EFFICACY Scale 1

Document Sample
EFFICACY Scale 1 Powered By Docstoc
					General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)
The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale is a 10-item psychometric scale that is designed to assess optimistic self-beliefs to cope with a variety of difficult demands in life. The scale has been originally developed in German by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer in 1981 and has been used in many studies with ten thousands of participants. In contrast to other scales that were designed to assess optimism, this one explicitly refers to personal agency, i.e., the belief that one's actions are responsible for successful outcomes. Frequently Asked Questions More psychometric scales at: http://www.ralfschwarzer.de/ and http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/ Self-Efficacy Raw Data File (SPSS) with 18,000 respondents. Download here. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) Matthias Jerusalem & Ralf Schwarzer The scale is available in 27 languages at http://www.healthpsych.de German version developed in 1979 by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer, and later revised and adapted to 26 other languages by various coauthors. More versions at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/ The scale was created to assess a general sense of perceived self-efficacy with the aim in mind to predict coping with daily hassles as well as adaptation after experiencing all kinds of stressful life events. The scale is designed for the general adult population, including adolescents. Persons below the age of 12 should not be tested. The scale is usually self-administered, as part of a more comprehensive questionnaire. Preferably, the 10 items are mixed at random into a larger pool of items that have the same response format. Time: It requires 4 minutes on average. Scoring: Responses are made on a 4-point scale. Sum up the responses to all 10 items to yield the final composite score with a range from 10 to 40. No recoding. The construct of Perceived Self-Efficacy reflects an optimistic self-belief (Schwarzer, 1992). This is the belief that one can perform a novel or difficult tasks, or cope with adversity -- in various domains of human functioning. Perceived self-efficacy facilitates goal-setting, effort investment, persistence in face of barriers and recovery from setbacks. It can be regarded as a positive resistance resource factor. Ten items are designed to tap this construct. Each item refers to successful coping and implies an internal-stable attribution of success. Perceived self-efficacy is an operative construct, i.e., it is related to subsequent behavior and, therefore, is relevant for clinical practice and behavior change. The scale can be applied, for example, to patients before and after surgery to assess changes in quality of life. Also, it can be used in patients with chronic pain or those within a rehabilitation program. In samples from 23 nations, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .76 to .90, with the majority in the high .80s. The scale is unidimensional. Criterion-related validity is documented in numerous correlation studies where positive coefficients were found with favorable emotions, dispositional optimism, and work satisfaction. Negative coefficients were found with depression, anxiety, stress, burnout, and health complaints. In studies with cardiac patients, their recovery over a half-year time period could be predicted by pre-surgery self-efficacy. The measure has been used internationally with success for two decades. It is suitable for a broad range of applications. It can be taken to predict adaptation after life changes, but it is also suitable as an indicator of quality of life at any point in time. As a general measure, it does not tap specific behavior change. Therefore, in

Authors Languages Origin

Purpose

Population Administration

Description

Coverage

Reliability Validity

Strengths

Weaknesses

most applications it is necessary to add a few items to cover the particular content of the survey or intervention (such as smoking cessation self-efficacy, or physical exercise self-efficacy). How to write such items is described in Schwarzer and Fuchs (1996). Bibliography (by year) Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON. Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 38 (3), 174-181. Bäßler, J., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Evaluación de la autoeficacia: Adaptación española de la escala de autoeficacia general [Measuring generalized self-beliefs: A Spanish adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy scale]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 2 (1), 1-8. Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R. (1996). Self-efficacy and health behaviors. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. (pp. 163-196) Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M., & Romek, V. (1996). Russian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Foreign Psychology (Moscow), 7, 71-77 [in Russian]. Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46 (1), 69-88. Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997). Optimistic self-beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychology, 3(1-2), 177-190. Schwarzer, R., Born, A., Iwawaki, S., Lee, Y.-M., Saito, E., & Yue, X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 40 (1), 1-13. Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general self-efficacy on the Internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 145-161. Rimm, H., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Adaptation and validation of an Estonian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 329-345. Schwarzer, R., & Scholz, U. (2000). Cross-Cultural Assessment of Coping Resources: The General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale. Paper presented at the First Asian Congress of Health Psychology: Health Psychology and Culture, Tokyo, Japan. Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2001-submitted). Is perceived self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Contact Prof. Dr. Ralf Schwarzer, Freie Universität Berlin, Psychologie, Habelschwerdter Allee 45,

14195 Berlin, Germany, FAX +49 (30)838-55634 E-mail: health@zedat.fu-berlin.de http://www.RalfSchwarzer.de http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/ http://www.healthpsych.de http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/ Appendix English version by Ralf Schwarzer & Matthias Jerusalem, 1993 I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get 2 what I want. 3 It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected 4 events. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle 5 unforeseen situations. 6 I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely 7 on my coping abilities. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find 8 several solutions. 9 If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 10 I can usually handle whatever comes my way. 1 = Not at all true 2 = Hardly true 3 = Moderately true 4 = Exactly true 1

Response Format

Cross-Cultural Assessment of Coping Resources: The General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale Ralf Schwarzer & Urte Scholz
Introduction Perceived Self-Efficacy as a Personal Coping Resource The construct of self-efficacy, which was introduced by Bandura, represents one core aspect of his socialcognitive theory (1). While outcome expectancies refer to the perception of the possible consequences of one’s action, self-efficacy expectancies refer to personal action control or agency. A person who believes in being able to produce a desired effect can conduct a more active and self-determined life course. This ”can do”-cognition mirrors a sense of control over one’s environment. It reflects the belief of being able to control challenging environmental demands by means of taking adaptive action. It can be regarded as a self-confident view of one’s capability to deal with certain life stressors.

individuals also have low self-esteem and harbor pessimistic thoughts about their accomplishments and personal development. In terms of thinking, a strong sense of competence facilitates cognitive processes and performance in a variety of settings, including quality of decision-making and academic achievement. When it comes to preparing action, self-related cognitions are a major ingredient of the motivation process. Self-efficacy levels can enhance or impede motivation. People with high self-efficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks (1). They set themselves higher goals and stick to them. Actions are preshaped in thought, and people anticipate either optimistic or pessimistic scenarios in line with their level of self-efficacy. Once an action has been taken, high self-efficacious people invest more effort and persist longer than those who are low in self-efficacy. When setbacks occur, they recover more quickly and maintain the commitment to their goals. Self-efficacy also allows people to select challenging settings, explore their environments, or create new ones.

integration (1-2). Self-efficacy is commonly understood as being domain-specific; that is, one can have more or less firm self-beliefs in different domains or particular situations of functioning. But some researchers have also conceptualized a generalized sense of self-efficacy that refers to a global confidence in one’s coping ability across a wide range of demanding or novel situations. General self-efficacy aims at a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful situations.

Research Questions
determination of internal consistencies, unidimensionality, and item-total correlations. Moreover, the mean differences of composite scores between countries are being explored. Method Measurement of Generalized Perceived Self-Efficacy in Different Cultures Generalized perceived self-efficacy is assessed with a psychometric scale. The German version of this scale was originally developed and used by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer in 1981 as a 20-item version and later as an improved 10-item version (3). Typical items are: ”Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations,” and ”When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.”

German cardiac surgery patients who filled out the measure before surgery and again after a half-year recovery period, the retest-reliability was r = .67. In a sample of 140 teachers in Germany, a stability coefficient of r = .75 was found after one year. Over the same time period, 2,846 students in Germany

filled out the scale twice; a retest-reliability of r = .55 was found. Finally, for a two-year period there were coefficients of r = .47 for East German male migrants and r = .63 for their female counterparts.

the psychometric properties for the German, English, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Arabian, Hungarian, Polish, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Korean versions (4-8). All language versions and references are available on-line at http://www.RalfSchwarzer.de/

Samples

44% of the women (n = 8,576) being between 15 and 20 years old. Many respondents (n = 3,130), however, did not disclose their age.

Results

one-factor solution with similar eigenvalues of 4.9, 0.81, 0.72, and smaller. The ten loadings for the first principal component are: .56, .54, .63, .72, .75, .64, .71, .68, .70, and .70.

descriptive statistics: mean = 29.46, standard deviation = 5.33, kurtosis = .38, skewness = -.52 based on 17,553 observations.

Figure 1. Distribution of Self-Efficacy Sum Scores for Total Sample (N = 17,553) The response range at each item was 1 to 4; and correspondingly, the theoretical range of sum scores was from 10 to 40. The mean of 29.46 indicates that the scale is more sensitive to detecting individual differences in the lower range than in the higher range.

main effects were found for nations (F[15,14846] = 284.19, p < .001) and gender (F[1, 14846] = 41.6, p < .01). An interaction also emerged (F[15,14846] = 3.45, p < .001). Figure 2 displays the mean sum scores broken down by 16 nations and gender. Within the remaining nations, no distinction for gender was made. The lowest means were found for male and female Japanese, followed by Hong Kong Chinese and Koreans. Highest values were found for Costa Ricans, Peruans, and Russians.

