Ma gorzata R kosiewicz
* Institute of Psychology Adam Mickiewicz University in PoznaTHE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MODIFIED
DIMENSIONS OF IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT SCALE (DIDS/PL-1)
FOR PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
1The article addresses the issue of assessing identity dimensions as conceptualized by K. Luyckx et al. (2006) in people with mild intellectual disability using the modified Polish version of the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS/PL-1). The author presents the steps followed in the modification of the questionnaire as well as its psychometric properties. Two studies were conducted in order to test the reliability and validity of the measure. The participants in Study 1 were people within the intellectual norm (n = 100), and the measures used were DIDS/PL as well as its modified version, DIDS/PL-1. The modified version turned out to be an instrument with a reliability comparable to that of DIDS/PL. The analysis of correlations yielded positive relations between the same scales in the two measures as well as the same direction and similar strength of relations between the variables within each measure. The participants in Study 2 were people with mild intellectual disability (n = 67) and within the intel-lectual norm (n = 60). Both groups completed the modified scale, DIDS/PL-1. The modified version proved to be a reliable instrument; the analysis of correlations found the relations between variables that are observed in other studies using the original DIDS and the Polish version, DIDS/PL. The modified version, DIDS/PL-1, can be used successfully among young people with a mild degree of intellectual disability.
Keywords: exploration, mild intellectual disability, Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS), identity, commitment
DOI: 10.2478/V1067-010-0137-8
* The author holds a grant from the Foundation of Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna for the year 2014/2015. Email
address: malgrek@amu.edu.pl
1 The article was prepared as part of research project no. 2012/05/N/HS6/04061 of the National Science Center, Poland,
entitled The Social Context of Identity Formation in People With Intellectual Disability in Late Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood for the years 2012–2015 (Project Leader: Ma gorzata R kosiewicz; Research Supervisor: Anna I. Brzezi ska, Institute of Psychology, AMU, Pozna ).
INTRODUCTION
In 2006, the first publication appeared that presented the results of research on identity as conceived by Koen Luyckx et al. (Luyckx, Goos-sens, & Soenens, 2006; cf. Luyckx, GoosGoos-sens, Soenens, & Beyers, 2006; Luyckx, Schwartz,
Berzonsky et al., 2008), viewed as a combina-tion of the intensity of exploracombina-tion in breadth, exploration in depth, ruminative exploration, commitment making, and identification with commitment. This conception is an extension of James E. Marcia’s (1966) identity statuses theory, and as such it is part of the
neo-Erik-sonian and processual tradition of approaching personal identity. The instrument for measur-ing identity in this approach – Dimensions of
Identity Development Scale (DIDS) – has been
adapted for Polish conditions and functions under the same name, as DIDS/PL (Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010).
The scale – both the original version and the Polish adaptation – has been used with various age groups (from early adolescence to adult-hood, e.g., Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2009) and nationalities (for example, in Belgium – e.g., Luyckx, Soenens, & Goossens, 2006; in France and Switzerland – Zimmerman, Lannegrand--Willems, Safont-Mottay, & Cannard, 2013; in Poland – e.g., Brzezi ska, Piotrowski, Garbarek--Sawicka, Karowska, & Muszy ska, 2010; in the United States – Schwartz et al., 2011; or in Italy – Crocetti, Luyckx, Scrignaro, & Sica, 2011), as well as with specific social groups: school stu-dents, university students (e.g., R kosiewicz, 2013), working people (e.g., Luyckx, Duriez, Klimstra, & De Witte, 2010), and people with various kinds of disability (with diabetes: Luyckx, Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2008; with motor dysfunc-tion: Piotrowski, 2010). It is not known, however, if the measure would work in the assessment of identity dimensions and statuses of people with intellectual disability. It seems that, as phrased in the scale, some of the items, especially the long ones, could be incomprehensible to them. To date, no questionnaire for measuring iden-tity specifically dedicated to this group has been developed (neither in accordance with Luyckx’s approach, nor, to my knowledge, in accordance with any other); there have only been attempts to construct a partly structured individual inter-view (R kosiewicz, 2012a; 2012b; R kosiewicz & Brzezi ska, 2011). DIDS seems fit to be used among people with intellectual disability on the condition that a substantial part of it is modified in terms of language. The article presents the stages of the modification of DIDS/PL and an analysis of the psychometric properties of the
THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE MEASURE
The scale under discussion is based on the dual-cycle model of identity formation by Koen Luyckx et al. (2006). Luyckx elaborated Mar-cia’s (1966) approach to identity, which in turn was a continuation of Erik H. Erikson’s thought; Erikson defined personal identity as a set of beliefs concerning oneself, the world, and other people, the perception of the sameness and con-tinuity of the self despite the passage of time, and a sense of separateness and integrity (Erikson, 1950). However, it was Marcia that was the first to operationalize the dimensions of identity – exploration (seeking) and commitment – as well as the so-called identity statuses (e.g., Marcia, 1966; Marcia & Friedman, 1969; Toder & Mar-cia, 1973). Exploration was defined as orienta-tional and exploratory activities, consisting in actively trying out and evaluating various alterna-tives before one has made choices to engage in action. Commitment making is the stage that fol-lows exploration; it consists in making a decision and engaging in action. Depending on whether or not the two processes – corresponding to two consecutive stages of identity formation – take place (and on how intense they are), Marcia dis-tinguished four identity statuses: achievement (high intensity of both identity dimensions), fore-closure (commitment and absent or weak explo-ration), moratorium (high exploration and absent or rare commitments), and diffusion (absence of exploration and absence of commitment).
Whereas Marcia argued that exploration takes place mainly in early adolescence and com-mitment occurs in late adolescence, nowadays it is pointed out that identity undergoes changes already in adolescence and at the beginning of adulthood, and that it may undergo further trans-formations during the rest of adulthood. Thus, identity is no longer treated as a state or perma-nent status; instead, it is viewed in dynamic terms – as a process taking place throughout adult life
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT *TTVF Qo
In numerous studies (e.g., Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Grotevant, 1987; Meeus, 1996; Meeus, Iedema, Helsen, & Vollebergh, 1999; Meeus, Iedema, & Maassen, 2002) it has been shown that: (1) there are various kinds of explora-tion (before and after making a commitment), (2) exploration and commitment are not two consecutive stages of identity formation, occur-ring in this particular order, but stages that may alternate, (3) there are two types of commitment (preliminary and final). Luyckx and colleague (Luyckx, Goossens, & Soenens, 2006), assumed that both exploration and commitment were two-phase processes, and the results of their studies support that assumption. Moreover, they distin-guished the third type of exploration – so-called ruminative exploration (Luyckx, Schwartz, Ber-zonsky et al., 2008). Eventually, the authors of the model described five dimensions of identity:
• exploration in breadth, understood as looking
for possibilities of action appropriate to one’s values, goals, and beliefs before one chooses the best of them;
• commitment making, defined as making
pre-liminary choices of importance to identity;
• exploration in depth, presented as in-depth
analysis of decisions already made in order to find out if the commitments made were the right choice;
• identification with commitment, meaning
iden-tification with the choices made, accompa-nied by the belief that these choices were the right ones for the individual;
• ruminative exploration, understood as fears,
anxieties, and doubts concerning engage-ment in actions of importance to identity development.
The model by Luyckx et al. is referred to as the dual-cycle model of identity formation (Luy-ckx, Schwartz, Goossens, Beyers, & Missotten, 2011), because identity formation takes place in two cycles. Exploration in breadth and in depth constitute the first one – the commitment for-mation cycle. In the second cycle – commitment evaluation – the choice made is evaluated, which
means the intensity of exploration in depth and identification with commitment increases.
In their numerous studies (e.g., Luyckx, Schwartz, Berzonsky et al., 2008; Luyckx, Schwartz, Goossens, & Pollock, 2008), the authors of the dual-cycle model of identity for-mation confirmed the following relationships between identity dimensions:
• positive correlation between exploration in breadth and exploration in depth, which means that seeking alternatives involves their constant evaluation;
• positive correlation between commitment making and identification with commitment, which means that making choices fosters identification with them;
• negative correlation of ruminative exploration with commitment making and identification with commitment, which means that fears and uncertainty are not conducive to making important identity decisions;
• negative correlation between exploration in breadth and commitment making, which means choosing the best alternative is not accompanied by a need to seek others; • positive correlation between exploration in
depth and identification with commitment, which means evaluating choices fosters iden-tification with them.
Similar correlation patterns are observed in Polish studies using DIDS/PL (e.g., Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010).
The assessment of the sense of identity con-sists in measuring the intensity of each of the five dimensions and in establishing an individual tity profile based on which it is possible to iden-tify identity status. The assessment instrument is the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale
(DIDS), adapted in Poland by Anna I. Brzezi ska
and Konrad Piotrowski (2010). The questionnaire measures the intensity of five identity dimensions (exploration in breadth, exploration in depth, ruminative exploration, commitment making, and identification with commitment). There are five items in each dimension. In various studies,
a similar finding is revealed concerning the reli-ability of five DIDS subscales (corresponding to five identity dimensions) – namely, a slightly lower value of Cronbach’s for the exploration scales than for the commitment scales (examples from studies – Table 1).
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTING THE MODIFIED DIDS/PL-1 FOR THE STUDY OF PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
DIDS/PL, the Polish adaptation of DIDS
(Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010), is – just like the original version – a questionnaire consisting of 25 items in the form of declarative sentences. Each sentence is accompanied by the same scale of six answers (strongly disagree – disagree – rather
disagree – rather agree – agree – strongly agree). In
the instruction preceding the test, participants are requested to respond to each sentence by choosing one answer from the scale each time.
DIDS/PL can be used in studies conducted on an
individual basis as well as in groups.
Prepilot Study Using DIDS/PL
In order to make a preliminary assessment of whether the measure can be used in a study of people with intellectual disability, three
individu-als (aged 16, 21, and 22) with a mild degree of intellectual disability were invited. Each of them completed the questionnaire independently, in accordance with the principles of its administra-tion. Afterwards, each person was interviewed and asked about the difficulties encountered when completing the questionnaire, particularly about the comprehensibility of each item.
The participants pointed out that: (1) some of the sentences were too long (these comments referred to items 11, 16, and 21) and had to be read at least twice to be understood; (2) numerous words or expressions were completely incompre-hensible or raised doubts regarding how they were to be understood, e.g., “image,” “the direction you follow in your life,” “path of life,” “value your plans for the future”; (3) the list of response options is long and thereby difficult to process mentally; (4) the scale would be easier to use if the items were read out by a different person, with access to the answer sheet being left to the participant.
The Construction of New Items
After this preliminary assessment, a deci-sion was made to reduce the number of response options from six to four (disagree – rather disagree
– rather agree – agree) and to retain the same
number of items in the questionnaire (25). Short-er and linguistically simplShort-er equivalents of all the sentences from DIDS/PL were constructed.
Table 1. The Values of Cronbach’s Coefficients for the Subscales of DIDS and DIDS/PL in Selected Studies
Scale DIDS: Cronbach’s DIDS/PL: Cronbach’s
Exploration in Breadth .811) / .762) / .843) .764) / .705) / .726) Exploration in Depth .791) / .792) / .813) .704) / .705) / .656) Ruminative Exploration .861) / .852) / .853) .784) / .825) / .826) Commitment Making .861) / .832) / .913) .884) / .855) / .896) Identification With Commitment .861) / .852) / .933) .854) / .825) / .866) 1) Luyckx, Soenens, Goossens, Beckx, & Wouters, 2008 (n = 895).
2) Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, & Duriez, 2009 (n = 714). 3) Schwartz et al., 2012 (n = 2411).
4) Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010a (n = 174). 5) Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010 (n = 100).
Note. EB – exploration in breadth, ED – exploration in depth, RE – ruminative exploration, CM – commitment making, IC – identification with commitment.
Evaluation by Competent Judges and the Modification of New Items
Three competent judges, doctoral students from the Institute of Psychology at the Adam Mickiewicz University, specializing in human development psychology, received the set of statements from DIDS/PL (each statement on a separate white sheet of paper) and the set of new statements (each one on a separate yellow sheet). Their task was to match them into pairs: “a white sheet and a yellow sheet” with sentenc-es meaning the same. Not in all cassentenc-es did the judges agree in matching the items, but those that they matched belonged to the same scales. This is a satisfactory result, since items within the same scales in DIDS/PL are very similar to one another in terms of content. Three statements were not correctly matched by all the three judg-es with another statement from the same scale
(these were statements from exploration scales mismatched with statements from other explora-tion scales). The items with regard to which there was no full agreement among the judges were modified again.
Another Evaluation by Competent Judges
Three other competent judges – this time practicing psychologists working with intellec-tually disabled people on a daily basis – were given the same task: they were given the set of modified statements as well as the set of state-ments from DIDS/PL and asked to match “simi-lar sentences”– those that had the same mean-ing. They were unanimous in matching all of the statements to others from the same scales. Thus, the items were verified by competent judges in terms of content validity. Examples of original and modified items are juxtaposed in Table 2.
Table 2. Examples of Modified DIDS/PL-1 Items
Scale numbersItem Example item in DIDS/PL Source of difficulties Item in the modified version DIDS/PL-1 EB 5, 10, 13,
17, 23 23. Staram si odkry , jaki styl yciaby by dla mnie dobry (I try to find out which lifestyle would be good for me).
Inomprehensible expression: styl ycia (lifestyles)
23. Zastanawiam si , co mog abym robi w przysz o ci, eby czu si z tym dobrze (I think about what I could do in the future to feel good doing it). ED 4, 11, 16,
19, 21
21. Staram si odkry , co inni ludzie my l na temat konkretnych kierunków, które chc obra w yciu (I try to find out what other people think about the specific direction I want to take in my life).
The sentence is too long.
21. Pyta am innych ludzi, co my l o moich planach (I have asked other people what they thought about my plans).
RE 2, 7, 9, 20, 24
2. Mam w tpliwo ci dotycz ce tego, co naprawd chc osi gn w yciu (I am doubtful about what I really want to achieve in life).
Incomprehensible expression: w tpliwo ci (doubtful)
2. Ci gle jeszcze do ko ca nie wiem, co mog abym robi w przysz o ci (I am still not sure what I could do in the future).
CM 1, 6, 12,
14, 22 12. Mam jasn wizj mojej przysz o ci(I have a clear view of my future). Incomprehensible expression: wizja (image)
12. Wyobra am sobie siebie dok adnie w przysz o ci (I can imagine exactly what I am going to do in the future). IC 3, 8, 15,
18, 25
18. Czuj , e kierunek, który chc obra w yciu, naprawd b dzie do mnie pasowa (I sense that the direction I want to take in my life will really suit me).
Incomprehensible expression: kierunek, który chc obra w yciu (the direction I want to take in my life)
18. To, co sobie zaplanowa am, pasuje do mnie (What I have planned to do suits me).
THE DIDS/PL-1 QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE STUDY PROCEDURE
The changes made in the measure concerned not only the content but also the procedure. In the modified version, the items of the question-naire are read aloud by the researcher during a one-to-one session, and the participant’s task is to choose one of four answers, rating the extent to which the item refers to him or her. Although a considerable proportion of people with mild intellectual disability do learn to read and write and cope with it well, for some of them this activity may be too tiresome, making it difficult to complete the questionnaire. The study is carried out on an individual basis, with the researcher reading out consecutive items to the participant. Additionally, to make the task easier, a sheet of paper is placed in front of the participant, with answers on it: (disagree
– rather disagree – rather agree – agree). When
the respondent has given his or her answer, the researcher writes it down on the answer sheet. Thus prepared, the questionnaire is preceded by an instruction, which the researcher reads out to the respondent.
Just like the original scale, the questionnaire consists of 25 items in the form of declarative sentences about the participant making plans for the future. These items make up five scales (with five items in each scale) corresponding to five identity dimensions. Examples of new items for each scale read as follows:
• Exploration in Breadth scale: Zastanawiam
si nad tym, czym móg bym si zajmowa w przysz o ci / I think about what I could do in the future (the original version reads: Staram si odkry , jaki styl ycia by by dla mnie dobry / I try to find out which lifestyle would be good for me);
• Exploration in Depth scale: Pyta em innych
ludzi, co my l o moich planach / I have asked other people what they thought about my plans (the original version reads: Staram
kretnych kierunków, które chc obra w yciu / I try to find out what other people think about the specific direction I decided to take in my life.);
• Ruminative Exploration scale: Boj si czasem
o moj przysz o / Sometimes I worry about my future (the original version reads: Mam obawy dotycz ce tego, co chc zrobi ze swoj przysz o ci / I worry about what I want to do with my future);
• Commitment Making scale: Wiem ju , co chc
w yciu robi / I already know what I want to do in my life (the original version reads: Wiem, co chc osi gn w yciu / I know what I want to achieve in my life);
• Identification With Commitment scale: To,
co sobie zaplanowa em, pasuje do mnie / What I have planned to do suits me (the original
ver-sion reads: Czuj , e kierunek który chc obra
w yciu, naprawd b dzie do mnie pasowa / I sense that the direction I want to take in my life will really suit me).
The DIDS/PL-1 result is the mean score for each of the five scales. For each item, the respondent can score the following numbers of points, respectively: 1 point for answering
disagree, 2 points for answering rather disagree,
3 points for answering rather agree, and 4 points for answering agree.
THE PLAN OF THE PRESENT STUDY
Two studies were conducted using the modi-fied version of the measure, DIDS/PL-1. The aim of the first one was to compare the psycho-metric properties of DIDS/PL and the modified
DIDS/PL-1 version, administered in one group –
to people within the intellectual norm. The aim of the second study was to compare the psycho-metric properties of DIDS/PL-1 administered in two groups – to people within the intellectual norm and to people with a mild degree of intel-lectual disability.
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT *TTVF Qo
Study 1 Hypothesis
In Study 1, it was hypothesized that the modi-fied version, DIDS-PL-1, was a valid and reliable measure to a similar degree as the baseline ver-sion, DIDS/PL. In order to test the hypothesis, a study was carried out on an individual basis with the same group of people using DIDS/PL and DIDS/PL-1; next, the reliability coefficients of the scales in the two measures were compared and an analysis of correlations between the scales of the former instrument and those of the latter was performed (the validity of DIDS/PL-1).
Procedure
The participants in the study were 100 uni-versity students aged 19–27 years (M = 21.59,
SD = 1.85; 71% women), within the intellectual
norm. The study was carried out on an individual basis. The participants completed the paper-and-pencil version of DIDS/PL on their own. DIDS/
PL-1, by contrast, was read out, and the answers
given were indicated by the researcher on the answer sheet.
Results
The reliability of DIDS/PL-1
An acceptable reliability of the new scale was obtained. The values of Cronbach’s for
DIDS/PL-1 were as follows: .72 for the
Explo-ration in Breadth scale (compared to .65 in
DIDS/PL); .71 (.70) for Exploration in Depth;
.76 (.82) for Ruminative Exploration; .90 (.86) for Commitment Making; 90 (.84) for Identi-fication With Commitment. The differences in the values of obtained for the modified version were similar to those obtained for the original version and for the first Polish adapta-tion in the case of commitment scales (slightly higher values) and exploration scales (slightly lower values).
The validity of DIDS/PL-1
In order to test the construct (convergent) validity of the instrument, correlations were computed between identity dimensions meas-ured using DIDS/PL-1 and the corresponding dimensions in DIDS/PL. In each case, positive correlations were obtained at an acceptable level (see Table 3) – from moderate (in the case of Exploration in Breadth and Exploration in Depth) to strong (in the case of the remaining scales). The score on each subscale except Explo-ration in Breadth in the modified version cor-related the most strongly with the score on the same scale in DIDS/PL (in Table 3, respectively: ED – ED-o; RE – RE-o; CM – CM-o; IC – IC-o). The score on the Exploration in Breadth scale in the modified version correlated a little more strongly with ruminative exploration (r = .59) than with exploration in breadth in the original
Table 3. Pearson’s r Correlations Between Identity Dimensions Measured Using DIDS/PL and DIDS/PL-1 – the Modified Version – in Study 1
Variable ED RE CM IC EB-o ED-o RE-o CM-o IC-o
EB .59** .71** -.35** -.26* .55** .36** .59** -.37** -.32**
ED – .49** -.08 -.10 .42** .64** .39** -.17 -.12
RE .49** – -.63** -.50** .46** .17 .83** -.66** -.59**
CM -.08 -.63* – .72** -.11 .12 -.74** .86** .80**
IC -.10 -.50* .72** – -.07 .02 -.61** .72** .78**
Note. EB – exploration in breadth, ED – exploration in depth, RE – ruminative exploration, CM – commitment making, IC – identification with commitment; identity dimensions from the original version DIDS/PL: EB-o, ED-o, RE-o, CM-o, IC-o.
version (r = .55), though the difference was not large; at the same time, ruminative exploration measured using the original version correlated the most strongly and positively with ruminative exploration from the modified version (r = .83), much more strongly than with exploration in breadth (r = .59).
Conclusions
The modified version of DIDS/PL was found to have acceptable reliability and construct validity. In the analysis of correlations, most of the relationships observed in other stud-ies (e.g., Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010; Luy-ckx, Schwartz, Berzonsky et al., 2008; LuyLuy-ckx, Schwartz, Goossens, & Pollock, 2008) were confirmed, though not with regard to the scales measuring exploration in depth and identifica-tion with commitment – a negative correlaidentifica-tion could be expected in this case, but the relation-ship found between these dimensions was not significant. It should be stressed, however, that both in Polish studies using DIDS/PL and in Luy-ckx’s studies the correlation, if it occurred, was weak (Pearson’s r from -.20 to -.35; Brzezi ska & Piotrowski, 2010; Luyckx, Schwartz, Berzonsky et al., 2008; Luyckx, Schwartz, Goossens, & Pol-lock; 2008). In some studies, a weak positive correlation was even observed (e.g., Piotrowski, Kaczan, & R kosiewicz, 2013, Crocetti, Luyckx, Scrignaro, & Sica, 2011; Zimmerman, Lanne-grand-Willems, Safont-Mottay, & Cannard, 2013). A much greater problem would have been a lack of correlation, for example, between the
scales measuring exploration in breadth and exploration in depth, which is positive and at least moderate in strength in all the studies that I am aware of, or the lack of correlation between the commitment scales, which is also always positive, at last moderate and usually strong. In Study 1, these relations were replicated.
Study 2 Hypothesis
In Study 2 it was hypothesized that DIDS/
PL-1 was a reliable and valid measure to a
com-parable degree in two groups: the group of peo-ple within the intellectual norm and the group of people with mild intellectual disability.
Procedure
Study 2 constituted one of the stages of a larg-er research project aimed at seeking the social mechanisms of identity formation in people with intellectual disability. The participants were 127 individuals, including 67 with mild intellectual disability (PID) and 60 within the intellectual norm (IHP), representing two age groups: late adolescence (16–17 years) and emerging adult-hood (20–21 years; Table 4).
All the participants were examined individu-ally. Items from the modified version, DIDS/PL-1, were read out to them, and the participant was supposed to choose one of the answers. This procedure was applied also with people within the intellectual norm to make further intergroup comparisons possible.
Table 4. Participants in Study 2
Variables
Group A Group B Group C Group D
Total PID
adolescence emerging adulthoodPID adolescenceIHP emerging adulthoodIHP
N (% of women) 36 (41.7%) 31 (38.7%) 30 (63.3%) 30 (70.0%) 127 (52.8%) Age M = 16.36 (SD = 0.49) M = 20.42 (SD = 0.50) M = 16.23 (SD = 0.43) M = 20.43 (SD = 0.50) M = 18.35 (SD = 2.13)
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT *TTVF Qo
In all the groups, information was collected from the participants after the study – they were asked about their general impressions of the study as well as about whether any sentences were incom-prehensible, whether the questionnaire was easy or difficult, and whether they would make any changes in it. Some of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with the high similarity of items, and many suggested shortening the questionnaire. Yet, importantly, no one reported that any sentence was incomprehensible. What the participants regarded as difficult was only the necessity of spending more time thinking about some of the sentences – the difficulty as they subjectively perceived it was asso-ciated with the necessity of engaging in self-reflec-tion (often for the first time on this subject in the participants’ life – as was declared mainly by people with intellectual disability, but also by nondisabled ones) rather than with the sentences being formu-lated in excessively convoluted ways.
Results
The reliability of DIDS/PL-1
In order to verify the hypothesis, a reli-ability analysis was performed. The values of Cronbach’s in the group of people with intellectual disability were as follows: .71 for the Exploration in Breadth scale (compared to .74 for nondisabled people), .70 for Explo-ration in Depth (.72 for nondisabled people), .71 for Ruminative Exploration (.71 for non-disabled people), .76 for Commitment Making (.91 for nondisabled people), and .82 for Iden-tification With Commitment (.89 for nondisa-bled people). These values are sufficient for the measure to be regarded as reliable, and at the same time close to those obtained in Study 1 as well as in studies conducted using the origi-nal version of DIDS and the Polish adaptation,
DIDS/PL.
Table 5. Pearson’s r Correlations Between Identity Dimensions Measured Using DIDS/PL-1 – the Modified Version – in Study 2
Variable ED RE CM IC
people with intellectual disability
EB .68** .65** .37** .46**
ED – .51** .34** .51**
RE – .11 .13
CM – .50**
IC –
people within intellectual norm
EB .61** .72** -.37** -.37**
ED – .52** -.19 -.31*
RE – -.71** -.61**
CM – .71**
IC –
Note. EB – exploration in breadth, ED – exploration in depth, RE – ruminative exploration, CM – commitment making, IC – identification with commitment.
The validity of DIDS/PL-1
The analysis of correlations performed sepa-rately for the two groups of participants revealed positive correlations – also found in other studies – between exploration in breadth and exploration in depth as well as between commitment making and identification with commitment (Table 5). Negative correlation of ruminative exploration with commit-ment making and identification with commitcommit-ment was observed only in the group of nondisabled people. In people with disability, this relationship was not statistically significant. The positive cor-relation observed in other studies between explora-tion in depth and identificaexplora-tion with commitment was found only among people with disability. In nondisabled people, this relationship was negative but weak. A difference between the two groups is visible also with regard to the relationship between exploration in breadth and commitment making. In other studies, the correlation between these two variables is usually negative. In this case, nega-tive correlation was observed only in the group of people within the intellectual norm, while among disabled individuals the correlation was positive. In both groups, however, the correlations were weak.
Conclusions
In Study 2, the scales of the modified ver-sion of DIDS/PL were found to have acceptable reliability. At the same time, the values of Cron-bach’s are similar in the groups of nondisabled and disabled people. The strongest and the most frequently recurring relationships between vari-ables observed in other studies (strong positive correlations between exploration in breadth and exploration in depth and between commitment making and identification with commitment) were found in both of these groups.
