PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
1
Test Description
The Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale- second edition is a self-reporting
scale that assesses an individual’s purported self-concept. Measurements exist as a total
score of self-concept and across specific domains of self-concept. Revised and
reconstructed from the original Piers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale developed in
the early 1960s, the second addition retains the same format and relatively the same
psychometric properties. Goals of the second edition include improving the normative
data, updating the items on the assessment and enhancing the ease of use.
Teachers and other trained professionals are able to administer the Piers-Harris 2
individually or by groups. However, a professional appropriately trained in psychological
assessment maintains the ultimate responsibility for the Piers-Harris 2 uses and
interpretations. Expanding from the original, the Piers-Harris 2 is appropriate for
administration to adolescents between the ages of seven to eighteen or through the second
to twelfth grade. Children in the lower range of second grade must be at least seven and
demonstrate proficiency in reading on a second grade level. Also, because the test is selfreporting, professionals aiming to utilize the Piers-Harris should be cognizant of children
that are overly hostile, uncommunicative or prone to distortion by either exaggeration or
severe disorganized in thought as self-reporting would be inappropriate in such situations.
The Piers-Harris has a long history and the test is utilized for many purposes.
Application of the Piers Harris 2 is appropriate in the research, educational and clinical
domains that seek to utilize a quantitative assessment of reported self-concept. As a group
administration in classrooms, the Piers-Harris 2 can serve as a screening tool to identify
students that may require further psychological testing. It is also frequently used to
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
measure the relationship between self-concepts and other behaviors or characteristics.
The domain scales are particularly beneficial for discovering such relationships. The
Piers-Harris 2 can be utilized clinically in generating hypotheses for further exploration
as well as a means to assist in choosing appropriate interventions.
Several theoretical foundations serve in the construction of the test. First, selfconcept is phenomenological in nature, meaning that is not observed directly but must be
inferred. Inferences can be made via observations or self-reports. Self-report method is a
superior alternative to behavioral observation, because behaviors are seldom consistent
across a situation. A self-report more closely aligned with the present definition of selfconcept as it is a direct expression of the individual’s self experience. Self- concept is
both global and domain specific. Global self-concept reflects how an individual feels
about the entirety of that individual’s characteristics. Separate specific aspects result from
appraisal of those areas alone. Significance of separate areas of self-concept is relative to
importance in the impact on global self-concept. Self-concept is more situationally driven
in children but generally and more so over time, self-concept is relatively stable.
Perceptions of self-concept also become more differentiated over time, though the sub
domains of self-concept change at dissimilar paces. Self-concept is both evaluative and
descriptive. It is an accumulative judgment of self; some of such judgments are taken on
from others while some judgments are also unique to the individual. Therefore when
studying self-concept it is important to consider both between person and within person.
Subscale Description
The Piers-Harris 2, much like the original, purports to measure the respondents
overall self-concept (TOT) as well as the six domains which assess specific components
PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
3
of self-concept. This aligns with the theoretical assumption that self-concept is composed
of multiple dimensions. The domain scales are an important component to understanding
children’s self concept and implementing treatment plans. For example, though two
children may report average self-concept scores with the total score, interpretation of the
domain scales may uncover specific differences in strengths and weaknesses between the
two children. The domains scales include: behavioral adjustment (BEH), Intellectual and
school status (INT), physical appearance and attributes (PHY), freedom from anxiety
(FRE), popularity (POP), and happiness and satisfaction (HAP). The subscales of the
Piers-Harris 2 remain unchanged apart from the renaming of the Anxiety and Behavioral
Adjustment to the Freedom from Anxiety. The domain scales consist of ten to sixteen
questions each. The items are not independent of each scale; in fact each scale shares
items with two or more other scales.
The Piers-Harris 2 also includes two validity scales including the Inconsistent
Responding (INC) index and the Response Bias (RES) index. The Response Bias index
can be used to assess for a child with a disposition to answer yes or no with bias,
regardless of the content of the item. The purpose of the Inconsistent Responding index is
to identify logically inconsistent, random response patterns. Both scales’ cut off points
are subjected to chance when utilized alone. Instead the information should serve as a
prompt for further investigation of the child’s responses and reasoning. These two scales
serve to improve the validity to information gathered.
Scoring
The Piers- Harris two consists of 60 questions and can generally be completed in
ten to fifteen minutes. The format of the Piers-Harris 2 is a self-reporting scale, which
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
aligns with the theoretical foundation that self-concept is phenomenological. The PiersHarris does not include cluster scores, grade equivalent scores, or scaled scores but does
include percentile scores and T-scores. The Piers-Harris 2 raw score is derived from the
number of items an individual answered indicating positive self-concept. Each of the
items receive either a “0” or a “1” value. A raw score is also attained for the domain
scales using the same method of summing each positively marked item under the
corresponding domain. It is important to note that the sum of the raw scores of the six
domains do not equal the total raw score because scale items can appear in
simultaneously in multiple domains.
The raw scores of the Piers-Harris 2 are converted to normalized T-scores and
percentile ranks with the assistance of the profile sheet. First, validity and self-concept
raw scores are transferred to corresponding spaces on the bottom of the profile sheet.
Values corresponding to raw scores are circled and connected to plot the individual’s
profile. The margins of the profile sheet include the percentile score and T-score
conversion of each raw score. An average measurement of self-concept is between one
standard deviation of the mean, between 40T and 60T or 16 to 84 % of people. Tests that
have more than seven invalid responses should not be scored. Additionally, those domain
scales with three or more invalid answers should also not be scored.
Technical Adequacy
One of the major goals of the revised Piers-Harris 2 was to improve upon the
normative data. The original Piers-Harris developed the standardization sample from a
single relatively homogeneous school system. Interpretation for students of minority
groups was very difficult. The Piers-Harris 2 restandardization was based on a sample of
PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
5
1,387 students ages 7- 18, recruited from elementary, middle, junior high, and high
schools across the United States. The sample was 49.7% male and 50.3% female. The
manual states a distribution uniformly across age range but significantly more individuals
were represented in the middle 11-14 year age range than in the outer ranges of 7-8 year
age range and 17-18 year age range. All age strata contained an acceptable number of
participants. The ethnic distribution across the sample is stated as similar to the 2001
census. The manual acknowledges a slight underrepresentation of Asians and Hispanics.
A slight overrepresentation exists for African American and White populations. The
portion of Hispanic/Latino students in the representative sample was 7.4% compared to
17.1% of the population of school-aged children. According to the 2011 population of
children 0-17, 23.6 % identify as Hispanic (“POP3 Race and Hispanic Origin”, 2012).
Thus in just a few years the Hispanic population of school age children will be grossly
underrepresented in the Piers-Harris 2 making interpretation of scores difficult to achieve.
The geographical distribution of the normative sample is satisfactory. However,
there is a slight underrepresentation of students from the western region of the United
States. A subsample of participants represents the distribution of head-of-household
education level. Education level is a variable for socio-economic status as higher
education levels often correlate with higher socio-economic status. The subsample of 673
participants was utilized for comparison of SES because these were the only participants
that had education data available for the head-of-household. The sites that did not collect
SES data for the Piers-Harris 2 standardization study were concurrently collecting SES
data for others studies. The participants are not the same because of randomized selection
but the groups should not have systematic differences. Results from the other
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
standardization studies were very similar to that of the subsample, which support the use
of the subsample to represent the total sample. The subsample was fairly representative of
the two lower education/SES groups but overrepresented the highest education/ SES
group.
Item Generation
The original questions of the Piers-Harris, many of which remain in the PiersHarris 2, were developed first with 164 items. These items aimed to reflect the
components of children’s self-concept. The format consisted of simple declarative
statements in which a participant responded yes or no. The first administration with all
164 items was administered to a sample group of 90 third, fourth, and fifth grade
students. The preliminary administration dropped the item number to 140 by eliminating
items answered less than 10% or more than 90%. The second pilot was administered to
127 sixth grade students. The highest 30 and lowest 30 items were identified and were
retained only when the items significantly discriminated from high and low groups and if
the items were answered in the expected manor by at least half of the high scoring group.
This procedure reduced the item number down to 80 in the original Piers-Harris.
A goal for the revised Piers-Harris 2 involved streamlining the test in length and
time while maintaining reliability and the general item format. This was completed
successfully by eliminating items that did not correlate with a domain scale, with
outdated phrasing, with gender specificity, and those that required additional explanation.
By eliminating items based upon the aforementioned criteria the Piers-Harris 2
condensed 80 items to 60 while maintaining the Coefficient alpha values from .93 to .91.
Additionally, because most of the questions eliminated from the original Piers-Harris did
PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
7
not correlate with the domain scales, item changes did not affect the reliability of the
domain scales. The Piers-Harris 2 presents an acceptable item gradient as well as an
acceptable ceiling and floor.