Figure 2. Mean Sum Scores Broken Down by Nations and Gender

Further Evidence for Validity Evidence for the validity of the scale has been published in previous articles. New evidence has been accumulated recently in a large-scale German field research project with 3,514 high school students and 302 teachers (9). In the student sample, general self-efficacy was correlated .49 with optimism and .45 with the perception of challenge in stressful situations. In the teacher sample, correlations were obtained with proactive coping (.55), self-regulation (.58), and procrastination (-.56). Moreover, there was a substantial relationship to all three dimensions of teacher burnout (emotional exhaustion -.47, depersonalisation -.44, and lack of accomplishment -.75). Similar evidence for validity was found within a sample of teachers in Hong Kong (10).

Discussion

many cultures. It can be recommended, therefore, to use the instrument for studies within countries. However, before truly cross-cultural comparisons at the mean level can be interpreted, further research into the construct adaptation is needed. The mean levels of composite scores differ between countries. The cause of such differences may lie in culture-specific personality dispositions, but it can as well be attributed to sampling characteristics and to the translation itself. For example, it could be that the low

mean scores of the Japanese are due to the possibility that the Japanese adaptation is too ”difficult,” so that respondents are reluctant to endorse the items.

References (1) Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. (2) Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. (3) Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 3537). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON. (4) Schwarzer, R., & Born, A. (1997). Optimistic self-beliefs: Assessment of general perceived selfefficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychology, 3(1-2), 177-190. (5) Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 69-88. (6) Schwarzer, R., Born, A., Iwawaki, S., Lee, Y.-M., Saito, E., & Yue, X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 40(1), 1-13. (7) Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general self-efficacy on the Internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 145-161. (8) Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia, 38(3), 174-181. (9) Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.) (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. [Scales for the assessment of teacher and student characteristics.] Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin. (10) Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Tang, C. (2000). Teacher Burnout in Hong Kong and Germany: A cross-cultural validation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping (in press). Paper presented at the Asian Congress of Health Psychology 2000: Health Psychology and Culture, Tokyo, Japan, August 28-29. Latest update: Scholz, U., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is perceived self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, No. 3, 242-251. back to German pages of the Health Psychology Department, FU Berlin

The Assessment of Optimistic Self-Beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale Ralf Schwarzer, Judith Bäßler, Patricia Kwiatek, Kerstin Schröder, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, and Jian Xin Zhang, Chinese University of Hong Kong To appear in: Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1996 Running Head: Self-Efficacy Scale Address correspondence to: Professor Dr. Ralf Schwarzer, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut of Psychology, Health Psychologie (WE 10), Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany [Fax: +49/30/838-5634; E-Mail: fu1270ap@zedat.fu-berlin.de

Abstract General self-efficacy is measured by a widely used parsimonious ten-item scale that was developed for use in several cultures. The present paper compares the versions that were examined in samples of 430 German, 959 Costa Rican, and 293 Chinese university students. The internal consistencies were .84, .81, and .91, respectively. The unidimensional nature of the scale was replicated in all samples. Multilingual item-pattern equivalence was only moderately supported by confirmatory factor analyses. Mean differences of sum scores between languages were found. Moreover, an interaction between gender and language emerged. Correlations with depression, anxiety, and optimism provided some further evidence for construct validity.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, Optimism, Competence, Coping Resources, Psychometrics

The Assessment of Optimistic Self-Beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale The present article first introduces the theoretical construct of self-efficacy and then describes a brief scale that is designed to measure this construct at the level of a general personality disposition. The original German instrument has been proven reliable and valid in various field studies which are described elsewhere (Schwarzer, 1993). The scale has been translated into many languages, but so far empirical data sets are available only for the German, Spanish and Chinese versions. This paper compares the psychometric properties for these three versions and examines the cross-language equivalence of the instrument. The purpose of the present study is twofold: to examine whether the theoretical construct of perceived self-efficacy is universal, and to attain psychometrically sound adaptations of the inventory that can be used with Spanish- and Chinese-speaking populations. The Construct of Perceived Self-Efficacy Human functioning is facilitated by a personal sense of control. If people believe that they can take action to solve a problem instrumentally, they become more inclined to do so and feel more committed to this decision. The construct of self-efficacy was introduced by Bandura and represents one core aspect of his social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1995a, 1995b). While outcome expectancies refer to the perception of the possible consequences of one's action, self-efficacy expectancies refer to personal action control or agency. A person who believes in being able to cause an event can conduct a more active and selfdetermined life course. This "can do"-cognition mirrors a sense of control over one's environment. It reflects the belief of being able to control challenging environmental demands by means of taking adaptive action. It can be regarded as a self-confident view of one's capability to deal with certain life stressors. According to theory and research (Bandura, 1995a, 1995b), self-efficacy makes a difference in how people feel, think and act. In terms of feeling, a low sense of self-efficacy is associated with depression, anxiety, and helplessness. Such individuals also have low self-esteem and harbor pessimistic thoughts about their accomplishments and personal development. In terms of thinking, a strong sense of competence facilitates cognitive processes and performance in a variety of settings, including quality of decision-making and academic achievement. When it comes to preparing action, self-related cognitions are a major ingredient of the motivation process. Self-efficacy levels can enhance or impede motivation. People with high selfefficacy choose to perform more challenging tasks. They set themselves higher goals and stick to them. Actions are preshaped in thought, and people anticipate either optimistic or pessimistic scenarios in line with their level of self-efficacy. Once an action has been taken, high self-efficacious persons invest more effort and persist longer than those who are low in self-efficacy. When setbacks occur, they recover more quickly and maintain the commitment to their goals. Self-efficacy also allows people to select challenging settings, explore their environments, or create new environments. A sense of competence can be acquired by mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, or physiological feedback. Self-efficacy, however, is not the same as positive illusions or unrealistic optimism since it is based on experience and does not lead to unreasonable risk taking. Instead, it leads to venturesome behavior that is within reach of one's capabilities. Self-referent thought has become an issue that pervades psychological research in many domains. It has been found that a strong sense of personal efficacy is related to better health, higher achievement, and more social integration. This concept has been applied to such diverse areas as school achievement, emotional disorders, mental and physical health, career choice, and sociopolitical change. It has become a key variable in clinical, educational, social, developmental, health, and personality psychology (Bandura, 1995a, 1995b; Maddux, 1994; Schwarzer, 1992). The General Self-Efficacy Scale Self-efficacy is commonly understood as domain-specific; that is, one can have more or less firm selfbeliefs in different domains or particular situations of functioning. But some researchers have also conceptualized a generalized sense of self-efficacy. It refers to a global confidence in one's coping ability across a wide range of demanding or novel situations. Snyder and collaborators (1991) suggested such a construct that they coined "hope." They defined hope as a cognitive set that is composed of a reciprocally

derived sense of successful agency and pathways. Agency reflects goal-directed determination, whereas pathways refers to planning of ways to meet goals. Agency resembles self-efficacy, whereas pathways resembles outcome expectancies. Skinner, Chapman, and Baltes (1988) have made a similar distinction between agency beliefs and means-ends-beliefs. Other conceptions of generalized self-efficacy have been proposed by Sherer and Maddux (1982) and Wallston (1992). In contrast to dispositional optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1992), the theoretical advantage of generalized self-efficacy lies in the explicit assumptions about the causal underpinnings of one's positive outlook on life. Dispositional optimism includes all kinds of causes, external and internal, and even chance. Generalized self-efficacy, however, is restricted to one's personal resource beliefs, focussing on competence and disregarding other sources or reasons for optimism (for a detailed discussion of the optimism construct see Schwarzer, 1994). The general self-efficacy scale aims at a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal effectively with a variety of stressful situations. The German version of this scale was originally developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer in 1981, first as a 20-item version and later as a reduced 10-item version (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1986, 1992; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1989). It has been used in numerous research projects, where it typically yielded internal consistencies between alpha = .75 and .90. The scale is not only parsimonious and reliable, it has also proven valid in terms of convergent and discriminant validity. For example, it correlates positively with self-esteem and optimism, and negatively with anxiety, depression and physical symptoms. Previous studies are described in the manual (Schwarzer, 1993), which includes not only the scale in English, German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Turkish, Czech, and Slovak, but also the results of five studies conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the German version. Also, norms (T scores) based on a sample of 1,660 German adults are available. The manual describes, among others, retest reliabilities over one- and two-year periods and different kinds of validity, such as experimental, criterion-related and predictive validity. All coefficients turned out to be very satisfactory. The inventory, however, cannot be used as a substitute for domain-specific self-efficacy. Rather, scales should be tailored to the spheres of functioning being explored wherever possible. A distinction could be made here between exploratory and confirmatory research. In innovative large-scale field studies governed by a broad range of variables and few specific hypotheses, general constructs have been found useful. An example is our exploratory study on East Germans who migrated to the West when the Berlin wall came down: Over a two-year observation period, initial generalized self-efficacy turned out to be the best single predictor of overall adjustment, as assessed by a number of health and well-being variables (Schwarzer, Hahn, & Schröder, 1994; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). In that case, the unique research context did not allow closer examination of a variety of domain-specific coping outcomes with corresponding specific measures of self-efficacy, although this would have been desirable. There is typically a better prediction by specific scales if the criterion variables are also measured in a specific manner. For example, if coping with a spider phobia or a math problem is at stake, domain-specific measures of perceived self-efficacy are better predictors of outcomes than generalized ones. In contrast, if trait anxiety, depression, or similar global constructs are to be predicted, generalized constructs are more adequate (Schwarzer, 1993). Research Question The present study aims at examining the psychometric properties of three versions of the General SelfEfficacy Scale. This is done with the assumption that self-efficacy is a universal construct that applies to different cultures and can be measured by inventories in different languages. The purpose is to confirm this assumption and provide measures that can be adopted in other countries for collecting further evidence. Three steps are taken to obtain the necessary psychometric data: First, the internal structure of the instrument is scrutinized, which includes item analyses, principal component analyses, and a confirmatory factor analysis to test the equivalence across languages. Second, mean differences between languages and gender are analyzed. Third, the construct validity is further explored by correlations with different psychological constructs. Method Scale Adaptations 1) The original German version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale has been found reliable and valid in numerous studies (Schwarzer, 1993). While previously only a few university students had been part of the

