Skip to main content
    Wellbeing · 10 items · 0–30 · Rosenberg M (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.

    Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Scoring, Cutoffs & Interpretation

    Ten-item measure of global self-worth.

    RSES0 / 10

    In general, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.

    Scored locally - nothing leaves this page

    01On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
    02At times I think I am no good at all.
    03I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
    04I am able to do things as well as most other people.
    05I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
    06I certainly feel useless at times.
    07I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
    08I wish I could have more respect for myself.
    09All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
    10I take a positive attitude toward myself.
    0 of 100 / 30

    02 - The clinician's brief

    Last reviewed: · Reviewed by Lotte Kjær Svalberg

    01 - What it measures

    What this scale measures.

    The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale is a ten-item self-report measure of global self-worth - the overall evaluation a person makes of their own value. Items are rated on a four-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree; five positively worded and five negatively worded items are balanced to reduce acquiescent responding. On the 0-3 scoring used here, totals range 0-30, with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem.

    The RSES measures a trait-like global attitude, not a clinical syndrome. Low self-esteem is not a diagnosis, but it is a well-documented correlate of depression, anxiety and eating disorders, and a common target in psychological therapies. In clinical work the scale earns its keep as a formulation aid and a way of tracking a psychological process across therapy, rather than as a screen for any disorder.

    02 - Origin & purpose

    Where it comes from.

    Morris Rosenberg, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, published the scale in his 1965 book Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, based on a study of more than 5,000 high-school students in New York State. It was designed as a brief, unidimensional Guttman-style measure of global self-regard for social research.

    In the six decades since, it has become the most widely used self-esteem measure in the world, translated into dozens of languages and administered in cross-cultural studies spanning more than fifty nations. Its migration from sociology into clinical psychology was never accompanied by diagnostic cutoffs - a fact worth keeping in view whenever a score is interpreted.

    03 - Scoring & cutoffs

    How scoring works.

    Items 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are negatively worded and must be reverse-scored before summing; the calculator above handles this automatically. On the 0-3 response coding, totals range 0-30. Note that some publications use a 1-4 coding giving a 10-40 range - check which convention a paper uses before comparing scores. The commonly cited threshold of below 15 for low self-esteem is a convention, not a validated diagnostic cutoff; scores of 15-25 are generally described as the typical community range. Interpret against the person's own baseline rather than against a hard threshold.

    Score
    Severity
    Interpretation
    0–14
    Low self-esteem
    Below the normal range. Suggests low self-esteem.
    15–30
    Normal range
    Within or above the normal range.

    04 - Validation evidence

    How well it performs.

    Internal consistency is consistently strong: meta-analytic and large-sample estimates put Cronbach's alpha at roughly 0.81-0.88, and Schmitt and Allik's 53-nation study found a mean alpha of 0.81 across cultures. Test-retest reliability is around 0.85 over one to two weeks, falling to about 0.63 over seven months, consistent with self-esteem being moderately stable but not fixed. Factor-analytic work generally supports a single global factor once method effects from the negatively worded items are modelled, though this wording effect is itself one of the most replicated findings about the scale.

    0.81-0.88
    CRONBACH'S α

    Internal consistency across large community and clinical samples.

    ≈0.85
    TEST-RETEST, 1-2 WK

    Falls to about 0.63 over seven months.

    53
    NATIONS STUDIED

    Cross-cultural administration with mean α 0.81 (Schmitt & Allik 2005).

    0-30
    SCORE RANGE

    On the 0-3 coding; five items reverse-scored.

    05 - How it compares

    How it compares to the alternatives.

    Instrument
    Items
    Time
    When to reach for it
    RSES
    10
    1-2 min
    Global, trait-like self-worth. Free, brief and widely used; no validated clinical cutoff.
    5
    <1 min
    Current subjective wellbeing over two weeks; better for monitoring week-to-week change than trait self-esteem.
    9
    1-2 min
    Depression severity; use when low self-worth may be part of a depressive episode rather than a standing trait.
    10
    2 min
    General psychological distress over the past month; broader signal, no self-concept content.
    SISE
    1
    seconds
    Single-item self-esteem measure with good convergence with the RSES in adults; for research where brevity is everything.
    SSES
    20
    ~3 min
    State Self-Esteem Scale; captures momentary fluctuations the trait-oriented RSES is designed to smooth over.

    06 - When to use it

    Right tool, wrong tool.

    The RSES is best used as a formulation and process measure where self-worth is clinically relevant, not as a screen or a diagnostic instrument.

    Reach for it when

    • -Formulation where self-worth is a maintaining factor, as in depression, social anxiety or eating disorders.
    • -Tracking a self-esteem-focused therapy target across a course of treatment.
    • -Research on self-concept.
    • -Brief assessment where a validated, free, ten-item measure is wanted.

    Reach for something else when

    • -Screening for depression or any disorder - use the PHQ-9.
    • -Acute week-to-week change monitoring; this is a trait measure, so use the WHO-5 for wellbeing.
    • -Diagnostic decisions of any kind - no validated clinical cutoff exists.
    • -Comparing individuals against a hard "normal" threshold across cultures, where mean scores and response styles differ.

    07 - Confidence & precision

    Reading the score with care.

    No published minimal clinically important difference exists for the RSES, and reliable-change estimates depend on the sample-specific reliability and standard deviation, so treat small shifts conservatively. With test-retest reliability around 0.85, changes of a point or two are well within measurement noise; look for sustained movement across several administrations before concluding that self-esteem has genuinely shifted. The negative-wording method effect also means small differences can reflect response style rather than self-regard.

    08 - Limitations

    What it cannot tell you.

    There is no validated clinical cutoff - the below-15 convention is descriptive only. Two scoring conventions circulate, 0-30 and 10-40, and are easily confused. The negatively worded items produce method effects and can be misread by respondents with lower literacy.

    Cross-cultural mean differences and response styles complicate comparison across groups, and the scale measures global rather than domain-specific self-esteem. As a face-valid self-report it is open to impression management, and evidence on sensitivity to change is limited, so its value in outcome measurement is more heuristic than psychometric.

    Common questions from clinicians

    FAQ

    References

    Source literature.

    1. [1]Rosenberg M Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (1965)
    2. [2]Schmitt DP, Allik J Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 623-642. (2005)
    3. [3]Gray-Little B, Williams VSL, Hancock TD An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 443-451. (1997)
    4. [4]Sinclair SJ, Blais MA, Gansler DA, Sandberg E, Bistis K, LoCicero A Psychometric properties of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: overall and across demographic groups living within the United States. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 33(1), 56-80. (2010)

    Scale without compromise

    See how Aisel removes friction where it costs most. A 20-minute walkthrough tailored to your clinic.