Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T16:00:18.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Multidimensional Structure of Physical Self-Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Igor Esnaola ,
Guillermo Infante  and
Luis Zulaika
Igor Esnaola*
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Guillermo Infante
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Luis Zulaika
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Igor Esnaola Etxaniz. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Facultad de Filosofía y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad del País Vasco. Avenida de Tolosa 70. 20018 San Sebastián. (Spain). Phone: +34-943015533. E-mail: igor.esnaola@ehu.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study aims to analyze the dimensionality of physical self-concept through confirmatory factor analysis of the AFI questionnaire (Esnaola, 2005; Esnaola & Goñi, 2006) and to compare two models: a) a quadri-dimensional model in which physical self-concept is made up of the sub-domains ability, condition, attractiveness and strength, and, b) a three-factor model in which the items corresponding to ability and condition are grouped together as one factor. The sample consists of 1,259 participants ranging in age from 12 to 84 years old (700 women and 556 men) who were divided into four groups as a function of age: 627 adolescents (12-18 years old), 272 young people (19-30 years old), 248 middle-aged adults (31-49 years old) and 112 people over 55, all living in the Basque Autonomous Region of Spain. The results indicate that the quadri-dimensional model of physical self-concept fits the data better than the three-dimensional model (which showed poor goodness of fit) for the study's total sample, as well as within the male and female sub-samples. Furthermore, the four-factor model was found to be stable throughout adolescence, youth and middle-age, but not for the group of adults over 55.

Este estudio trata de analizar la dimensionalidad del autoconcepto físico mediante el análisis factorial confirmatorio del cuestionario AFI (Esnaola, 2005; Esnaola y Goñi, 2006) comparando dos modelos: a) un modelo cuatridimensional en el que el autoconcepto físico se compone de los subdominios de habilidad, condición, atractivo y fuerza; y, b) un modelo de tres factores en el que los ítems de habilidad y condición se agrupan en un factor. La muestra está compuesta por 1259 participantes entre los 12 y 84 años (700 mujeres y 556 varones) divididos en cuatro grupos en función de su edad: 627 adolescentes (12-18 años), 272 jóvenes (19-30 años), 248 adultos (31-49 años) y 112 personas mayores de 55 años de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. Los resultados indican que el modelo cuatridimensional del autoconcepto físico se ajusta mejor que el modelo de tres factores (que no se ajusta bien) a los datos de la muestra total del estudio, así como en las submuestras masculina y femenina. Por otro lado, el modelo de cuatro factores se muestra estable en la adolescencia, juventud y edad adulta, pero no así en el grupo de personas mayores de 55 años.