Reliability Estimates
Alpha coefficients are reported for each of the six age ranges as well as for the
entire standardization sample. Results of the Piers-Harris 2 demonstrate good internal
consistency and are comparable to the original Piers- Harris. Alpha coefficients for the
entire standardization sample range from .74 to .91. Concerns of reliability for younger
children are addressed by the presented age stratified values. These values demonstrate
that good internal consistency is maintained through the six age strata for the total score
as well as for five of the six domain scales. Popularity has weak internal consistency in
the youngest, 7 and 8-year-old age range (.6) and the oldest, 17-18 year-old age range
(.62).
The revised Piers-Harris does not provide a test-retest measure. Studies of the
original Piers-Harris from the 1960s through 1980s demonstrate acceptable test-retest
reliability, ranging from .69 to .96. The Piers-Harris does not provide an alternate form
and is not subjective to interpretation by the nature of the self-concept scale.
Validity Estimates
The items that compose the Piers-Harris and Piers-Harris 2 reflect the theoretical
underpinnings of self-concept and appear to address and assess each of the six domains of
self-concept. The original factor analysis of the Piers-Harris identified the six domain
scales and items were deleted in the construction that did not support the content validity
of the test. When items were eliminated for the revision, a clinical judgment clarified that
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
no overall loss of content validity resulted from the deleted scale items. The content in
the revised Piers-Harris 2 demonstrated acceptable overlap with 16 of the 20 deleted
items.
Construct validity is supported by two kinds of evidence in the Piers-Harris 2.
Structural characteristics were studied in addition to concurrent data with other
psychological tests. The structural characteristics involved studying the intercorrelations
and item composition of the Piers-Harris 2 domain scales. This helped to establish if the
domain scales were measuring unique and separate components of the overall selfconcept. Good correspondence is present between the results of the item analysis and the
item assignments for the Piers-Harris 2 domain scales, which supports the use of the
domain scales for measuring specific components of the overall self-concept.
Concurrent validity was assessed more so with convergent validity for the PiersHarris 2. Significant negative correlations were found between positive self-concept
scores and with psychological assessments relating to anger, aggression and children with
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Correlations of the original Piers-Harris and other
instruments of self-concept range from moderate to high regarding correlation
coefficients, supporting the validity of the original Piers-Harris and also the revised.
Investigators in both the clinical and educational field have frequently utilized the
Piers-Harris and Piers-Harris 2 to assess self-concept with response to treatment. In
several studies the experimental group, in which an intervention with aims at improving
self-concept was implemented, demonstrated significant improvement in self-concept
scores using the Piers-Harris. Validity of the Piers-Harris is supported because the
assessment could detect hypothesized enhancements in self-concept.
PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
9
Conclusion and Recommendations
Easily administered, time efficient, and student friendly; the Piers-Harris 2 meets
the acceptable reliability and validity requirements for its application for clinical and
educational use. The subscales of the test that assess the particular domains of an
individual’s total self-concept support, and the self-reporting format align with the
theoretical foundations of the Piers-Harris 2. Interscale correlations with the total score
and each of the domains support the separate but interrelated nature of the components of
self-concept.
The reliability of the Piers-Harris 2 is sufficient and appropriate to use in any
research, educational, or clinical setting. However, used independently it is not enough to
serve as comprehensive evaluation for clinical judgments. A variety of trained
professionals can administer the Piers-Harris 2 but the ultimate responsibility of
interpretation remains with a professional trained in psychological assessment.
Challenges arise with the standardization sample of the Piers-Harris 2, though this
was a distinct goal of the revision. Data on the population has changed significantly since
the test was restandardized and some populations, which at release were already
underrepresented, are now so grossly underrepresented that conclusions are difficult to
determine. The test should be studied further with adolescents from: 7-8 age strata, 17-18
age strata, of Asian and Hispanic ethnicity, and from the western region of the United
States. The Piers-Harris 2 also relies on data from the original Piers-Harris and more
research should be done specifically for the revised Piers-Harris to ensure continued
strength in areas such as test-retest reliability and concurrent validity.
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
In its entirety, the Piers-Harris 2 appears as a readily utilizable assessment of selfconcept. The original Piers-Harris has maintained widespread acceptance and utilization
across decades. The Piers-Harris 2 sufficiently addresses the shortcomings of the original
Piers-Harris, and will continue to be a valued means of self-concept assessment for
decades to come.
PIERS-HARRIS TEST REVIEW
1
1
References:
Piers, E. V., & Herzberg, D. S. (2002). Piers-Harris children’s self-concept scale–second
edition manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2012). POP3 Race and
Hispanic origin composition: Percentage of U.S. children ages 0–17 by race and
Hispanic origin, 1980–2011 and projected 2012–2050: Washington, DC.
Retrieved November 27, 2012, from
http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop3.asp?popup=true