sample, the present study includes a new data set of students. Appendix A contains the German version (see Appendix D for the English version of the scale). The Spanish adaptation (see Appendix B) was based on the German and English versions of the instrument. The adaptation procedure followed the "group consensus model" of several bilingual translators and included a series of back translations and discussions. The aim was not to achieve a literal translation of each item, but rather an adaptation of the construct of self-efficacy. Each item was supposed to include the notion of one's confidence in the personal competence to cope with adverse events. It was not quite clear whether the Chinese adaptation (Appendix C; based on the English version) would be successful because self-efficacy is an imported "Western" psychological construct, or whether it would be superior to other more indigenous constructs (Bond, 1991; Cheung et al., in press). There is some evidence, however, that it is useful in research on Chinese people. Earley and Christopher (1993, 1994), for example, have studied the self-efficacy of Chinese managers. Other Measures The German and Spanish questionnaires contained identical sets of variables that also included measures for depression, anxiety, and optimism. As a measure of depression, a 16-item depression scale was selected (Zerssen, 1976), with items such as "I feel simply miserable" (a = .79). Anxiety was measured by four items taken from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983), which yielded a = .74 in the present sample. Dispositional optimism was measured with the eight-item Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985), which contains statements such as "In uncertain times I usually expect the best" (a = .82). Samples The German sample consisted of 430 university students who studied different subjects at two universities in Berlin. There were 250 women with an average age of 23.1 years (SD = 4.2) and 180 men with an average age of 24.2 years (SD = 4.4). The age difference was statistically significant (F[1, 428] = 7.76, p < .01). The Spanish-speaking sample consisted of 959 university students from Costa Rica, including 605 women with an average age of 21.3 years (SD = 6.9) and 354 men with an average age of 21.0 years (SD = 6.3). There was no significant age difference between women and men. The Chinese version was given to 293 first-year undergraduate students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. These students attended three introductory classes on general psychology, but most of the students did not choose psychology as their major. There were 94 male students with an average age of 19.7 years (SD = 1.4) and 199 female students with an average age of 19.5 years (SD = 1.4). There was no significant age difference between women and men. Across languages, significant age differences emerged, with the Chinese being the youngest and the Germans being the oldest. This should not have affected the findings because there was no correlation between age and self-efficacy.

Procedure In all three studies, the ten self-efficacy items were randomly inserted in a questionnaire that assessed a number of other constructs to prevent students from recognizing the purpose of the items. The data collection was anonymous. There was no compensation for filling out the questionnaire. The German data were collected in Berlin in 1993. Administering the entire questionnaire took about half an hour. The data for the Spanish version were collected in 1993 in San José, Costa Rica. This was the same questionnaire as the German one and took about the same time to fill out. The Chinese data were collected in 1994 in Hong Kong. The self-efficacy items were randomly inserted in a questionnaire that assessed political stress and healthy nutrition, a total of 35 items that took about five to ten minutes to complete. Results The results section will focus first on the internal structure of the instrument to assess the psychometric properties for each of the three language versions. Then, mean differences and further evidence for validity will be examined.

Item Characteristics and Reliability Item analyses were carried out separately for each version of the scale. Each item had a response range from one to four. Item means and corrected item-total correlations are given in Table 1. All coefficients turned out to be satisfactory. No improvement was possible by eliminating items. The internal consistency of Cronbach's alpha = .91 was excellent for the Chinese version. Those of .84 and .81 for the German and Spanish versions were satisfactory, considering that the scale contained only ten items. ------- Insert Table 1 about here ------Principal Components Analyses In previous German studies the scale was homogeneous. To study this scale characteristic, a principal components analysis was computed separately for each language version. In the German sample, the first three eigenvalues were 4.06, 0.96, and 0.82. Thus, only one general factor was extracted that accounted for 41% of the total variance. For the Spanish version, the first three eigenvalues were 3.91, 1.00, and 0.90. A one-factor solution with 39% of variance accounted for was suitable. In the Chinese sample, the first three eigenvalues were 5.49, 0.84, and 0.74. Again, this was a replication of unidimensionality with the first factor accounting for 55% of the variance. Psychometric Equivalence of the Instrument Across Languages It was demonstrated that the scale was reliable as well as homogeneous or unidimensional in all three versions. This indicates a certain degree of cross-language psychometric equivalence. However, the degree to which equivalence is given depends also on the constraints that are imposed upon the comparison procedure. If the aim is to construct an instrument that is equivalent on an item-by-item basis, it is necessary to test the congruence of the item pattern across groups. This can be performed by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A very constrained model uses the parameter estimates for the first sample as a standard and holds only if the parameters of the other two groups do not differ from this standard (Hocevar & El-Zahhar, 1985, 1992). The model was tested with the LISREL 8 program (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Input was a correlation matrix of the ten observed variables for each culture. Accordingly, the parameters were estimated by the unweighted least squares method. The model fit was evaluated in terms of chi-square, root mean square residuals (RMR), and various goodness of fit indices. The chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom can be seen as a less biased fit estimate (c2/df) than the chi-square itself because it is dependent on sample size. This quotient should be small, and values below three are considered to be satisfactory (Bentler, 1980; Bollen, 1989; Bollen & Long, 1993; Byrne, 1990). The root mean square residual should be very small with values below .05 being desirable. The goodness of fit index (GFI) should be above .92. The same applies to the adjusted GFI (AGFI; adjusted for degrees of freedom). These are rough fit indicators only. A more comprehensive assessment includes further fit indices as well as a careful inspection of the parameter estimates, accounted variance, and modification indices. First, a one-dimension confirmatory factor analysis was computed for each sample. This yielded the factor loadings in the first three columns of Table 2. ------- Insert Table 2 here ------The fit indices turned out to be excellent, which confirmed the unidimensionality of the instrument. For the German sample the fit was chi-2 = 31.56 (35 df, p = .64), chi-2/ df = .90, RMR = .037, GFI = .99, and AGFI = .99. For the Spanish version the fit was c2 = 59.53 (35 df, p = .006), c2/df = 1.70, RMR = .033, GFI = .99, and AGFI = .99. Although the c2 value was significant here, the model still fit very well. The obvious reason for this undesirable significance is the large sample size of the Costa Rican student group. For the Chinese sample the fit was c2 = 27.09 (35 df, p = .83), c2/df = .77, RMR = .041, GFI = .99, and AGFI = .99. So far, this CFA replicated the above principal component analyses at a more sophisticated level. The main purpose for application of CFA, however, was the very strict test of cross-language equivalence which was done by a multigroup analysis. The German sample data were given as the standard because the instrument was originally developed in German, and its validity is mainly given by studies with that particular version. The other two data sets were constrained to produce identical unweighted least squares parameter estimates. That is, technically the lambda X and theta delta matrices were to be the same as for the first group if this

model holds (invariance assumption). The goodness of fit for the constrained three-group model turned out to be c2 = 583.3 (145 df, p < .001), c2/df = 4.01, RMR = .15, and GFI = .93. This is clearly less favorable than the fit for the three separate models above. It indicates that the assumption of an item-by-item crosscultural equivalence is not very well supported by the data. By the same procedure, a common metric was provided. The factor loadings for the ten items, for the three groups combined, are given in column 4 of Table 2. Scale Characteristics The ten-item sum score had a theoretical range from 10 to 40, due to the 1 to 4 response format. For the German version the mean was 27.8 (SD = 4.5, N = 420). The distribution was somewhat negatively skewed (skewness = -.49), and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated deviations from normality (z = 2.02, p < .01). The mean in the Costa Rican sample was 33.2 (SD = 4.43, N = 943), also with a skewed distribution (skewness = -.71, z = 2.78, p <.01). For the Chinese version the mean was 24.56 and the standard deviation was 5.31 (N = 293). The sum scores were normally distributed according to the one-sample test by Kolmogorov-Smirnov (z = .98, p = .30). Figure 1 depicts the relative frequency distributions for the three samples. ------- Insert Figure 1 about here ------Language and Gender Differences There are obviously mean differences between these three data sets in terms of culture and gender. A twoway factorial analysis of variance (three levels of language and two levels of gender) was computed to determine these effects. Due to some missing values, the analysis was based on only 1,653 persons. Table 3 contains the cell means, standard deviations, and cell sizes. ------- Insert Table 3 here ------There was a significant main effect for language (F[2, 1647] = 400.39, p <.001, partial eta2 = .33), a significant main effect for gender (F[1, 1647] = 45.04, p <.001, partial eta2 = .03), and a significant interaction effect (F[2, 1647] = 10.47, p <.001, partial eta2 = .01). Significant gender differences emerged in the Chinese sample (t = 5.1, df = 291, p < .01) and in the German sample (t = 3.8, df = 417, p < .01), but not in the Costa Rican sample (t = 1.3, df = 939, p = .20). Figure 2 illustrates that women in Hong Kong and Germany obtained on the average lower self-efficacy scores than men. It also shows that Costa Rican students attained the highest mean levels and Hong Kongese students the lowest. ------- Insert Figure 2 about here ------Validity Self-efficacy in the German sample correlated with depression r = -.52, anxiety r = -.60, and optimism r = .55. In the Costa Rican sample it was associated with the same variables r = -.42, r = -.43, and r = .57, respectively. This pattern of correlations indicates sufficient discriminant validity and is in line with selfefficacy theory (Bandura, 1995a). Depression and anxiety as negative emotional traits need to be associated negatively with self-efficacy. Individuals who trust their competence to deal with adverse events cannot be severely depressed and anxious at the same time. The construct of dispositional optimism is closely related to the general self-efficacy construct, although it is not constrained to the notion of personal action resources. Thus, a moderate to high positive correlation has to be expected. The similarity between the obtained patterns of coefficients in the German and in the Spanish version points to some degree of crosslanguage validity of the instrument. Also, this is in line with previous findings within different German samples (Schwarzer, 1993). Further validity is indicated by the correlation of the scale with some other items in the Chinese multipurpose questionnaire. Some questions pertained to the stresses that people in Hong Kong might experience as they anticipate the transition from British to Chinese rule in 1997. There were two items that were designed to assess specific self-efficacy to deal with this stressful political transition: The first item was "I certainly can meet the challenges that are implied for me in the upcoming Chinese rule," and the second "I am confident that I can deal successfully with the challenges and threats that occur as the government changes in Hong Kong." The first item correlated with general self-efficacy r = .48, the second

r = .44. General self-efficacy need not necessarily be closely associated with a specific self-efficacy, but if it does so it may indicate validity. In sum, the three language versions of the scale can be considered psychometrically sound and, thus, they constitute adequate versions that can be used in subsequent research designed for further validation. Discussion The present study focussed on a comparison of two new scale adaptations (Spanish and Chinese) with the well-established German original version. It was found that in all three languages the psychometric properties were satisfactory. Reliability, item-total correlations, and factor loadings indicated that the General Self-Efficacy Scale can be seen as homogeneous and unidimensional. By achieving these characteristics it has been demonstrated that the self-efficacy construct tends to be a universal one, claiming construct validity across very different cultures. However, this is mainly a psychometric study, not a truly cross-cultural one. Psychometric equivalence across languages can be seen as a prerequisite for subsequent cross-cultural studies that also take indigenous characteristics of the specific cultures into account. The Chinese version is psychometrically the best one, with an internal consistency of .91 and a normal frequency distribution. The low mean levels of perceived self-efficacy could be interpreted as a cultural difference, since the Chinese are regarded as less individualistic than Westerners (Bond, 1991, 1994; Earley & Christopher, 1993, 1994). Thus, it would be interesting to compare their scores in future studies with corresponding levels of collective self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995b). On the other hand, the present data base is not representative for Chinese students or even for the Chinese population. The students in Hong Kong perceive themselves neither as typically Hong Kongese nor as typically Chinese. Bond (1994) has found that the self-ratings of these students form an isolated category that is distinct from the perceived traditional Chinese, contemporary Chinese, or Westerners. The high educational level, the Western influence, and the Chinese societal values may jointly contribute to the establishment of an identity that is unique for this particular cohort. Thus, any generalization of test results from the present sample to other segments of the Chinese population is premature. The lack of generalizability applies, strictly speaking, also to the Costa Rican samples because these were large samples of convenience. University students constitute an elite that has better opportunity structures and more options for environmental control than the majority of the population. But in comparing students across countries instead of within countries, no selection bias is expected. Thus, there is no reason to suspect that these data are severely biased. In particular, there is no reason to distrust the German findings since multiple samples from different cohorts have yielded similar results (see Schwarzer, 1993). A more general question is how to establish psychometric equivalence across languages by using advanced methodology. This can be seen as a gradual process of continuous replication of psychometric findings that add to construct validity within and across cultures. An ambitious quantitative approach to this problem lies in the specification of a measurement model that refers to more than one group simultaneously. For example, the model could simply postulate unidimensionality of the inventory in each sample. In a much more constrained manner, the model could state that all factor loadings and measurement errors should be the same across groups. It is the latter research question that has been applied in the present study. In order to determine whether such a model fits the data from several cultures, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was computed. It turned out that the model fit was not fully satisfactory. The results did not support the assumption very well that the factor loading pattern is exactly the same across cultures. Does this finding reject the assumption of cross-language equivalence? Certainly not, unless one demands a strict item-by-item equivalence of instruments. The translators had been asked to understand the theoretical construct of self-efficacy and to find meaningful adaptations instead of making literal translations of each item. Under such circumstances, the parameter estimates for the item pattern might be different from sample to sample, but the underlying construct of self-efficacy might still be assessed validly within each sample. A related problem arises by inspection of the mean differences between groups. Why have the Costa Rican students the highest self-efficacy means and the Chinese students the lowest? It is assumed that the Chinese have higher collective self-efficacy than "individualistic" self-efficacy (Bond, 1991, 1994). However, this difference could be also be an undesired side effect of the instrument development. Perhaps the Spanish items are "easier" than the Chinese items. This is a general problem of all cross-cultural studies using multilanguage versions of the same inventory. The endorsement of items is multiply determined. Among the factors that influence the endorsements are characteristics of the cultural context, those of item wording, and numerous biases, such as situational circumstances of test administration.

The same problem pertains to the mean differences between men and women. In most of the previous German samples under study there were no gender differences (Schwarzer, 1993), but in the present sample of German university students, men had higher self-efficacy than women. The same was found in the Chinese sample. In no study yet have the women obtained higher self-efficacy than men. This need not be a disadvantage of the instrument or the construct itself. Remember that, for example, anxiety, as measured by different instruments, is usually higher for women than for men. Research is needed to examine whether the construct of general self-efficacy favors men, or whether the present inventory contains a "male bias," and why in some instances gender differences emerge and in others not. The present analysis was restricted to samples of university students to assure some homogeneity of the populations under study. Several other samples, including senior citizens, have also responded to the questionnaire, but so far only in German. Therefore, they were not considered here. Further German validation studies can be found in the scale manual (Schwarzer, 1993). In spite of the limitations that are typical for cross-cultural studies, the psychometric properties of the parsimonious General Self-Efficacy Scale are now established for three languages. It is suggested that large-scale field studies may also include these ten items for enrichment purposes. For example, it could replace dispositional optimism or self-esteem scales that are often included in an exploratory manner. Selfesteem is frequently used as a global indicator of mental health, personal coping resources, and emotional adjustment without being theoretically elaborated. Compared to global self-esteem, perceived self-efficacy is a well-established construct, based on social-cognitive theory that has high explanatory and operative power (Bandura, 1995a). That is, it not only explains human functioning quite well, it is also easily alterable by interventions. The General Self-Efficacy Scale can be used in screening people at risk for coping deficiencies, which can set the stage for subsequent prevention programs. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1995a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995b), Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face. Insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Bond, M. H. (1994). Between the yin and the yang: The identity of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Bulletin (Supplement 31). Byrne, B. M. (1990). A primer of LISREL. New York: Springer. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (in press). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Earley, P., & Christopher, N. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further exploration of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 319-348. Earley, P., & Christopher, N. (1994). Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 89-117. Hocevar, D., & El-Zahhar, N. (1985). Test anxiety in the USA and Egypt: A paradigm for investigating psychometric characteristics across cultures. In H. M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 4, pp. 202-213). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hocevar, D., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross-cultural differences in test anxiety: Establishing transliteral equivalence. In K. A. Hagtvet & T. B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7, pp. 48-61). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1986). Selbstwirksamkeit [Self-efficacy]. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und Persönlichkeit. Research Report No. 5 (pp. 15-28). Berlin: Freie Universität, Institut für Psychologie. Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195-213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8.03. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Maddux, J. (Ed.) (1994). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York: Plenum. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228. Schwarzer, R. (Ed.) (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Schwarzer, R. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universität Berlin. Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A systematic overview. Psychology and Health: An International Journal, 9, 161-180. Schwarzer, R., Hahn, A. & Schröder, H. (1994). Social integration and social support in a life crisis: Effects of macrosocial change in East Germany. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 685-706. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1989). Erfassung leistungsbezogener und allgemeiner Kontroll- und Kompetenzerwartungen [Assessment of performance-related and general control and competence beliefs]. In G. Krampen (Ed.), Diagnostik von Attributionen und Kontrollüberzeugungen (pp. 127-133). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in coping with stress. In S. E. Hobfoll & M. W. deVries (Eds.), Extreme stress and communities: Impact and intervention (pp. 159177). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Sherer, M., & Maddux, J. E. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671. Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117-133. Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Wallston, K. A. (1992). Hocus-pocus, the focus isn't strictly on locus: Rotter's social learning theory modified for health. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 183-199. Zerssen, D. V. (1976). Depressivitäts-Skala (D-S) [Depressiveness scale (D-S)]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.