Keywords

physical self-conceptself-perceptiondimensionalityautoconcepto físicoautopercepcióndimensionalidad
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 2011 , pp. 304 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asci, F. H., Asci, A., & Zorba, E., (1999). Cross-cultural validity and reliability of Physical Self-Perception Profile. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 399–406.Google Scholar
Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., Moreno, Y., & Fox, K. R., (2004). El perfil de autopercepción física: propiedades psicométricas de la versión española y análisis de la estructura jerárquica de las autopercepciones físicas [The physical self-perception profile: Psychometric properties of the Spanish version and analysis of the hierarchical structure of the physical perceptions]. Psicothema, 16, 461–467.Google Scholar
Batista-Foguet, J. M., Coenders, G., & Alonso, J., (2004). Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Su utilidad en la valoración de cuestionarios relacionados con la salud [Confirmatory factorial analysis. The utility in the evaluation of questionnaires related with the health]. Medicina Clásica, 122, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, S., Page, A., Ashford, B., Jennings, D., Brooke, R., & Fox, K. (1993). Assessment of children's physical self-perceptions. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A., (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models:Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256–259. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boomsma, A., (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 461–483. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. W., (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, L. A. (1991). Physical self-perceptions and activity involvement in the older population. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, AZ.Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modelling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esnaola, I. (2005). Elaboración y validación del cuestionario Autokontzeptu Fisikoaren Itaunketa (AFI) de autoconcepto físico [Elaboration and validation of AFI's Questionnaire of physical self-concept. Leioa: UPV/EHUGoogle Scholar
Esnaola, I., Goñi, A., & Madariaga, J. M., (2008). El autoconcepto: perspectivas de investigación [The self: research perspectives]. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 13, 69–96.Google Scholar
Esnaola, I., & Goñi, A. (2006). Autokontzeptu fisikoa neurtzeko galdesorta berri baten propietate psikometrikoak: Autokontzeptu Fisikoaren Itaunketa (AFI) [Psychometric properties of a new questionnaire to measure physical self-concept: Questionnaire of physical self-concept (AFI)]. Uztaro, 56, 109–122.Google Scholar
Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56–83. doi:10.1080/10705519909540119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fierro, A., (2002). El desarrollo de la personalidad en la adultezy la vejez. In Palacios, J., Marchesi, A., & Coll, C. (Eds.), Desarrollo psicológico y educación. 1. Psicología evolutiva (pp. 567–590) [Psychology development and education]. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
Fonseca, A. M., & Fox, K. (2002). Como avaliar o modo como as pessoas se percebem físicamente? Umolhar sobre a versao portuguesa do Physical Self-Perception Profile (PSPP) [A translation on the Portuguese version of physical self-perception profile]. Revista Portuguesa de Ciencias do Desporto, 2, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, K. R., (1988). The self-esteem complex and youth fitness. Quest, 40, 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, K. R. (1997). The physical self: From motivation to well-being. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B., (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goñi, A., (2008). El autoconcepto físico. Psicología y educación [The physical self-concept. Psychology and education]. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Goñi, A., Ruiz de Azúa, S., & Rodríguez, A., (2006). Cuestionario de Autoconcepto Físico. Manual [Physical self-concept questionnaire]. Madrid: EOS.Google Scholar
Hagger, M., Asford, B., & Stambulova, N. (1997). Physical self-perceptions: a cross-cultural assessment in Russian children. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2, 228–245. doi:10.1080/1740898970020208Google Scholar
Hagger, M., Biddle, S., Chow, E., Stambulova, N., & Kavussanu, M. (2003). Physical Self-Perceptions in adolescence: Generalizability of a hierarchical multidimensional model across three cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 611–628. doi:10.1177/0022022103255437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y., (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Infante, G., & Goñi, E. (2009). Actividad físico-deportiva y autoconcepto físico en la edad adulta [Physical activity and physical self-concept in middle-age adults]. Revista de Psicodidáctica 14, 49–62.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D., (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Education Resources.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1983). LISREL 8: user's guide. Chicago,IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., (2009). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from: http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B., (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd. Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P., (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin 103, 391–410. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., & Redmayne, P., (1994). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire:psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relation to existing instruments. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 270–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107–123. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuley, E., Elavsky, S., Motl, R. W., Konopack, J. F., Hu, L., & Márquez, D. X., (2005). Physical activity, self-efficacy and self-esteem: longitudinal relationships in older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 60, 268–275. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3002_6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAuley, E., Mihalko, S. L., & Bane, S. M. (1997). Exercise and self-esteem in middle-aged adults: multidimensional relationships and physical fitness and self-efficacy influences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 67–83. doi:10.1023/A:1025591214100CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R., (2002). Principles and practise in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Y. (1997). Propiedades psicométricas del Perfil de Autopercepción Física (PSPP) [Psychometric properties of Physical Self-Perception Profile]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Valencia, Valencia: Spain.Google Scholar
Page, A., Ashford, B., Fox, K., & Biddle, S. (1993). Evidence of cross-cultural validity for the Physical Self-Perception Profile. Personal Individual Differences, 14, 585–590. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90151-RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, J. C., (1976). Self concept: validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441. doi:10.3102/00346543046003407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. M., Ebbeck, V., & Snow, C. M., (2000). Body composition and physical self concept in older women. Journal of Women & Aging, 12, 59–75. doi:10.1300/J074v12n03_05CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonstroem, R. J., Speliotis, E. D., & Fava, J. L., (1992). Perceived Physical Competence in adults: an examination of the Physical Self-Perception Profile. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology, 14, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomás, J. M., & Oliver, A., (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of a Spanish multidimensional scale of self-concept. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 38, 285–293.Google Scholar
Van de Vliet, P., Knapen, J., Onghena, P., Fox, K. R., Van Coppenolle, H., David, A., … Peuskens, J., (2002). Assessment of physical self-perceptions in normal Flemish adults versus depressed psychiatric patients. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welk, G. J., Corbin, C. B., & Lewis, L. (1995). Physical self-perceptions in high school athletes. Pediatric Exercise Science 7, 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J. R. (1995). A study of children's physical self-perceptions using an adapted Physical Self-Perception Profile Questionnaire. Pediatric Exercise Science, 7, 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar