Offer Self-Image Questionnaire (Lindfors et al., 2005)

Self image across broad range of domains, including Sexual Attitudes, in children and adolescents, 130 Items, Item Subscales, Ages 12-16

Populations: Children, Adolescents
Age ranges: 12-16
Countries: Australia; Bangladesh; Finland; France; Germany; India; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Netherlands; Switzerland; Taiwan; Turkey; United Kingdom; Venezuela

Items

Items not available, subscales reported as:

Sexual Attitudes
Body Image
Impulse Control
Emotional tone
Social Relationships
Family Relationships
Mastery of the External World
Vocational and Educational Goals
Emotional Health
Superior Adjustment

Scoring

“For a heuristic purpose, we reversed the scoring, so that high scores served as indicators of positive self-image.” (Lindfors et al., 2005)

Citations

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., & Howard, K. I. (1984). The self-image of normal adolescents. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 1984(22), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.23319842203
Lindfors, K., Elovainio, M., Sinkkonen, J., Aalberg, V., & Vuorinen, R. (2005). Construct validity of the offer self-image questionnaire and its relationship with self-esteem, depression, and ego development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-5769-y
Offer, D., Ostrov, E., Howard, K. I., and Dolan, S. (1989). A Manual for the Offer Self-Image Questionnaire for Adolescents (OSIQ) (4th edn.). Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago.

Team comments
For Lindfors and colleagues (2005), convergent validity was not reported for the Body Image subscale, our rating of convergent validity therefore only applies to the Sexual Attitudes subscale.

“ The questionnaire has been translated into fifteen languages, and current samples have been collected in Australia, Israel, Ireland, England, India, Venezuela, France, Germany, Italy, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Japan, Holland, Turkey, and Switzerland.“ (Offer, Ostrov, & Howard, 1984)

Please note that this entry is currently expanding and may not yet include all relevant information on this measure

Scoring breakdown

Measure development

Significant design input from young people
Cognitive interviews with young people
Expert input

Validity

Unknown: Face validity
Green: Convergent validity
Green: Construct validity

Reliability

Green: Internal consistency
Unknown: Test-retest

Ease of use

Unknown: Readability

Definitions

Face validity: How well a measure appears to represent the construct it is supposed to be measuring.

Convergent validity: How well a measure correlates with other hypothetically-related measures.

Construct validity: The extent to which a measure reflects the construct it was designed to evaluate.

Internal consistency: The extent to which items in a scale capture aspects of the same construct.

Test-retest: The degree to which measurement scores are consistent over a short period of time (usually 2 weeks).

Readability: The ease with which a reader can understand the questionnaire items.

Key

Green: Meets validation criteria
Red: Does not meet validation criteria
Unknown: Evidence not available