Table 1 Item Means and Corrected Item-Total Correlations for Ten SelfEfficacy Items in German, Spanish, and Chinese

Berlin Costa Rica Hong Kong (n = 420) (n = 943) (n = 293)

Item Mean Corre- Mean Corre- Mean Correlation lation lation

1 2.82 .39 3.09 .25 2.86 .66 2 3.18 .45 3.74 .36 2.40 .46 3 2.66 .50 3.17 .35 1.96 .53 4 2.38 .57 3.32 .56 2.34 .76 5 2.93 .61 3.21 .61 2.24 .74 6 2.69 .67 3.34 .63 2.81 .72 7 3.06 .54 3.22 .64 2.54 .76 8 2.33 .50 3.64 .51 2.46 .59 9 2.81 .56 3.08 .54 2.72 .69 10 2.92 .47 3.34 .52 2.19 .72

alpha .84 .81 .91

Table 2 Factor Loadings of the Ten Self-Efficacy Items (LISREL Unweighted Least Squares Parameter Estimates) in Group-Specific and Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses Item Common Metric German Spanish Chinese

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

.42 .48 .55 .63 .67 .75 .60 .54 .62 .52

.29 .39 .38 .63 .68 .72 .73 .56 .61 .58

.70 .49 .56 .81 .78 .76 .81 .62 .74 .75

.40 .43 .46 .66 .70 .73 .71 .57 .64 .60

Table 3 Self-Efficacy Scale Means and Standard Deviations Broken Down by Sample and Gender Sample Gender Mean SD n

Germany

Women Men

27.15 28.82 33.06 33.44 23.52 26.76

4.45 4.27 4.58 4.14 5.22 4.84

247 172 595 346 199 94

Costa Rica

Women Men

Hong Kong

Women Men

Figure Captions Figure 1. Relative frequency distributions of the sum score of the self-efficacy scale in each culture. Figure 2. Average self-efficacy scores for women and men in Germany, Costa Rica, and Hong Kong. Self efficacy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of article quality. See How to Edit a Page and the Style and How-to Guide for help, and remove this message when done. Self efficacy is an individual's estimate or personal judgment of his or her own ability to succeed in reaching a specific goal, e.g., quitting smoking or losing weight or a more general goal, e.g., continuing to remain at a prescribed weight level.

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self_efficacy&action=edit). self-efficacy (http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/wiked/index.php/Bandura) Self efficacy not only deals with personal judgment of ability, but also behavior. In the book Educational Psychology Developing Learners by Jeanne Ellis Ormrod, it states, "People are more likely to engage in certain behaviors when they believe they are capable of executing those behaviors successfully." This belief in self, can be related to many different areas. I may have a high or low self efficacy about learning to sky dive, or learning calculus, etc. Even though self efficacy is similar to self concept, it is important to remember that self efficacy deals with specific situations. I may have a high self efficacy to do a backflip, but not to do a bunch of cartwheels in a row. People's sense of self-efficacy, according to social cognitive theorists, affects their chioce of activities their effort and persistence, and their learnning and achievement. Here are 4 factors that affect the development of self-efficacy: 1)One's own previous successes and failures 2)Messages from others 3)Successes and failures of others 4)Successes and failures of the group as a whole. (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1989, 1997; Schunk, 1989a; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987) (Ormrod, 2003) Anolli 2005: "The optimism" You can measure your level of self efficacy by GSES (General Self Efficacy Scale) written and validated by Bandura. Self Efficacy is strongly related with optimism, well-being, and health. (e.g. Seligman, Pennebaker). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_efficacy" Categories: Wikipedia cleanup | Stub

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale1 (long form) Teacher Beliefs How much can you do? Directions: This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below. Your answers are confidential. Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great 1. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 2. How much can you do to help your students think critically? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 3. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 4. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 5. To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

6. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 7. How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students ? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 8. How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 9. How much can you do to help your students value learning? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 10. How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 11. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 12. How much can you do to foster student creativity? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 14. How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 15. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 16. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 17. How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 18. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 19. How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 20. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? (1)(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 21. How well can you respond to defiant students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 22. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 23. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 24. How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale1 (short form)

Teacher Beliefs How much can you do? Directions: This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below. Your answers are confidential. Nothing Very Little Some Quite A Bit A Great Deal 1. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 2. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 3. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 4. How much can you do to help your students value learning? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 5. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 6. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 7. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 8. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 9. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 10. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 11. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 12. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Directions for Scoring the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale1 Developers: Megan Tschannen-Moran, College of William and Mary Anita Woolfolk Hoy, the Ohio State University. Construct Validity For information the construct validity of the Teachers’ Sense of Teacher efficacy Scale, see: Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Factor Analysis It is important to conduct a factor analysis to determine how your participants respond to the questions. We have consistently found three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management, but at times the make up of the scales varies slightly. With preservice teachers we recommend that the full 24-item scale (or 12-item short form) be used, because the factor structure often is less distinct for these respondents. Subscale Scores To determine the Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale scores, we compute unweighted means of the items that load on each factor. Generally these groupings are: Long Form Efficacy in Student Engagement: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 22 Efficacy in Instructional Strategies: Items 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24 Efficacy in Classroom Management: Items 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 Short Form Efficacy in Student Engagement: Items 2, 3, 4, 11 Efficacy in Instructional Strategies: Items 5, 9, 10, 12 Efficacy in Classroom Management: Items 1, 6, 7, 8 Reliabilities In Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805, the following were found: Long Form Short Form Mean SD alpha Mean SD alpha OSTES 7.1 .94 .94 7.1 .98 .90 Engagement 7.3 1.1 .87 7.2 1.2 .81 Instruction 7.3 1.1 .91 7.3 1.2 .86 Management 6.7 1.1 .90 6.7 1.2 .86 1 Because this instrument was developed at the Ohio State University, it is sometimes referred to as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale. We prefer the name, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. Teacher Efficacy 1 A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented below. The purpose is to gather information regarding the actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or incorrect answers. We are interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will remain confidential. INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement by circling the appropriate response

at the right of each statement. KEY: 1=Strongly Agree 2=Moderately Agree 3=Agree slightly more than disagree 4=Disagree slightly more than agree 4=Moderately Disagree 6=Strongly Disagree 1. When a student does better than usually, many times it is because I exert a little extra effort. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their 123456 home environment. 3. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I have enough training to deal with almost any learning problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it 1 2 3 456 his/her level. 7. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found 1 2 3 4 5 6 better ways of teaching that student. 8. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home environment 1 2 3 4 5 6 large influence on his/her achievement. 10. Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement when all factors are 123456 considered. 11. When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more effective 1 23456 approaches. 12. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary 123456 steps in teaching that concept. 13. If parents would do more for their children, I could do more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to 1 2 3 4 5 6 increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 15. The influences of a student’s home experiences can be overcome by good teaching. 1 23456 16. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some 123456 techniques to redirect him/her quickly. 17. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess 1 2 3 4 5 6 whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 19. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. 1 23456 20. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can't do much because most of a student's 1 2 3 4 5 6 motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment. 21. Some students need to be placed in slower groups so they are not subjected to unrealistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 expectations. 22. My teacher training program and/or experience has given me the necessary skills to be 123456 an effective teacher 1 From Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. Originally based on the Teacher Efficacy Scale developed by S. Gibson & M. Dembo (1984). Teacher Efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Teacher Efficacy Scale (Short Form)* A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented below. The purpose is to gather information regarding the actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or incorrect answers. We are interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will remain confidential. INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement by circling the appropriate response at the right of each statement. KEY: 1=Strongly Agree 2=Moderately Agree 3=Agree slightly more than disagree 4=Disagree slightly more than agree 5=Moderately Disagree 6=Strongly Disagree 1. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any 1 2 3 4 5 6 discipline. 3. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home 1 2 3 4 5 6 environment is a large influence on his/her achievement. 5. If parents would do more for their children, I could do more. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would 1 2 3 4 5 6 know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 7. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly. 8. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to 1 2 3 4 5 6 accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 9. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated 1 2 3 4 5 6 students. 1O. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most 1 2 3 4 5 6 of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment. *In Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal 93, 356-372. ID Code: (Mother’s month and day of birth and her initials) Undergrad Degree__________________Institution_____________________________Major_______ _________________________Minor________________________ Please list the High School Advanced Placement classes you took, if any:_____________________________________________________________________ _ Teacher Confidence Scale INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your opinion about each statement by circling the appropriate response at the right of the statement. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in your frank opinions. Your responses are confidential. KEY: 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Moderately Disagree 3=Disagree slightly more than agree 4=Agree slightly more than disagree

5=Moderately Agree 6=Strongly Agree I am confident in my ability to Disagree--->Agree locate resources for preparing mathematics lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 teach science as a co-inquirer with students 1 2 3 4 5 6 use journals in teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 construct a web 1 2 3 4 5 6 integrate language arts teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 use a variety of assessment techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 determine the academic needs of my students 1 2 3 4 5 6 select appropriate literature for thematic teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 evaluate students’ work 1 2 3 4 5 6 teach effectively in an urban school 1 2 3 4 5 6 facilitate class discussions 1 2 3 4 5 6 establish a feeling of community in my classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 incorporate different activities and curricula into 1 2 3 4 5 6 science teaching develop an assessment rubric 1 2 3 4 5 6 create integrated lessons and units 1 2 3 4 5 6 construct student-centered activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 teach basic concepts of fractions 1 2 3 4 5 6 manage classrooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 teach algebra 1 2 3 4 5 6 use cooperative learning approaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 facilitate students’ communication about mathematics (through journals, discussions, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 explain the meaning of standardized test scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 to students and parents implement a variety of science teaching strategies that incorporate inquiry-based learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 develop number sense in children 1 2 3 4 5 6 build learning in science on children’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 intuitive understandings connect mathematics to literature 1 2 3 4 5 6 analyze my teaching in an objective and ethical manner 1 2 3 4 5 6 give students concrete experiences in learning mathematics 1 2 3 4 5 6 use media to support teaching and learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 evaluate software for teaching and learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 understand the impact of cultural diversity on 1 2 3 4 5 6 classroom content, context, & instructional strategies. define the social in social studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 Responsibility for Student Achievement* The Responsibility for Student Achievement Questionnaire DIRECTIONS: For each of the following questions, please give a weight or percent to each of the two choices according to your preferences. For example: If most students complete a home assignment you make, is it usually a. because of their personal motivation or b. because you were very clear in making the assignment? You may feel that students complete assignments more because of personal motivation than because of your clarity in making the assignment. In that case, you might answer: 85% a. 15% b. Or you may feel quite the opposite. The percentage will

vary according to how strongly you feel about each alternative. You may see choice (b) almost totally responsible for students completing assignments and might give it 99%. Choice (a) would then get 1%. The two must always add to 100%. 1. If a student does well in your class, would it probably be a. because that student had the natural ability to do well, or R+ b. because of the encouragement you offered? 2. When your class if having trouble understanding some something you have taught, is it usually R- a. because you did not explain it very clearly, or b. because your students are just slow in understanding difficult concepts? 3. When most of your students do well on a test, is it more likely to be a. because the test was very easy, or R+ b. because you let them know what you expected? 4. When a student in your class can't remember something you said just moments before, is it usually R- a. because you didn't stress the point strongly enough, or b. because some students just don't pay attention? 5. Suppose your chairman or principal says you are doing a fine job. Is that likely to happen R+ a. because you've been successful with most of your students, or b. because chairmen and principals say that sort of thing to motivate teachers? 6. Suppose you are particularly successful one one class. Would it probably happen R+ a. because you helped them overcome their learning difficulties, or b. because these students usually do well in school? 7. If your students learn an idea quickly, is it R+ a. because you were successful in encouraging their learning efforts, or b. because your students are basically intelligent? 8. If your chairman or principal suggests you change some of your class procedures, is it more likely a. because of his/her personal ideas about teaching methodology, or R- a. because your students haven’t been doing well? 9. When a large percent of the students in your class are doing poorly, does it usually happen a. because they have done poorly before and don't really try, or b. because you haven't had the time to give them all the help they need? 10. When your students seem to learn something easily, is it usually a. because they were already interested in it, or R+ b. because you have helped them organize the contents? 11. When students in your class forget something that you explained before, is it usually a. because most students forget new concepts quickly, or R- b. because you didn't get them actively involved in

learning? 12. When you find it hard to get a lesson across to particular students, is it R- a. because you haven't insisted on their learning earlier lessons, or b. because they are just slow in understanding and learning? 13. Suppose you present a new idea to your students and most of them remember it. Is it likely to be R+ a. because you reviewed and re-explained the difficult parts, or b. because they were interested in it even before you explained it? 14. When your students do poorly on a test, is it a. because they didn't really expect to do well, or R- b. because you didn't insist they prepare adequately? 15. When parents commend you on your work as a teacher, is it usually R+ a. because you have made a special effort with their child, or b. because their child is generally a good student? 16. If a child doesn't do well in your class, would it probably be a. because he did not work very hard, or R- b. because you didn't provide the proper motivation for him? 17. Suppose you don't have as much success as usual with a particular class. Would this happen R- a. because you didn't plan as carefully as usual, or b. because these students just had less ability than others? Continued 18. If one of your students says, "Ya know, you're a pretty good teacher," is it probably R+ a. because you make learning interesting for that student, or b. because students generally try to get on a teacher's good side? 19. Suppose you find that many students are eager to be in your class. Do you think this would happen a. because most students feel you have a nice personality, or R+ b. because you encourage most of your students to learn well 20. Suppose you are trying to help a student solve a particular problem but she is having great difficulty with it. Would that happen R- a. because you may not be explaining it her level, or b. because she is not used to being helped by adults? 21. When you find it easy to get a lesson across to a class, is it R+ a. because you could get most students to participate in the lesson, or b. because the lesson was an easy one to teach?

22. When a student in your class remembers something you talked about weeks before, is it usually a. because some students have that potential to remember things well, or R+ b. because you made the point interesting for that student? 23. If you are working with a student who can't remember a concept and he suddenly gets it, is that likely to happen R+ a. because you have him regular feedback on each learning step, or b. because he usually works on something until he gets it? 24. When you are having a hard time getting your students interested in a lesson, is it usually R- a. because you didn't have the time to plan the presentation well, or b. because your students are generally hard to motivate? 25. If one of your students says, “You're a rotten teacher!” is it probably a. because many of your students have learning problems, or R- b. because you haven't been able to give that student enough individual attention? 26. When your students seem interested in your lessons right from the beginning, is it a. because the topic is one which students generally find interesting, or R+ b. because you were able to get most of the students involved? 27. If you were to discover most of the students in your class doing very well, would it probably be a. because their parents were supporting the school's efforts, or R+ b. because you had been able to motivate them to work hard? 28. When your students seem to have difficulty learning something, is it usually a. because you are not willing to really work at it or R- b. because you weren't able to make it interesting for them? 29. If a parent is critical of you as a teacher, is it likely to be R- a. because you have difficulty getting that parent's child to do the work you require, or b. because that parent’s child is developmentally not ready to do well in your class? 30. On those days when you are depressed about teaching, is it a. because learning is a difficult activity for many of your students, or R- b. because you just weren't able to motivate students to work as hard as they should? *In Guskey, T. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51. Teacher Locus of Control*

Biserial Biserial Item Item Item Correlations Item Correlations 1. When the grades of your students improve, it is .30 more likely I+ a. because you found ways to motivate the students, or b. because the students were trying harder to do well. 2. Suppose you had difficulties in setting up .41 learning centers for students in your classroom. Would this probably happen a. because you lacked the appropriate materials, or I- b. because you didn't spend enough time in developing activities to go into the center? 3. Suppose your students did not appear to be .45 benefiting from a more individualized method of instruction. The reason for this would probably be I- a. because you were having some problems managing this type of instruction, or b. because the students in your class were such that they needed a more traditional kind of approach. 4. When a student gets a better grade on his report .38 card than he usually gets, is it a. because the student was putting more effort into his schoolwork, or I+ b. because you found better ways of teaching that student? 5. If the students in your class became disruptive .41 and noisy when you left them alone in the room for five minutes, would this happen I- a. because you didn't leave them interesting work to do while you were gone, or b. because the students were more noisy that day than they usually are? 6. When some of your students fail a math test, it .31 is more likely a. because they weren't attending to the lesson, or I- b. because you didn't use enough examples to illustrate the concept. 7. Suppose you were successful at using learning .29 centers with your class of 30 student. Would this occur I+ a. because you worked hard at It, or b. because your students easily conformed to the new classroom procedure? 8.When a student pulls his or her grade up from a .52 "C" to a "B," it is more likely I+ a. because you came up with an idea to motivate the student or b. because the student was trying harder to do well. 9 Suppose you are teaching a student a particular .43 concept in arithmetic or math and the student has trouble learning it. Would this happen

a. because the student wasn't able to understand it, or b. because you couldn’t explain it very well? 10. When a student does better in school .36 than he usually does, is it more likely a. because the student was trying harder or I+ b. because you tried hard to encourage the student to do better. 11. If you couldn't keep your class quiet, it .51 would probably be a. because the students came to school more rowdy than usual, or I- b. because you were so frustrated that you weren't able to settle them down. 12. Suppose a play put on by your class was voted .25 the "Best Class Play of the Year" by students and faculty in your school. Would it be I+ a. because you put in a lot of time and effort as the director, or b. because the students were cooperative? 13. Suppose it were the week before Easter .39 vacation and you were having some trouble keeping order in your classroom. This would more likely happen I- a. Because you weren't putting extra effort into keeping the students under control, or b. because the students were more uncontrollable than usual. 14. If one of your students couldn't do a class .46 assignment, would it be a. because the student wasn’t paying attention during the class lesson, or I- b. because you gave the student an assignment that wasn't on his or her level? Biserial Biserial Item Item Item Correlations Item Correlations 15. Suppose you wanted to teach a series of lessons .41 on Mexico, but the lessons didn't turn out as well as you had expected. This would more likely happen a. because the students weren't that interested in learning about Mexico, or I- b. because you didn't put enough effort into developing the lessons. 16. Suppose a student who does not typically .22 participate in class begins to volunteer his or her answers. This would more likely happen a. because the student finally encountered a topic of interest to him or her, or I+ b. because you tried hard to encourage the student to volunteer his or her answers. 17. Suppose one of your students cannot remain on .36 task for a particular assignment. Would this be more likely to happen I- a. because you gave the student a task

that was somewhat less interesting than most tasks, or b. because the student was unable to concentrate on his or her schoolwork that day? 18. Suppose you were unable to devise an .41 instructional system as requested by the principal, which would accommodate the "needs of Individual students" in your class. This would most likely happen a. because there were too many students in your class, or I- b. because you didn't have enough knowledge or experience with individualized instructional programs. 19. If the students in your class perform better than .28 they usually do on a test, would this happen a. because the students studied a lot for the test, or I+ b. because you did a good job of teaching the subject area. 20. When the performance of a student in your class .66 appears to be slowly deteriorating, it is usually I- a. because you weren’t trying hard enough to motivate him or her, or b. because the student was putting less effort into his or her schoolwork. 21. Suppose a new student was assigned to your class .51 and this student had a difficult time making friends with his or her classmates. Would it be more likely a. that most of the other students did not make an effort to be friends with the new student, or I- b. that you were not trying hard enough to encourage the other students to be more friendly toward the newcomer? 22. If the student in your class performed better on .35 a standardized achievement test given at the end of the year compared to students you had last year, it would probably be I+ a. because you put more effort into teaching this year, or b. because this year’s class of students were somewhat smarter than last year’s. 23. Suppose, one day, you find yourself reprimanding .25 one of your students more often than usual. Would this be more likely to happen a. because that student was misbehaving more than usual that day, or I- b. because you were somewhat less tolerant? 24. Suppose one of your underachievers does his or .37 her homework better than usual. This would probably happen a. because the student tried hard to do the assignment, or I+ b. because you tried hard to explain how to

do the assignment. 25. Suppose one of your students began to do better .37 schoolwork than he usually does. Would this happen I+ a. because you put much effort into helping the student do better, or b. because the student was trying harder to do well in school? *In Rose, J.S., & Medway, F.J., (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research,74, 185-190. Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument* Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate letters to the right of each statement. SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree UN = Uncertain D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree 1. When a student does better than usual in science, it is often because the teacher exerted SA A UN D SD a little extra effort. 2. I am continually finding better ways to teach science. SA A UN D SD 3. Even when I try very hard, I don't teach science as well as I do most subjects. SA A UN D SD 4. When the science grades of students improve, it is most often due to their teacher having SA A UN D SD found a more effective teaching approach. 5. I know the steps necessary to teach science concepts effectively. SA A UN D SD 6. I am not very effective in monitoring science experiments. SA A UN D SD 7. If students are underachieving in science, it is most likely due to ineffective science SA A UN D SD teaching. 8. I generally teach science ineffectively. SA A UN D SD 9. The inadequacy of a student's science background can be overcome by good teaching. SA A UN D SD 10. The low science achievement of some students cannot generally be blamed on their SA A UN D SD teachers. 11. When a low achieving child progresses in science, it is usually due to extra attention SA A UN D SD given by the teacher. 12. I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary science. SA A UN D SD 13. Increased effort in science teaching produces little change in some students' science SA A UN D SD achievement. 14. The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in science. SA A UN D SD 15. Students' achievement in science is directly related to their SA A UN D SD teacher's effectiveness in science teaching. 16. If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in science at school, it SA A UN D SD is probably due to the performance of the child's teacher. 17. I find it difficult to explain to students why science experiments work. SA A UN D SD

18. I am typically able to answer students' science questions. SA A UN D SD 19. I wonder if I have the necessary skills to teach science. SA A UN D SD 20. Effectiveness in science teaching has little influence on the achievement of students SA A UN D SD with low motivation. 21. Given a choice, I would not invite the principal to evaluate my science teaching. SA A UN D SD 22. When a student has difficulty understanding a science concept, I am usually at a loss SA A UN D SD as to how to help the student understand it better. 23. When teaching science, I usually welcome student questions. SA A UN D SD 24. I don't know what to do to turn students on to science. SA A UN D SD 25. Even teachers with good science teaching abilities cannot help some kids learn science. SA A UN D SD *In Riggs, I., & Knochs, L. (1990). Towards the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-637. BANDURA’S INSTRUMENT TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY SCALE This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinions about each of the statements below by circling the appropriate number. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name. Efficacy to Influence Decision making How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you express your views freely on important school matters? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Efficacy to Influence School Resources How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Instructional Self-Efficacy How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from the home? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to keep students on task on difficult assignments? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous lessons? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal 2 How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?

123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get students to work together? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on students’ learning? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get children to do their homework? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Disciplinary Self-Efficacy How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to prevent problem behavior on the school grounds? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement How much can you do to get parents to become involved in school activities? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal 3 How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement How much can you do to get community groups involved in working with the schools? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get churches involved in working with the school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with the school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate How much can you do to make the school a safe place? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get students to trust teachers? 123456789

Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you help other teachers with their teaching skills? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal 4 How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the administration to make the school run effectively? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to reduce school dropout? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? 123456789 Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
Research Instruments The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (developed at OSU) Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo: Long Form) Teacher Efficacy Scale (Hoy & Woolfolk: Short Form) The Teaching Confidence Scale Other Efficacy Scales Responsibility for Student Achievement Teacher Locus of Control The Webb Scales The Ashton Vignettes Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale

IMPORTANT NOTE FROM PROFESSOR FRANK PAJARES, PROMINENT SELF-EFFICACY RESEARCHER: Professor Bandura has written a short monograph entitled Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In it, he deals with issues of domain specification, gradations of change, content relevance, phrasing of items, response scale, item analysis, minimizing biases in responding, assessing collective efficacy, and validation. In appendixes, Professor Bandura provides illustrative scales of Exercise Self-Efficacy, Self-Efficacy to Regulate Eating Habits, Driving Efficacy, Problem-Solving Efficacy,

and Collective Efficacy. The often-used Children's Self-Efficacy Scale is also included (includes self-efficacy in enlisting social resources, self-efficacy for academic achievement, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, self-efficacy for leisure time skills and extracurricular activities, self-regulatory efficacy, self-efficacy to meet others' expectations, social self-efficacy, self-assertive efficacy, and self-efficacy for enlisting parental and community support). It includes also a Teacher Efficacy Scale. The Guide is currently available in English and in Spanish. If you'd like a copy of the Guide, please email Dr. Pajares: mparjare@emory.edu References on Teacher Efficacy Measurement The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale

If you want a copy of this scale including the long and short form and scoring directions, click here. Directions for Scoring the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale Developers: Megan Tschannen-Moran, College of William and Mary Anita Woolfolk Hoy, the Ohio State University. Construct Validity For information the construct validity of the Teachers’ Sense of Teacher efficacy Scale, see: Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. Factor Analysis It is important to conduct a factor analysis to determine how your participants respond to the questions. We have consistently found three moderately correlated factors: Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management, but at times the make up of the scales varies slightly. With preservice teachers we recommend that the full 24-item scale (or 12item short form) be used, because the factor structure often is less distinct for these respondents. Subscale Scores To determine the Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale scores, we compute unweighted means of the items that load on each factor. Reliabilities In Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805, the following were found: Long Form Mean 7.1 7.3 7.3 6.7 Short Form Mean 7.1 7.2 7.3 6.7

TSES (OSTES) Engagement Instruction Management

SD .94 1.1 1.1 1.1

alpha .94 .87 .91 .90

SD .98 1.2 1.2 1.2

alpha .90 .81 .86 .86

1

Because this instrument was developed at the Ohio State University, it is sometimes referred to as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES). We prefer the name, Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). UP Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo: Long Form)

If you want a

copy of this scale, click here.

