparison of Multidimensional Physical Self-concept Instruments

We began by comparing the item content of scales from the three instruments. On the basis of this content analysis we derived a priori predictions about which scales matched most closely and thus should be most highly correlated (i.e., the convergent validities in MTMM analysis).

PSPP: There appears to be a one-to-one correspondence the PSPP Strength, Sports, and Physical Self Worth Scales and the PSDQ Strength, Sports, and General Physical Self Concept scales.

Each of the remaining two PSPP scales apparently combine distinguishable components of physical self-concept that are separate PSDQ scales.

The PSPP Condition scale, for example, apparently reflects particularly the PSDQ Physical Activity scale (e.g. "take part in some form of regular vigorous physical exercise," "ability to maintain regular exercise and physical condition") but also the

PSDQ Endurance scale (e.g., "maintain a high level of stamina and fitness").

The PSPP Body attractiveness scale is apparently most closely

related to the PSDQ Physical Appearance scale (e.g. "have an attractive body," "admired because their physique or figure is considered attractive") although it may also be related to the PSDQ Body Fat scale.

Comparison Multidimensional Physical Self-concept Instruments

Six of the 7 PSC scales -- all but Satisfaction -- corresponds to one and only one of the PSDQ scales.

The PSC satisfaction scale reflects the desire to be different in each of the other components (e.g., "I would like to be more physically able." "I would like to be more physically attractive" and "I would like to have better coordination and agility"). Hence the general scales from the PSDQ and PSPP scales are expected to correlate with each other than with the PSC Satisfaction scale.

Although the label of the PSC Competence scale does not directly match the PSDQ Coordination scale, the item content apparently does (e.g.. "I am physically uncoordinated" and "My natural coordination and agility are good").

This inspection of the PSC item content, however, also revealed some other features of the the PSC scales. To a limited extent the PSC Body scale reflects body weight like the PSDQ Body Fat scale, but more generally the PSC scale reflects body "shape and proportion." Hence, it should be more correlated more with the PSPP Body scale than the PSDQ Body Fat scale.

The PSC Activity scale actually reflects avoidance of activity (e.g. "I dislike sports and physical activity" and "I like to keep out of games, sports, and other physical activities"). Hence it may not correlate with the PSDQ Physical Activity scale as highly as some of the other matching PSDQ and PSC scales.

Correlations Between Scales From the Different Multidimensional

Physical Self-concept Instruments

The major focus of the present investigation is a MTMM analysis of the relations among the three instruments.

Presented in Table 6 is a set of correlations among the 23 scales: 11 PSDQ scales, the 5 Fox scales, and the 7 Richards scales. The correlations are derived from a confirmatory factor analysis in which a total of 71 "measured variables" (3 or 4 per scale) was used to define 23 scales. The fit of this 23-factor solution was good, but the primary focus of this study is on the set of factor correlations among the 23 latent constructs.

In general, the pattern of relations provides very good support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the 11 PSDQ scales and, perhaps, speculations about scales from the other 2 instruments based on the content analysis (SEE Table 6).

** The PSDQ Strength, Physical Activity, Coordination, Health, Physical Appearance, and General Physical Self-concept scales were substantially correlated with the corresponding scales from the PSPP and PSC instruments. Correlations involving the PSDQ tended to be higher than those involving either the PSC or the PSPP.

** The PSDQ Body Fat scale measured a component that was distinct from, although related to, the Body scales on the other two instruments.

** The PSDQ Flexibility, and General Esteem scales were not well-reflected in the design of the other instruments.

Correlations Between Scales From the Different Multidimensional Physical Self-concept Instruments

** The PSPP Body scale reflects a combination of Body Composition and Physical Attractiveness.

** The PSPP Condition is reflects a combination of Physical Activity and Endurance or Fitness.

** The PSC Activity scale reflects an avoidance of physical activity that may represent a slightly different construct than the PSDQ Physical Activity scale.

** The PSC Satisfaction reflects a different -- and apparently more complicated -- construct than the general scales from the PSDQ and PSPP instruments. Further research is needed to clarify the interpretation of this construct.

In summary, results of this research and of other research provide good support for the psychometric properties of the new PSDQ instrument. More specifically, the results of this research suggest that the PSDQ instrument compares favourably with other multidimensional physical self-concept instruments.

ReferencesFox, K. R. (1990). The Physical Self-Perception Profile Manual. DeKalb, Ill: Office for Health Promotion, Northern Illinois University, Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408-430.Fox, K. R. & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408-430.Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.Jackson, S. & Marsh, H. W. (1986). Athletic or antisocial: The female sport experience. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 198-211.Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review., 2, 77-171.Marsh, H. W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire II: A Theoretical and empirical basis for the Measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescent self-concept: A test manual and a research monograph. Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney, Australia.Marsh, H. W. (1993a). Academic self-concept: Theory measurement and research. In J. Suls, (Ed.) Psychological Perspectives on the self (vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Marsh, H. W. (1993b). The multidimensional structure of physical fitness: Invariance over gender and age. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, .Marsh, H. W. (1993c) Physical fitness self-concept: relations to field and technical indicators of physical fitness for boys and girls aged 9-15. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 15, 184-206.Marsh, H. W. & Johnson, S. (in press) Physical activity: Relations to field and technical indicators of physical fitness for boys and girls aged 9-15. Journal of Sports and Exercise

Psychology, .Marsh, H. W. & Peart, N. (1988). Competitive and cooperative physical fitness training programs for girls: Effects on physical fitness and on multidimensional self-concepts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 390-407.Marsh, H. W. & Redmayne, R. S. (in press) A multidimensional physical self-concept and its relation to multiple components of physical fitness. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, .Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Shavelson, R. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.Marsh, H. W. & Peart, N. (1988). Competitive and cooperative physical fitness training programs for girls: Effects on physical fitness and on multidimensional self-concepts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 390-407.Marsh, H. W. & Ridge, B. R. (in press). The construct validity and generalisability of VO2max for boy and girls aged 9-15. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. & Barnes, J. (1986a). Multidimensional self-concepts: A long term follow-up of the effect of participation in an Outward Bound program. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 475-492.Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. & Barnes, J. (1986b). Multidimensional self-concepts: The effect of participation in an Outward Bound program. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173-187.Sutherland, R. B, & Marsh, H, W. (1982). Physical Ability and Self Description Scale. University of Sydney, Faculty of Education.

Table 1Correlations Between Physical Self-concept Scales and Other Areas of Self-concept For each of the SDQ Instruments SDQ Instruments Scales SDQI SDQII SDQIII Physical Physical Physical Abil Appr Abil Appr Abil Appr Physical Abilities 1.00 .19 1.00 .17 1.00 .21 Physical Appearance .19 1.00 .17 1.00 .21 1.00 Peer Relationships .25 .33 -- -- -- -- Opposite Sex -- -- .23 .19 .23 .09 Same Sex -- -- .13 .11 .12 .19 Honesty/Trustworthy -- -- .11 .08 .15 .18 Parent Relationships .08 .18 .05 -.03 .10 .09 Spiritual/Religions --- -- -- -- -.01 -.01 Emotional Stability -- -- .16 .18 .15 .18

Read/Verbal .01 .04 .08 .08 .04 .13 Math .07 .08 .08 .07 .09 .07 School .10 .19 .14 .18 .06 .10 Problem Solving --- --- --- --- .11 .20 General .23 .39 .28 .31 .15 .33 Note: Correlations are based on factor analysis results presented in each of the SDQ manuals. Not all scales are included in each of the different instruments (as indicated by --).


Table 2Correlations Between Multiple Dimensions of Self-concept and Other Indicators. Study 1 Study 2 Math Phys Body Phys Sport Phys Achieve Fit Mass Fit Partic Activ (N=137) (N=137) (N=45) (N=45) (N=87)(N=87)Physical Abilities -.08 .45* -.36* .47* .39* .32*Physical Appearance .13 .07 -.26* .17 .12 -.04 Opposite Sex -.16 .02 -.10 .29 .36* .06 Same Sex .09 .00 -.15 .23 .15 .19 Honesty/Trustworthy .22* -.07 -.20* Parent Relationships .23* -.09 -.16 Emotional Stability .12 .11 -.11 Read/Verbal .27* .00 -.10 Math .48* -.09 -.01 School .50* -.08 -.17 General .23* .07 -.27 .14 -.03 .19 Note: Physical fitness (Phys Fit) is defined by a composite score based on a diverse set of field exercises in both study 1 (400M run, push-ups, burpees, jump rope, sit-ups, v-sits, and step-ups) and 2 (sit-ups, bend-twist-touch test, sit-and-reach, burpee, step-test). In study 2, participation is the number of sports participated in, whereas physical activity is the number of at least moderately strenuous activities the subject participated in.


