Next Article in Journal
Does Oral Hypofunction Promote Social Withdrawal in the Older Adults? A Longitudinal Survey of Elderly Subjects in Rural Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Attitudes towards Violence in Adolescents and Youth Intimate Partner Relationships: Validation of the Spanish Version of the EAV
Previous Article in Journal
Burnout and Related Factors of Nurses Caring for DNR Patients in Intensive Care Units, South Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Characteristics of Suicidal Youths and Adults: A One-Year Retrospective Study
Open AccessArticle

A Psychometric Evaluation of the Guilt and Shame Experience Scale (GSES) on a Representative Adolescent Sample: A Low Differentiation between Guilt and Shame

1
Olomouc University Social Health Institute, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic
2
Faculty of Physical Culture, Institute of Active Living, Palacký University Olomouc, 771 11 Olomouc, Czech Republic
3
Science and Research Department, Prague College of Psychosocial Studies, Hekrova 805, 149 00 Praha 4-Háje, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(23), 8901; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238901
Received: 8 October 2020 / Revised: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 27 November 2020 / Published: 30 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mental Health and Well-Being in Adolescence: Environment and Behavior)
The Guilt and Shame Experience Scale (GSES) is a new, brief self-report instrument for assessing experiences of guilt and shame. It includes two distinct scales: feelings of shame and feelings of guilt. The present report focuses on results from a final validation study using a nationally representative sample of 7899 adolescents (M age = 14.5 ± 1.1 years, 50.7% boys) who participated in the 2014 Health Behavior in School-aged Children study. For factor analysis, the dataset was divided into two groups. One group (n = 3950) was used for the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and the second (n = 3949) for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The EFA results in a one-factor model of the GSES scale, while the CFA suggests a two-factor solution mirroring two scales, feelings of shame and feelings of guilt. Both models have a good fit to the data, and the scale also showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). A nonparametric comparison of different sociodemographic groups showed a higher disposition for experiencing guilt and shame among girls, students of the ninth grade, and religious respondents. A comparison of the results to previously published results obtained from adults indicates that adolescence is a developmental period involving low differentiation between moral emotions like guilt and shame compared with adulthood. Moreover, positive association with religious attendance shows a need of addressing these issues in a pastoral care setting. View Full-Text
Keywords: GSES; guilt; shame; psychometric evaluation; adolescents; religious attendance GSES; guilt; shame; psychometric evaluation; adolescents; religious attendance
MDPI and ACS Style

Malinakova, K.; Furstova, J.; Kalman, M.; Trnka, R. A Psychometric Evaluation of the Guilt and Shame Experience Scale (GSES) on a Representative Adolescent Sample: A Low Differentiation between Guilt and Shame. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238901

AMA Style

Malinakova K, Furstova J, Kalman M, Trnka R. A Psychometric Evaluation of the Guilt and Shame Experience Scale (GSES) on a Representative Adolescent Sample: A Low Differentiation between Guilt and Shame. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(23):8901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238901

Chicago/Turabian Style

Malinakova, Klara; Furstova, Jana; Kalman, Michal; Trnka, Radek. 2020. "A Psychometric Evaluation of the Guilt and Shame Experience Scale (GSES) on a Representative Adolescent Sample: A Low Differentiation between Guilt and Shame" Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, no. 23: 8901. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238901

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop