Identity formation is one of the most important developmental tasks in a life of adolescents (Krstić, 2017; Erikson, 1968). Looking through Eriksonian glances, there are two main processes that build identity formation- exploration and commitment. According to Dual cycle model of identity, formation of identity consists of two cyclical phases. In the first phase, through identity process exploration in-breadth (RE), adolescents are finding out about different roles, after which they choose one they will commit to. The second phase of the cycle starts when adolescents explore in-depth (ED), which includes active reflection about their committed role. If their committed identity role is aligned with their performance, needs, goals and values, they will identify with committed role (ID). The greater identification with commitment, the higher probability that adolescent will remain committed to a chosen role for a longer period of time. However, if exploration in-depth leads to misalignment, adolescents will reconsider their commitment. Combination of these processes result in different identity statuses that adolescent can take (Luyckx et al., 2006; Crocetti et al., 2008; Meeus et al., 2002).

While there are different identity domains that need to be developed in adolescence, we are especially interested in educational domain for several reasons. School is a place where adolescents have opportunity to think about their academic and professional aspirations, and future in general (Christiaens et al., 2022; Nurmi, 1993). Whatsmore, adolescence is a period when peers become focal point in their life, and school is one of the main spaces where adolescents can explore identities through interaction with peers (Korobov & Bamberg, 2004; Krstić, 2017). It is therefore not surprising that educational identity is related to adjustment and well-being of adolescents (Karaś et al., 2015). 

Although researchers from psychosocial perspective differentiate identity domains like school and friends, this perspective is often criticized for decontextualized approach to studying identity processes. It is thought that educational domains are measured with too broad questionnaires that are not capturing critical period that should lead to identity formation (Branje et al., 2021; Christiaens et al., 2022). Critical period is usually related to some major change in a life of a person. A period of major transitions is usually accompanied by tensions between old and new identity roles, which in turn creates an identity crisis, precondition for identity formation (Erikson, 1968; Kunnen, 2009; Rubtsova, 2012). One of the critical periods in a life of adolescents is transitioning from elementary to high-school. In an attempt to assess these critical periods, Christiaens and colleagues (2022) constructed two questionnaires for measuring educational identity processes- The Educational Identity Processes Scale (EIPS). The first questionnaire is focused on measuring adolescents’ experiences before transition from elementary to secondary school (pre-transitioning period), while the second questionnaire is focused on their experiences after transitioning (post-transitioning period). Although first results indicate good psychometric qualities of the questionnaires, it is necessary to further validate the questionnaire on students from different educational systems. By focusing on a specific transitional period, it is possible to examine what proportion of adolescents actually have stable identity statuses, despite the expected conflicting roles. This study is a part of the doctoral thesis the main interest is identity formation of adolescents at the beginning of Secondary education, so we will be focused on post-transitioning period.

Main aims of the study:

1. Validate Educational Identity Processes Scale (EIPS) for the post-transitioning period.
2. Identify what kind and how many identity statuses Serbian students take at the beginning of the Secondary education.
3. Explore if there are differences in identity statuses based on a gender, school type and school preference of adolescents. 

Participants The sample consisted of 880 adolescents from Belgrade who started their Secondary education (girls, 70% boys 30%). Although it was a convenient sample, we aimed to cover both vocational schools (43%) and gymnasiums (57%). Measures Educational identity processes were measured with Educational Identity Processes Scale (EIPS) for post-transitioning period (Christiaens et al., 2022). It consists of 18 items and 4 subscales: Reconsideration (exploration in-breadth) (“I am comparing different schools to find out if another would fit me better”), Exploration in-depth (“I often reflect on which courses I am good at and less good at”), Identification with commitment (“My school really fits me”), and Self-doubt (“I worry if I really like my school”). Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale (1= completely disagree to 5= completely agree). Demographic questions- Students were asked about their gender and type of school they attend to. After completing elementary school, Serbian students fill out a list of desired secondary schools they would like to enroll in. We asked them how high on their wish list was the school they currently attend. The higher a school is on the wish list, it is assumed that the preference for the school is greater. Procedure Study was conducted during October and November with aim of capturing identity processes at the beginning of the school year (In Serbia, new school year starts in September). The Survey was administered in online form during regularly scheduled classes. Students filled out online questionnaires on their phones. The Analytical Approach In order to validate factor structure of the scale we conducted CFA and ESEM in Mplus 8. The goodness of fit was assessed by taking into account values CFI, TLI, RMSEA and SRMR. Reliability was assessed by using construct reliability. Convergent validity was assessed by analyzing standardized factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE), while discriminant validity was inspected by analyzing cross-loaded indicators, correlation between constructs and by testing if AVE is greater than the shared variance (Cheung et al., 2024). In order to inspect cross-gender and cross-type of school measurement variance we compared configural, metric and scalar invariance. Latent profile analysis was conducted on extracted factor scores in order to identify identity statuses. Finally, in order to test if identified identity statuses differ based on gender, school type and school preference we conducted Chi-square test in SPSS.

By testing several models in CFA and ESEM it was concluded that Self-doubt as a construct should be excluded from the model, due to high correlations with Reconsideration (r=.92). The best fitted was the ESEM model that consisted of three identity processes- Reconsideration, Exploration in-depth and Identification with commitment (CFI= .968; TLI= .944; RMSEA= .054; SRMR= .022). Further analysis implied that constructs have good metric characteristics with the exception of Exploration in-depth that should have higher reliability and convergent validity. The measurement invariance confirm Post-transitioning EIPS is suitable for comparison of boys and girls and vocational school and gymnasium. At the beginning of secondary school there are four profiles of students. The first profile is called Achievement identity status (51.4%). Students in this status have high scores on Exploration in-depth and in Exploration in-depth, but one of the lowest scores on Reconsideration. The second profile, Moratorium (9.0%) characterizes students who scored low on Identification with commitment, medium Exploration in-depth, and high on Reconsideration of school. Third profile, Diffusion (9.4%) consist of low scores on all three constructs. Finally, fourth profile, Searching Moratorium (30.2%) has medium levels of Identification with commitment and Exploration in-depth and higher levels of Reconsideration. Chi-square analysis revealed significant differences in identity statuses based on gender (χ 2 (3) = 18.66, p =.00), type of school (χ 2 (3) = 9.68, p =.02) and school preference (χ 2 (6) = 48.91, p =.00). Students who are girls, from vocational schools, and their school was first on their wish list are more likely to have Achievement status. Boys are more likely to be in a Diffusion identity status, while students whose secondary school was on a third or lower place on a wish list, were more likely to be in Moratorium or Searching moratorium.

Branje, S., de Moor, E. L., Spitzer, J. & Becht, A. I. (2021). Dynamics of Identity Development in Adolescence: A Decade in Review. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 908-927. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12678 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crises. Norton. Fadjukoff Crocetti, E., Rubini, M., & Meeus, W. (2008). Capturing the dynamics of identity formation in various ethnic groups: Development and validation of a three-dimensional model. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.002 Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Meeus, W., & Rubini, M. (2022). Identities: A developmental social-psychological perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 161-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2104987 Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R.S., Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 745-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y Christiaens, A. H. T., Nelemans, S. A., de Moor, E. L., Erentaite, R., Vosylis, R. & Branje, S. (2022). Psychometric qualities of the educational identity processes scale (EIPS). Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.861220 Karaś, D., Cieciuch, J., Negru, O., & Crocetti, E. (2015). Relationships between identity and well-being in Italian, Polish, and Romanian emerging adults. Social Indicators Research, 121, 727-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0668-9 Korobov, N., & Bamberg, M. (2004). Positioning a “mature” self in interactive practices: How adolescent males negotiate “physical attraction” in group talk. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510042378281 Krstić, K. (2017). Doživljaj sebe u adolescenciji: uloga roditelja i vršnjaka. Institut za psihologiju. Kunnen, E. S. (2009). Are Conflicts the Motor in Identity Change? Identity, 6(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532706xid0602_3. Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.366 Nurmi, J. E. (1993). Adolescent development in an age-graded context: The role of personal beliefs, goals, and strategies in the tackling of developmental tasks and standards. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254930160020 Rubtsova O.V. (2012). Adolescent Crisis and the Problem of Role Identity. Kulturno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 8(1), 2–7. https://psyjournals.ru/en/journals/chp/archive/2012_n1/chp_2012_n1_51283_en.pdf