Table 3Correlations Between Multiple Dimensions of Self-concept and Other Indicators.

Group Means and (SDs) for: Statistical Young Adults High School Significance Non- Non- Ath- Inter- Athlete Athlete Athlete Athlete lete Age action Physical Ability 68.8 51.8 67.8 43.9 *** * ns ( 7.2) (14.8) (12.9) ( 6.1)

Physical Appear 56.0 52.4 45.6 42.5 ns * ns (11.6) (10.0) (12.2) (13.3)

Emotional Stability 81.0 72.2 79.5 72.2 ns ns ns (17.3) (12.6) (13.7) (11.8)

General Self 77.3 70.3 67.7 63.2 * * ns (14.2) (13.5) (13.3) (15.7)

* p < .05; *** p < .001.


Table 4Physical Fitness/Self-concept Relations

Self-Concepts of: N Fitness Health AcademicFitness Indicators 1.6K Run 5840 .354* .170* .052* 50M Dash 5975 -.281* -.116* -.045* Long Jump 6258 .256* .118* .057* Push Up 6239 .292* .149* .009 Sit Up 6266 .207* .102* .023 Sit & Reach 6260 .042* .047* .040* Body Mass 6284 -.225* -.132* -.009 Body Girths 6281 -.201* -.124* .000 Static Strng 2655 .040 -.001 .010 Skinfold 2681 -.329* -.180* -.010 Blood Press 2649 -.078* -.071* -.003 PWC170 2563 .287* .127* .019 VO2max 270 .295* .252* .103

Lung Capacity 2669 .008 -.005 .032

Academic Achievemt School Work 5890 .088* .131* .418*

Self-concepts Phys Fitness 6283 --- .345* .141* Health 6286 .345* --- .163* Academic 6277 .141* .163* --- Note. Data used in this study is from the Australian Health and Fitness Survey (1985; see Pyke, 1987). * p < .01

Physical Self Concept Page Table 5Factor Analysis of Self-Concept (SC) and Physical Fitness (Fit) Measures: First-order factor AnalysisVariable Factor Loadings Unique Covara SC Appear1 651 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 577 SC Appear2 850 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 278 SC Appear3 838 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 298 SC Appear4 814 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 337 205 SC Physical1 000 728 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 470 SC Physical2 000 847 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 283 SC Physical3 000 805 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 352 SC Physical4 000 821 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 326 SC Strong1 000 000 767 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 412 SC Strong2 000 000 749 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 438 SC Strong3 000 000 776 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 398 202 SC Strong4 000 000 922 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 151 SC Balance1 000 000 000 773 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 402 SC Balance2 000 000 000 861 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 259 SC Balance3 000 000 000 737 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 457 SC Balance4 000 000 000 788 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 379 SC Flexible1 000 000 000 000 820 000 000 000 000 000 000 328 SC Flexible2 000 000 000 000 841 000 000 000 000 000 000 293 SC Flexible3 000 000 000 000 761 000 000 000 000 000 000 421 SC Flexible4 000 000 000 000 836 000 000 000 000 000 000 301 SC Endure1 000 000 000 000 000 878 000 000 000 000 000 229 SC Endure2 000 000 000 000 000 853 000 000 000 000 000 273 SC Endure3 000 000 000 000 000 864 000 000 000 000 000 253 SC Endure4 000 000 000 000 000 745 000 000 000 000 000 444 SC Endure5 000 000 000 000 000 813 000 000 000 000 000 338 Fit Strongb 000 000 000 000 000 000 949 000 000 000 000 100 Fit Balanceb 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 949 000 000 000 100

Fit Shuttleb 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 949 000 000 100 Fit Flexibleb 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 949 000 100 Fit Endureb 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 949 100Factor Correlations SC Appear --- SC Physical 455 --- SC Strong 538 825 --- SC Balance 529 449 481 --- SC Flexible 549 768 775 723 --- SC Enduran 448 899 844 530 809 ---

Fit Strong 183 253 442 153 300 196 --- Fit Balance -052-014 040 097 001 014 096 --- Fit Shuttle 044 454 441 107 363 492 152 024 --- Fit Flexible -063 235 249 216 211 336 376 049 294 --- Fit Endure 134 594 401 315 489 643 221 102 437 394 --- Note. All parameter estimates are presented in standardized form without decimal points. All estimated factor loadings, uniquenesses, and residual covariances are statistically significant (p < .05), as are factor correlations greater than .20. The ability of this model to fitted the data was good (X2(353) = 545.8, RNI = .911, TLI= .890). All indicators are scored so that higher scores reflect higher levels of fitness and self-concept.aResidual covariances were fit relating the SC Appear 1 and 4, and relating SC Strength 2 and 3. bThe five physical fitness tests (Fit) were treated as single-item factors and were assigned an arbitrary, but plausible reliability estimate of .90 by fixing the uniqueness values to be .10 (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988).

Physical Self Concept Page Figure CaptionFigure 1. Three hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis models of relations between multiple dimensions of physical self-concept and multiple components of physical fitness. All parameter estimates except the higher-order factor loadings of Balance component of fitness are statistically significant (p < .05). For all three models, the measurement portion of the model is like that shown in Table 1 and parameter estimates -- except for the factor correlations that are explained by these models -- are nearly the same as those for the first-order factor in Table 1. RNI = Relative Noncentrality Index. TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index.

Physical

Self Concept Page Correlations Among Scales From Three Physical Self-Concept InstrumentsFactor CorrelationsPSDQ(Marsh STRG 1 BFAT 05 1 PACT 56 24 1 ENDR 56 39 68 1 SPRT 64 36 76 72 1 CORD 56 46 70 57 78 1 HEAL 21 27 24 18 25 37 1 APPR 39 45 34 38 50 58 14 1 FLEX 42 36 51 58 47 62 31 34 1 GPSC 50 60 57 50 65 77 36 64 50 1 ESTM 47 56 49 50 60 66 58 60 56 74 1 PSPP (Fox) STRG 86 20 52 51 62 50 23 39 34 47 47 1 BODY 42 61 36 46 49 53 14 68 37 67 51 65 1 COND 49 45 73 70 68 58 20 38 45 60 51 67 71 1 SPRT 58 38 69 69 86 67 25 47 45 59 55 69 70 89 1 GPSW 54 51 57 60 64 62 24 54 45 81 68 73 82 85 86 1 PSC (Richards) STRG 90 02 48 43 56 47 16 36 31 42 40 79 41 40 51 50 1 BODY 46 68 46 53 58 60 22 65 44 74 63 46 81 60 61 70 46 1 PACT 44 23 66 53 62 54 36 18 33 37 45 40 22 58 63 48 38 35 1 COMP 52 33 57 56 69 84 32 57 59 59 62 51 49 50 70 65 59 64 58 1 HEAL 25 10 25 22 28 37 83 18 23 32 42 21 12 20 31 22 15 23 41 41 1 APPR 34 33 34 29 43 52 18 88 25 58 51 33 61 33 41 49 41 64 15 54 21 1 PSAT 28 38 32 38 41 38 20 33 30 39 38 36 39 41 55 42 31 42 32 44 14 26 1

Note. Decimal points are not presented to conserve space. Scales from different instruments that are predicted to be most highly correlated (i.e., the convergent validities in MTMM analysis) are in bold and underlined.

