Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the self-concealment scale

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00222-0Get rights and content

Abstract

The present study assessed the psychometric properties of the Larson and Chastain, 1990[Larson, D. G. and Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: conceptualization, measurement and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 439–455.] Self-Concealment Scale. Based on a university student population, internal consistency (α=0.83 to 0.87) and retest reliability estimates (r=0.74) suggested good stability both within the instrument and over time. Although exploratory methods suggested two subscales (keeping secrets and personal concealment), both the reliability and confirmatory factor analyses of an independent sample supported scale unidimensionality. Directions for further scale validation research are suggested.

Introduction

Most people will admit that they consciously withhold sensitive information about themselves or others, a decision that many theorists argue increases the risk of both mental discomfort and physical illness (Jourard, 1959, Jourard, 1971; Pennebaker, 1989; Ichiyama et al., 1993; Cepeda-Benito and Short, 1998). Although particular situational factors either encourage or discourage ones disclosure of personal details (Tolstedt and Stokes, 1984; Dindia and Allen, 1992), personality traits continue to play a vital role. That is, the degree to which people feel inhibited to reveal sensitive personal information remains stable across both time and situation (Pennebaker, 1989). Larson and Chastain, 1990designed and validated a scale to measure this tendency by focusing on the trait component of inhibition (Pennebaker, 1989). Self-concealment represents ones predisposition to actively conceal from others personal information that one perceives as distressing or negative (p. 440). Their 10-item 5-point Likert scale (with no item reversals) addresses various facets of withholding personal secrets (e.g. I have an important secret that I havent shared with anyone) and higher ratings suggest greater self-concealment.

The scale demonstrates high internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.83) and good retest reliability among 43 female psychology graduate students after 4 weeks (r=0.81). Although an exploratory factor analysis suggested two factors by Kaisers unity criterion, the authors believed the scale was unidimensional because (a) a majority of the variance was explained by the first factor and (b) the second factor was uninterpretable even following several rotational algorithms. The authors reported significant positive correlations with physical symptoms, depression, anxiety and the infrequency of telling others a highly personal secret and significant negative correlations with self-disclosure, social support from others and a social network composed of friends. Other researchers who have used the Self-Concealment Scale report similar psychometric properties (see King et al., 1992; Vogele and Steptoe, 1992; Ichiyama et al., 1993; Kelly and Achter, 1995; Ritz and Dahme, 1996; Cepeda-Benito and Short, 1998; Cramer and Lake, 1998). In addition to high internal consistency, researchers report positive correlations with anxiety, depression, general distress, loneliness, maladjustment, preference for solitude and physical symptomology (Pennebaker et al., 1990) and negative correlations with self-esteem, social support and the likelihood of seeking psychological counseling. To date, there has been no significant report of sex differences.

Clearly, a reliable and valid measure of trait self-concealment is of particular interest not only to researchers, but to psychotherapists, crisis and guidance counsellors, even law enforcement officials. However, despite the potential utility of the Larson and Chastain scale, the psychometric evidence to support its use is limited, and several important empirical issues remain to be tested. For instance, the only published assessment of retest reliability (performed by the scale designers) was based on a small and unique sample of participants. More importantly, the underlying factor structure, argued to be unidimensional, was not theoretically predicted, but was derived post hoc. Note also that the authors initial exploratory factor analysis suggested two underlying factors, but rejected the second factor because of instability.

Two studies were designed to test the psychometric integrity of the Self-Concealment Scale. In the first study, university students self-concealment scores were assessed for internal consistency and factor analyzed by exploratory methods. In the second study, an independent sample of students completed the Self-Concealment Scale on two occasions, affording the opportunity to (a) assess both internal consistency and retest reliability estimates and (b) confirm the tenability of the factor structure derived in the previous study. Based on the findings of Larson and Chastain, 1990, the Self-Concealment Scale should be both internally consistent and temporally stable and best conceptualized using a unidimensional structure.

Section snippets

Participants and instrument

There were 100 male and 100 female social psychology students from the University of Saskatchewan who participated for extra course credit. Ages ranged from 18 to 36 years (M=21.15, S.D.=2.95). Participants completed the Larson and Chastain, 1990Self-Concealment Scale. The 10-item 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) can range from 10 to 50, with higher total scores suggesting a greater tendency to self-conceal.

Results

Table 1 shows the item means, standard deviations,

Participants and instrument

There were 296 introductory psychology students from the University of Saskatchewan (113 male, 163 female and 20 with sex unspecified) who participated for partial course credit. Ages ranged from 17 to 41 years (M=19.89, S.D.=4.95). Participants completed the Larson and Chastain, 1990self-concealment scale on two occasions, approximately 7 weeks apart. Fourteen males and 11 females (13 with sex unspecified) did not return to the second testing session. A test of equivalency (Rogers et al., 1993

Unknown BIBs

Larson, 1993

References (28)

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,...
  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Statistical...
  • Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariances...
  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:...
  • Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.),...
  • Cepeda-Benito, A., and Short, P. (1998). Self-concealment, avoidance of psychological services, and perceived...
  • Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and...
  • Cramer, K. M., and Lake, R. P. (1998). The Preference for Solitude Scale: psychometric properties and factor structure....
  • Dindia, K., and Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112,...
  • Ichiyama, M. A., Colbert, D., Laramore, H., Heim, M., Carone, K., and Schmidt, J. (1993). Self-concealment and...
  • Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: users reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software...
  • Jourard, S. M. (1959). Health personality and self-disclosure. Mental Hygiene, 43,...
  • Jourard, S. M. (1971). The transparent self (revised ed.). New York: Van Nostrand...
  • Kelly, A. E., and Achter, J. A. (1995). Self-concealment and attitudes toward counseling in university students....
  • Cited by (38)

    • Exploring the interpersonal consequences of adverse childhood experiences in college students

      2022, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Participants rated statements (e.g., “There are lots of things about me that I keep to myself”) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 - Strongly disagree to 5 - Strongly agree. The SCS has demonstrated good internal reliability (α = 0.83; Larson & Chastain, 1990) and retest reliability (r = 0.74; Cramer & Barry, 1999). Items are summed to provide a single-factor score, with higher scores indicating more concealment (α = 0.90).

    • Psychological flexibility mediates the relations between self-concealment and negative psychological outcomes

      2011, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Results of the present study suggest that the judgmental, avoidant, and behavior-interfering nature of SC may play an important role in its link to negative psychological outcomes. This theoretical position seems to concur with those viewing SC as a maladaptive behavioral and cognitive tendency of concealing personal information from others (e.g., Cramer & Barry, 1999; DiBartolo, Li, & Frost, 2008; Kawamura & Frost, 2004; Wismeijer et al., 2009). Although not part of the research questions, a notable set of results revealed differential strengths in the relation between SC and emotional distress in stressful interpersonal situations, and the relation between SC and general psychological ill-health.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text