Index of Self-Actualization

Abstract

The Index of Self-Actualization (ISA) is a concise, 15-item psychological instrument developed by Jones and Crandall (1986) to measure an individual’s level of self-actualization. Designed as a shortened and modified version of the extensive Personal Orientation Inventory (POI), the ISA aims to discriminate effectively between self-actualizing and non-self-actualizing individuals. Research supporting its development provides evidence for its strong reliability and validity across various student populations.

Keywords

Self-Actualization, ISA, Short Index of Self-Actualization, Personality Assessment, Psychological Scale, Personal Orientation Inventory, Autonomy, Self-Esteem, Reliability, Validity.

Authors

Jones, A., Crandall, R.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Index of Self-Actualization (ISA) was to establish a quick, reliable, and valid measure of self-actualization that could be used efficiently in research settings. The developers sought to overcome the length and binary choice limitations of the original Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) by adapting key items into a more conventional Likert-style agree-disagree format.

The resulting 15-item scale provides a brief yet robust assessment capable of distinguishing between individuals who demonstrate characteristics associated with self-actualization, such as psychological health, autonomy, and acceptance of self and others, versus those who do not.

Construct

The ISA measures the psychological construct of Self-Actualization, rooted in humanistic psychology, particularly the theories of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. This construct represents the fulfillment of one’s potential and the realization of one’s true capabilities and talents.

The scale items are structured to assess several key dimensions identified within the literature on self-actualization, including personal autonomy, acceptance of emotions, self-direction, high self-esteem, and the ability to engage authentically and responsibly in interpersonal relationships. The factor structure of the ISA further reinforces these components.

Validity

Evidence for the validity of the ISA was established through correlational studies with several well-known psychological inventories. The index demonstrated expected relationships with measures of related constructs, supporting its use as a measure of self-actualization.

Specific correlational findings highlighted in the original research include correlations with:

• Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968).
• The Rational Behavior Inventory (Whiteman and Shorkey, 1978).
• Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965).
• Budner’s Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (Budner, 1962).
• Slivken and Crandall’s Leisure Ethic Scale (Crandall and Slivken, 1980).
• The parent instrument, the Personal Orientation Inventory (Shostrom, 1964).

Reliability

The reliability of the ISA was evaluated using both internal consistency and test-retest methods, demonstrating acceptable levels for a brief scale.

Details regarding reliability are as follows:

• Test-Retest Reliability (Four-Point Scale): For a 12-day interval involving 67 students, the reliability coefficient was 0.69.
• Test-Retest Reliability (Six-Point Scale): For a two-week interval involving 67 students, the reliability coefficient improved significantly to 0.81.
• Internal Consistency (Coefficient Alpha): The original four-point scale yielded a coefficient alpha of 0.65. Following refinements, the new alpha for the 15-item scale (measured on 274 students) was 0.72.
• Scale Correlation: The correlation between the original four-point scale format and the later six-point scale format was very high (0.91, based on 84 students), indicating consistency across measurement formats.

Factor Analysis

A factor analysis was conducted to examine the underlying structure of the 15-item Index of Self-Actualization. A principal components factor analysis utilizing a varimax rotation yielded five distinct factors, suggesting that the ISA measures multiple facets of the self-actualization construct.

The five factors identified, along with their corresponding items (in parentheses), are:

1. Autonomy or Self-Direction: Five items focusing on independence and non-conformity (2, 5, 9, 10, and 11).
2. Self-Acceptance and Self-Esteem: Three items related to acknowledging one’s strengths and weaknesses (6, 8, and 14).
3. Acceptance and Expression of Emotions: Two items related to the freedom to experience and express feelings, including negative emotions (1 and 4).
4. Trust and Responsibility in Interpersonal Relations: Three items concerning belief in the goodness of others and willingness to engage responsibly (3, 13, and 15).
5. Ability to Deal with Undesirable Life Aspects: Two items assessing the capacity to confront challenges rather than resorting to avoidance (7 and 12).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory/scale

Format: 15 items using a Likert-type scale response format (originally 4-point, later refined to 6-point)

Language Available: English (Original development)

Population Group: Non-clinical populations

Age Group: College students and adults

Population Details: The validation sample included approximately 500 participants, primarily college students enrolled in psychology, sociology, and business programs across five colleges (two senior and three junior colleges) in Texas. Additional participants included college students from Illinois and individuals from North Carolina.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their agreement with each statement on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Scoring is reversed for eight specific items to ensure that a high score consistently reflects a self-actualizing response.

Keywords

Psychological Measurement, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Varimax Rotation, Humanistic Psychology, Personality Trait.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1986 (Original publication of the short index validation).

Permissions and Fee: Information regarding current usage fees or specific permissions required for non-academic use is not provided in the source content. Users should consult the publishing journal or the authors for current licensing requirements.

Reference’s

Jones, A., and Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short Index of Self-Actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12:63–73.

Dragnet-Eckert, F. (2001). The adaptive function of self-esteem: Autonomy and the growth-wellbeing motive. PhD dissertation, New School for Social Research.

Flett, G. L., et al. (1991). Factor structure of the Short Index of Self-Actualization. In A. Jones and R. Crandall, eds. Handbook of self-actualization. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6:321–29.

Robertson, C. (2005). Creativity and aging: A grounded theory study of creative older individuals. PhD dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.

Shostrom, E. L. (1975). Personal Orientation Dimensions. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Tucker, R. K., and Weber, D. R. (1988). Factorial validity of Jones and Crandall’s Short Index of Self-Actualization. Psychological Reports 63:39–45.

Weiss, A. S. (1991). The measurement of self-actualization: The quest for the test may be as challenging as the search for the self. In Jones and R. Crandall, eds. Handbook of self-actualization. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6:265–90.

Items of the Index of Self-Actualization

1. I do not feel ashamed of any of my emotions.

2. I feel I must do what others expect of me.

3. I believe that people are essentially good and can be trusted.

4. I feel free to be angry at those I love.

5. It is always necessary that others approve what I do.

6. I don’t accept my own weaknesses.

7. I can like people without having to approve of them.

8. I fear failure.

9. I avoid attempts to analyze and simplify complex domains.

10. It is better to be yourself than to be popular.

11. I have no mission in life to which I feel especially dedicated.

12. I can express my feelings even when they may result in undesirable consequences.

13. I do not feel responsible to help anybody.

14. I am bothered by fears of being inadequate.

15. I am loved because I give love.

Scoring: Strongly Agree = 6; Agree = 5; Somewhat Agree = 4; Somewhat Disagree = 3; Disagree = 2; and Strongly Disagree = 1. For items 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 the scoring is reversed. Self-actualizing responses receive a score of 6, while non-self-actualizing responses receive a score of 1.