Table 5: Confirmatory Factor and MTMM Analysis of Responses to Three Physical Self-Concept InstrumentsFactor Loadings PSDQ PSPP PSC UniquenessPSDQ(Marsh) STRG1 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 35 STRG2 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 STRG3 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 BFAT1 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 BFAT2 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 BFAT3 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 PACT1 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 PACT2 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 PACT3 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 ENDR1 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 ENDR2 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ENDR3 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 SPRT1 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 SPRT2 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 SPRT3 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 CORD1 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 CORD2 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 CORD3 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 HEAL1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 HEAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 HEAL3 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 HEAL4 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 APPR1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 APPR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 APPR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 FLEX1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 28 FLEX2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 FLEX3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 GPSC1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 GPSC2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

GPSC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 ESTM1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 ESTM2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 ESTM3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 ESTM4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PSPP (Fox) STRG1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 STRG2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 STRG3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 BODY1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 BODY2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 BODY3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 COND1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 COND2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 COND3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 SPRT1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 SPRT2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SPRT3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 GPSW1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 GPSW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43

GPSW3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 PSC (Richards) STRG1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 STRG2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 STRG3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 BODY1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 27 BODY2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 44 BODY3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 24 PACT1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 34 PACT2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 32 PACT3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 58 COMP1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 38 COMP2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 36 COMP3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 44

HEAL1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 41 HEAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 32 HEAL3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 53 APPR1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 22 APPR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 35 APPR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 34 PSAT1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 51 PSAT2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 52 PSAT3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 44 Factor CorrelationsPSDQ(Marsh STRG 1

BFAT 05 1 PACT 56 24 1 ENDR 56 39 68 1 SPRT 64 36 76 72 1 CORD 56 46 70 57 78 1 HEAL 21 27 24 18 25 37 1 APPR 39 45 34 38 50 58 14 1 FLEX 42 36 51 58 47 62 31 34 1 GPSC 50 60 57 50 65 77 36 64 50 1 ESTM 47 56 49 50 60 66 58 60 56 74 1 PSPP (Fox) STRG 86 20 52 51 62 50 23 39 34 47 47 1 BODY 42 61 36 46 49 53 14 68 37 67 51 65 1 COND 49 45 73 70 68 58 20 38 45 60 51 67 71 1 SPRT 58 38 69 69 86 67 25 47 45 59 55 69 70 89 1 GPSW 54 51 57 60 64 62 24 54 45 81 68 73 82 85 86 1 PSC (Richards) STRG 90 02 48 43 56 47 16 36 31 42 40 79 41 40 51 50 1 BODY 46 68 46 53 58 60 22 65 44 74 63 46 81 60 61 70 46 1 PACT 44 23 66 53 62 54 36 18 33 37 45 40 22 58 63 48 38 35 1 COMP 52 33 57 56 69 84 32 57 59 59 62 51 49 50 70 65 59 64 58 1 HEAL 25 10 25 22 28 37 83 18 23 32 42 21 12 20 31 22 15 23 41 41 1 APPR 34 33 34 29 43 52 18 88 25 58 51 33 61 33 41 49 41 64 15 54 21 1 PSAT 28 38 32 38 41 38 20 33 30 39 38 36 39 41 55 42 31 42 32 44 14 26 1 Note. All coefficients vary between 0 and 1 (decimal points are not presented to conserve space). Scales from different instruments that are predicted to be most highly correlated (i.e., the convergent validities in MTMM analysis) are in bold and underlined. In the analysis, 3 or 4 indicators per scale were constructed typically considering of the mean response to a pair of items from the same scale. Each variable was allowed to load on only the factor that it was designed to measure and all other factor loadings were constrained to be zero. Presented are the completely standardized parameter estimates from the LISREL analysis. (CHI-SQUARE = 3414.35, df=2161)

Table 6: Confirmatory Factor and MTMM Analysis of Responses to Three Physical Self-Concept InstrumentsFactor Loadings Traits Item Parcels Methods UniquenessPSDQ(Marsh) STRG1 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0

0 33 STRG2 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 30 STRG3 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 27 BFAT1 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 36 0 0 20 BFAT2 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 33 0 0 22 BFAT3 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 40 0 0 28 PACT1 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 39 PACT2 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 23 PACT3 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 31 ENDR1 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 32 ENDR2 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 0 27 ENDR3 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 33 SPRT1 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 22 SPRT2 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 23 SPRT3 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 21 CORD1 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 26 CORD2 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 37 CORD3 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 35 HEAL1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 39 HEAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 49 HEAL3 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 36 HEAL4 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 52 APPR1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 18 APPR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 30 APPR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 40 FLEX1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 24 0

0 29 FLEX2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 33 FLEX3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 38 GPSC1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 26 GPSC2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 30

GPSC3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 25 ESTM1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 50 0 0 31 ESTM2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 48 0 0 36 ESTM3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 28 0 0 32 ESTM4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 69 0 0 29 PSPP (Fox) STRG1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 53 STRG2 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 44 STRG3 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 49 BODY1 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 54 BODY2 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 49 BODY3 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 46 COND1 0 0 44 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 40 COND2 0 0 16 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 45 COND3 0 0 38 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 46 SPRT1 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 55 SPRT2 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 40 SPRT3 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 52 GPSW1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 48 GPSW2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 43

GPSW3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 44 PSC (Richards) STRG1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 36 STRG2 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 30 STRG3 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 46 BODY1 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 29 BODY2 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 40 BODY3 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 23 PACT1 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 50 32 PACT2 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 54 30 PACT3 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 41 61 COMP1 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 42 COMP2 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 31 COMP3 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 46

HEAL1 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 42 HEAL2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 39 HEAL3 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 49 APPR1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 28 APPR2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 43 APPR3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 42 PSAT1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 64 0 0 0 15 50 PSAT2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 67 0 0 0 15 48 PSAT3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 61 0 0 0 22 47 Factor CorrelationsTrait Factors STRG 1

BFAT 41 1 PACT 54 44 1 ENDR 52 55 72 1 SPRT 63 56 77 75 1 CORD 55 62 67 62 78 1 HEAL 17 18 20 21 23 31 1 APPR 41 67 37 37 51 64 20 1 FLEX 38 45 50 59 47 65 26 34 1 GPSC 52 79 58 59 67 75 27 69 50 1 ESTM 47 67 45 59 59 64 42 69 56 73 1 Item Parcel Factors Parcel1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Parcel2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Parcel3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Method Factors Method1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Method2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 1 Method3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 35 1 Note. All coefficients vary between 0 and 1 (decimal points are not presented to conserve space). In the analysis, 3 or 4 indicators per scale were constructed typically considering of the mean response to a pair of items from the same scale. This a priori MTMM model contains 11 correlated trait factors, 3 item-parcel factors (i.e., covariation specific to the multiple indicators of a specific scale from one instrument), 3 correlated method factors (corresponding to the three self-concept instruments), and uniqueness associated with each measured variable. (CHI-SQUARE = 3602.52, df= 2270)

PHYSICAL SELF DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Preliminary)name age male female school/ grade/ institution year This is a chance to look at yourself. IT IS NOT A TEST. There are no right answers and everyone will have different answers. Be sure that your answers show how you feel about yourself. PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR ANSWERS WITH ANYONE ELSE. We will keep your answers private.The purpose of this study is to see how people describe themselves physically. In the following pages you will be asked to think about yourself physically; For example, how good looking you are, how strong you are, how good you are at sports, whether you exercise regularly, whether you are physically coordinated, whether you get sick very often and so forth. Answer each sentence quickly as you feel now. Please do not leave any sentence blank.When you are ready to begin, please read each sentence and decide

your answer, (you may read quietly to yourself if they are read aloud to you). There are six possible answers for each question -- "True", "False", and four answers in between. There are six numbers next to each sentence, one for each of the answers. The answers are written at the top of the numbers. Choose your answer to a sentence and put a circle ( m ) around the number under the answer you choose. DO NOT say your answer aloud or talk about it with anyone else.Before you start there are three examples below. I have already answered two of the three sentences to show you how to do it. In the third one you must choose your own answer and circle it ( m ). more more false true mostly than than mostly false false true false true true 1. I like to read comic books 1 2 3 4 5 6 m (I put a circle around the number 6 under the answer "TRUE", This means that I really like to read comic books. If I did not like to read comic books very much, I would have answered 1 ("FALSE") or 2 ("MOSTLY FALSE")).

2. In general, I am neat & tidy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 m (I answered "MORE FALSE THAN TRUE" because I am definitely not very neat, but I am not really messy either).