DISCUSSION
The Dimensions of Identity Development Scale
(DIDS/PL) was adapted to Polish conditions
used in scientific research carried out on various groups, but not yet with intellectually disabled people. It is estimated that these people con-stitute as much as 2–3% of the population, and 89% of them have a mild degree of disability (Burack, Russo, Flores, Iarocci, & Zigler, 2012). Even though this is a large group, the psychology of human development has only recently begun to be interested in young people with intellec-tual disability entering adulthood, including the formation of their personal identity (Burack et al., 2012). Perhaps one of the causes behind this state of affairs is the lack of appropriate instru-ments enabling its assessment. The modification of DIDS/PL was meant to remedy this deficit; it was supposed to provide a reliable instrument and indirectly contribute to extending knowl-edge about the development of identity in young people with intellectual disability.
The most important changes made in the Polish adaptation of DIDS concern the content of the questionnaire’s items, the length of the response scale, and the administration pro-cedure. With the same order retained, all the items of the Polish version, DIDS/PL, were short-ened and linguistically simplified. The scale of responses was reduced from six to four (two responses were removed and the others were not changed). The modified version can only be used for studies carried out on an individual basis: all the items are read out by the researcher. The participant’s activity is limited to selecting and uttering one response specifying his or her atti-tude to a given item.
The analyses showed this measure to be reli-able to a degree comparreli-able with the original version (DIDS) and the Polish adaptation of the original version (DIDS/PL). In Study 1, conduct-ed on a group of people within the intellectual norm, the results of identity measurements using
DIDS/PL and using its modified version, DIDS/ PL-1, were juxtaposed. The corresponding scales
had similar high values of Cronbach’s . The analysis of correlations yielded similar
associa-1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT *TTVF Qo
ure, as well as moderate to strong correlations between corresponding scales in the two meas-ures (construct validity).
In Study 2, using the modified version (DIDS/PL-1) only, the participants were people with intellectual disability, aged 16–17 years (late adolescence) and 20–21 years (emerging adult-hood) and people within the intellectual norm at the same age. The modified version (DIDS/PL-1) turned out to be a reliable instrument, and the analysis of correlations identified the two strong-est associations between variables (exploration in breadth – exploration in depth, and commit-ment making – identification with commitcommit-ment) observed in other studies using the original ver-sion (DIDS) and the Polish verver-sion (DIDS/PL).
The modified version (DIDS/PL-1) can be used with young people with a mild degree of intellectual disability. As an instrument for assessing identity dimensions and statuses, it can find its applications not only in scientific research but also in psychological practice, in individu-al assessment of teenagers and young adults. Among other things, it can serve as a tool for identifying the risk group including people with an identity diffusion or foreclosure status as well as with a high intensity of ruminative exploration. As studies show, these are people with special difficulties in psychosocial functioning (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Helson & Srivastava, 2001; Luyckx, Schwartz, Goossens, & Pollock, 2008).
So far, research on identity development has focused mainly on the subjective determinants of its development or on its subjective correlates. Much less is known about the social mecha-nisms of identity development, as well as about identity development in “atypical” social groups with special kinds of experience, such as social or national minorities, nonstudents, or – finally – individuals with various physical limitations (Schwartz, 2001).
Studies should be conducted on various groups of people with mild intellectual disability – among students, employed people (in places dedicated to them, such as occupation
activa-tion centers or sheltered employment facilities, as well as in the open market) using the facilities dedicated to them, living with their parents or on their own, having completed (or receiving) special education or education in general pub-lic schools. Such research would provide impor-tant information about the role of specific kinds of positive and negative experience in building these people’s identity (cf. R kosiewicz, 2012a; R kosiewicz & Brzezi ska, 2011).
REFERENCES
Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, S. E. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66. Brzezi ska, A. I., & Piotrowski, K. (2009).
Diagno-za statusów to samo ci w okresie adolescencji, wy aniaj cej si doros o ci i wczesnej doros o ci za pomoc Skali Wymiarów Rozwoju To samo ci (DIDS) [The assessment of identity statuses in ado-lescence, emerging adulthood, and early adulthood using the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS)]. Studia Psychologiczne, 47, 93–109.
Brzezi ska, A. I., & Piotrowski, K. (2010). Polska adap-tacja Skali Wymiarów Rozwoju To samo ci (DIDS) [The Polish adaptation of the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale (DIDS)]. Polskie Forum Psycho-logiczne, 15, 66–84.
Brzezi ska, A. I., Piotrowski, K., Garbarek-Sawicka, E., Karowska, K., & Muszy ska, K. (2010). Wymi-ary to samo ci a ich podmiotowe i kontekstowe korelaty [Identity dimensions and their subjective and contextual correlates]. Studia Psychologiczne, 49, 81–93.
Burack, J. A., Russo, N., Flores, H., Iarocci, G., & Zigler, E. (2012). The more you know the less you know, but that’s OK: Developments in the devel-opmental approach to intellectual disability. In J. A. Burack, R. M. Hodapp, G. Iarocci, & E. Zigler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of intellectual disability and development (pp. 3–12). Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Identity, self, and personality: Identity status and the five-factor
model of personality. Journal of Research on Adoles-cence, 3, 227–245.
Crocetti, E., Luyckx, K., Scrignaro, M., & Sica, L. S. (2011). Identity formation in Italian emerging adults: A cluster-analytic approach and associations with psychosocial functioning. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 558–572.
Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.
Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2001). Three paths of adult development: Conservers, seekers, and achievers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 995–1010.
Luyckx, K., Duriez, B., Klimstra, T. A., & De Witte, H. (2010). Identity statuses in young adult employees: Prospective relations with work engagement and burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 339–349. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A
devel-opmental contextual perspective on identity con-struction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evalua-tion. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W.
(2006). Unpacking commitment and exploration: Validation of an integrative model of adolescent iden-tity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 361–378. Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D.,
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., & Goos-sens, L. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 58–82.
Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Missotten, L. (2011). Processes of personal identity formation and evaluation. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luy-ckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 77–98). New York: Springer. Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Goossens, L., & Pollock, S.
(2008). Employment, sense of coherence and iden-tity formation: Contextual and psychological pro-cesses on the pathway to sense of adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 566–591.
Luyckx, K., Seiffge-Krenke, I., Schwartz, S. J., Goossens, L., Weets, I., Hendrieckx, C., & Groven, C. (2008). Identity development, coping, and adjustment in emerging adults with a chronic illness: The sample case of type 1 diabetes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 451–458.
Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., & Goossens, L. (2006). The per-sonality-identity interplay in emerging adult women: Convergent findings from complementary analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 195–215. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of
ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.
Marcia, J. E., & Friedman, M. L. (1969). Ego iden-tity status in college women. Journal of Personality, 38, 249–263.
Meeus, W. (1996). Studies on identity development in adolescence: An overview of research and some new data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 569–598. Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity development: Review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Devel-opmental Review, 19, 419–461.
Meeus, W., Iedema, J., & Maassen, G. H. (2002). Com-mitment and exploration as mechanisms of identity formation. Psychological Reports, 90, 771–785. Piotrowski, K. (2010). Wkraczanie w doros o . To samo
i poczucie doros o ci m odych osób z ograniczeniami sprawno ci [Entering adulthood. Identity and the sense of adulthood in young people with limited abili-ties]. Warsaw, PL: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. Piotrowski, K., Kaczan, R., & R kosiewicz, M. (2013).
Off-time higher education as a risk factor in identity for-mation. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 3, 299–309. R kosiewicz, M. (2012a). W drodze do doros o ci. To
-samo osób z niepe nosprawno ci intelektualn [On the way to adulthood. The identity of people with intel-lectual disability]. Wielichowo: Wydawnictwo TIPI. R kosiewicz, M. (2012b). W a ciwo ci to samo ci m
o-dzie y z niepe nosprawno ci intelektualn [The characteristics of the identity of young people with intellectual disability]. Studia Psychologiczne, 3, 49–62.
R kosiewicz, M. (2013). Type of social participation and identity formation in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 3, 277–287. R kosiewicz, M., & Brzezi ska, A. I. (2011). Kszta
to-wanie si to samo ci w okresie dzieci stwa i dorasta-nia u osób z niepe nosprawno ci intelektualn : rola rodziny i szko y [Identity formation in childhood and adolescence in people with intellectual disability: The role of family and school]. Studia Edukacyjne, 18, 23–43.
Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriskonian and Neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research:
1TZDIPMPHJDBM4UVEJFT *TTVF Qo
A review and integration. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1, 7–58.
Schwartz, S. J., Beyers, W., Luyckx, K., Soenens, B., Zamboanga, B. L., Forthun, L. F., Hardy, S. A., Vazsonyi, A. T., Ham, L. S., Kim, S. Y., Whit-bourne, S. K., & Waterman, A. (2011). Examining the light and dark sides of emerging adults’ identity: A study of identity status differences in positive and negative psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 839–859.
Toder, N. L., & Marcia, J. E. (1973). Ego identity sta-tus and response to conformity pressure in college
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 287–294.
Vleioras, G., & Bosma, H. A. (2005). Predicting change in relational identity commitments: Exploration and emotions. Idenity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 5, 35–56.
Zimmerman, G., Lannegrand-Willems, L., Safont-Mot-tay, C., & Cannard, C. (2013). Testing new identity models and processes in French-speaking adoles-cents and emerging adults students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 127–141.