3. I like to watch T.V. 1 2 3 4 5 6

(For this sentence you have to choose the answer that is best for you. First you must decide if the sentence is "TRUE" or "FALSE" for you, or somewhere in between. If you really like to watch T.V. a lot you would answer "TRUE" by putting a circle around the last number ( ± ). If you hate watching T.V. you would answer "FALSE" by circling the first number ( ¨ ). If you do not like T.V. very much, but you watch it sometimes, you might decide to circle 2 ("MOSTLY FALSE") or 3 ("MORE FALSE THAN TRUE")).If you want to change an answer you have marked you should cross out the circle and put a new circle around another number on the same line. For all sentences be sure that your circle is on the same line as the sentence you are answering. You should have only one answer circled for each sentence. Do not leave out any sentences, even if you are not sure which number to circle.

If you have any questions hold up your hand. Otherwise please

begin.

1. When I get sick I feel so bad that I cannot even get out of bed.

2. I feel confident when doing coordinated movements.

3. Several times a week I exercise or play hard enough to breathe hard (to huff and puff).

4. I am too fat.

5. Other people think I am good at sports.

6. I am satisfied with the kind of person I am physically.

7. I am attractive for my age.

8. I am a physically strong person.

more more false true mostly than than mostlyfalse false true false true true

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

9. I am quite good at bending, twisting, and turning my body.

10. I can run a long way without stopping.

11. Overall, most things I do turn out well.

12. I usually catch whatever illness (flu, virus, cold, etc.) is going around.

13. Controlling movements of my body comes easily to me.

14. I often do exercise or activities that makes me breathe hard.15. My waist is too large.

16. I am good at most sports.

17. Physically, I am happy with myself.


1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

” H.W. Marsh, University of Western Sydney, 1993

18. I have a nice looking face.

19. I have a lot of power in my body.

20. My body is flexible.

21. I would do well in a test of physical endurance and stamina.

22. I don't have much to be proud of.

23. I am sick so often that I cannot do all the things I want to do.

24. I am good at coordinated movements.

25. I get exercise or activity three or four times a week that makes me huff and puff and lasts at least 30 minutes.

26. I have too much fat on my body.

27. Most sports are easy for me.

28. I feel good about the way I look and what I can do physically.

29. I'm better looking than most of my friends.

30. I am stronger than most people my age.

31. My body is stiff and inflexible.

32. I could jog 5 kilometres without stopping.

33. I feel that my life is not very useful.

34. I hardly ever get sick or ill.

35. I can perform movements smoothly in most physical activities.

36. I do physically active things (like jogging, dancing, bicycling, aerobics, gym, or swimming) at least three times a week.

37. I am overweight.

38. I have good sports skills.

39. Physically I feel good about myself.

40. I am ugly.

41. I am weak and have no muscles.

42. My body parts bend and move in most directions well.

43. I think I could run a long way without getting tired.44. Overall, I'm no good.

more more

false true mostly than than mostlyfalse false true false true true

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

45. I get sick a lot.

46. I find my body handles coordinated movements with ease.

47. I do lots of sports, dance, gym, or other physical activities.

48. My stomach is too big.

49. I am better at sports than most of my friends.

50. I feel good about who I am and what I can do physically.

51. I am good looking.

52. I would do well in a test of strength.

53. I think I am flexible enough for most sports.

54. I can be physically active for a long period of time without getting tired.

55. Most things I do, I do well.

56. When I get sick it takes me a long time to get better.

57. I am graceful and coordinated when I do sports and activities.

58. I do sports, exercise, dance or other physical activities almost every day.

59. Other people think that I am fat.

60. I play sports well.

61. I feel good about who I am physically.

62. Nobody thinks that I'm good looking.

63. I am good at lifting heavy objects.

64. I think I would perform well on a test measuring flexibility.

65. I am good at endurance activities like distance running, aerobics, bicycling, swimming, or cross-country skiing.

66. Overall, I have a lot to be proud of.

67. I have to go to the doctor because of illness more than most people my age.

68. Overall, I'm a failure.

69. I usually stay healthy even when my friends get sick.

70. Nothing I do ever seems to turn out right.


1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Documents

Physical Self Concept Page - Home - AARE · The Physical Self Concept (PSC) instrument (Richards, 1988) instrument has been used extensively in relation to the Outward Bound program,