Directions for Scoring the Teacher Efficacy Scale: Long Form 1. Construct validity For information the construct validity of the 22-item efficacy scale, see Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. 2. Factor Analysis When using the 22-item of the Teacher Efficacy Scale, it is important to conduct a factor analysis to determine how your subjects respond to the questions. We have consistently found two independent factors: Teaching Efficacy (TE) and Personal Efficacy (PE), but at times the make up of the scales varies slightly. For example, we often find that items 15 and 21 of the 22-item version do not load on either factor and must be dropped. 3. Reverse scoring: Given the 1="strongly agree" to 6="strongly disagree" format, if you want a high score on each scale to indicate strong sense of efficacy, then you must reverse the scoring for the Personal Efficacy items. Thus a "strongly agree" response to the statement, "When I try really, I can get through to most difficult students" must be reversed so that the respondent receives a score of 6 rather than 1. The reverse scored items on the 22-item version are: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15*, 16, 18, 19, 22 *Note that item 15 is the only reversed item that is from the Teaching Efficacy, not Personal Efficacy scale. 4. TE and PE Scores: To determine the TE and PE scores, we compute unweighed means of the items that load .35 or higher on each respective factor. We do not recommend combining the TE and PE scores to compute a total score because the TE and PE scales represent independent factors. UP Teacher Efficacy Scale (Hoy & Woolfolk: Short Form)

If you want a

copy of this scale, click here.

Directions for Scoring the Teacher Efficacy Scale: Short Form

1. Construct validity For information the construct validity of the 10-item efficacy scale, see Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Organizational socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300. 2. Factor Analysis It is important to conduct a factor analysis to determine how your subjects respond to the questions. We have consistently found two independent factors: Teaching Efficacy (TE) and Personal Efficacy (PE), but at times the make up of the scales varies slightly. 3. Reverse scoring: Given the 1="strongly agree" to 6="strongly disagree" format, if you want a high score on each scale to indicate strong sense of efficacy, then you must reverse the scoring for the Personal Efficacy items. Thus a "strongly agree" response to the statement, "When I try really, I can get through to most difficult students" must be reversed so that the respondent receives a score of 6 rather than 1. The reverse scored items on the 10-item version are: 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 4. TE and PE Scores: To determine the TE and PE scores, we compute unweighed means of the items that load .35 or higher on each respective factor. We do not recommend combining the TE and PE scores to compute a total score because the TE and PE scales represent independent factors. The Teaching Confidence Scale

If you want a

copy of the Teaching Confidence scale, click here

Directions for Scoring the Teaching Confidence Scale This scale was developed in order to devise a program-specific measure of efficacy. In an attempt to identify an appropriate level of specificity for assessing efficacy in our preservice teacher preparation program, we surveyed all the instructors who worked with the prospective teacher cohorts, asking the instructors what students should be able to do after completing the coursework. After removing redundancies, the result was a list of 32 teaching skills such as manage classrooms, evaluate student work, use cooperative learning approaches, teach basic concepts of fractions, and build learning in science on children’s intuitive understandings. We then designed a questionnaire, named the Teaching Confidence Scale (initially called the OSU Teaching Confidence Scale because it focused on skills in our program), that asked students to rate on a 6-point scale how confident they were in their ability to accomplish each skill, the higher the score, the more confident. We then calculated a total average score for each respondent. In our first study, based on the average score for the entire 32-item scale, the alpha coefficient of reliability was in the 95. In order to create a measure appropriate for your program, you would have to determine what students should be able to do after completing your requirements and then build a scale based on these expectations. 1. Construct validity

For information the construct validity of the Teaching Confidence Scale, see Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. 2. Factor Analysis As described in Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000, April), Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching, we performed a principal-axis factor analysis using Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1 (Kaiser, 1974) in combination with Cattell’s scree test (Cattell, 1965) to determine the number of factors (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Three factors emerged and accounted for 70% of the variance. Some of the items loaded on two or all three factors, so these items were dropped and the remaining items analyzed into three factors with varimax rotation. The three factors seem to represent confidence to teach math and science, confidence to use instructional innovations, and confidence to manage classrooms. It is important to conduct a factor analysis to determine how your subjects respond to your questions. Other Efficacy Scales 1. Responsibility for Student Achievement

For a

copy of the Responsibility for Student Achievement scale, click here.

Shortly after the first Rand study was published, Guskey developed a 30-item instrument measuring Responsibility for Student Achievement (Guskey, 1981). For each item, participants were asked to distribute 100 percentage points between two alternatives, one stating that the event was caused by the teacher and the other stating that the event occurred because of factors outside the teacher’s immediate control. Consistent with explanations from attributional theory (Weiner, 1979, 1992, 1994), four types of causes were offered for success or failure: specific teaching abilities, the effort put into teaching, the task difficulty, and luck. Scores on the Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA) yielded a measure of how much the teacher assumed responsibility for student outcomes in general, as well as two subscale scores indicating responsibility for student success (R+) and for student failure (R-). The 100-point scale proved cumbersome and in subsequent uses the scale was reduced to 10 points for the teacher to divide between the alternative explanations. When Guskey (1982, 1988) compared scores from the RSA with teacher efficacy (TE) as measured by the sum of the two Rand items, he found significant positive correlations between teacher efficacy and responsibility for both student success (R+) and student failure (R-). He reported strong intercorrelations ranging from.72-\ to .81 between overall responsibility and responsibility for student success and student failure while the subscales for student success and student failure were only weakly related (.20) or not at all (Guskey, 1981, 1988). Guskey asserted that positive and negative performance outcomes represent separate dimensions, not opposite ends of a single continuum, and that these dimensions operate independently in their influence on perceptions of efficacy (Guskey, 1987). In general, teachers assumed greater responsibility for positive results than for negative results, that is, they were more confident in their ability to influence positive outcomes than to prevent negative ones. Greater efficacy was related to a high level of confidence in teaching abilities on a measure of teaching self-concept (Guskey, 1984). In an extensive review of the research on teacher efficacy, no published studies were found in which other researchers had adopted this measure.

Responsibility for Student Achievement (Guskey, 1981) Format: Participants are Example Items asked to give a weight or percent to each of the

two choices. Scoring: A global measure of responsibility, with two subscales: responsibility for student success (R+) & responsibility for student failure (R-)

If a student does well in your class, would it probably be a. because that student had the natural ability to do well, or b. because of the encouragement you offered? When your students seem to have difficulty learning something, is it usually a. because you are not willing to really work at it, or b. because you weren’t able to make it interesting for them?

2. Teacher Locus of Control

For a

copy of the Teacher Locus of Control scale, click here.

At the same time as Guskey developed the RSA, Rose and Medway (1981) proposed a 28item measure called the Teacher Locus of Control (TLC) in which teachers were asked to assign responsibility for student successes or failures by choosing between two competing explanations for the situations described. Half the items on the TLC describe situations of student success while the other half describe student failure. For each success situation, one explanation attributes the positive outcome internally to the teacher (I+) while the other assigns responsibility outside the teacher, usually to the students. Similarly, for each failure situation, one explanation gives an internal teacher attribution (I-) while the other blames external factors. Scores on the TLC have been weakly but significantly related to the individual Rand items (GTE and PTE) as well as to the sum of the two Rand items (TE) with correlations generally ranging from .11 to .41 (Coladarci , 1992; Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988). Rose and Medway (1981) found that the TLC was a better predictor of teacher behaviors than Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Scale, probably because it was more specific to a teaching context. For example, the TLC predicted teachers’ willingness to implement new instructional techniques, whereas Rotter’s I-E Scale did not. To further examine the TLC and the two Rand items, Greenwood, Olejnik, and Parkay (1990) dichotomized teachers’ scores on the two Rand questions and cross-partitioned them into four efficacy patterns. They found that teachers with high efficacy on both measures (I can, teachers can) had more internally-oriented scores on the TLC for both student success and student failure than teachers who scored low on both (I can’t, teachers can’t). This measure never received wide acceptance and has all but disappeared from view in the past decade. Teacher Locus of Control (Rose & Medway, 1981) Format: 28 items with a forced-choice format. Example Items

Suppose you are teaching a student a particular concept in Scoring: Half of the arithmetic or math and the student has trouble learning it. Would items describe situations this happen of student success (I+) and half describe student a. because the student wasn’t able to understand it, or failure (I-). b. because you couldn’t explain it very well? If the students in your class perform better than they usually do on a test, would this happen a. because the students studied a lot for the test, or b. because you did a good job of teaching the subject area?

3. The Webb Scales

For a

copy of the Webb Scales, click here.

At about the same time as the RSA and the TLC were being developed, a third group of researchers sought to expand the Rand efficacy questions to increase their reliability. The Webb Scale (Ashton, et al., 1982) was an attempt to extend the measure of teacher efficacy while maintaining a narrow conceptualization of the construct. To reduce the problem of social desirability bias, Webb and his colleagues used a forced-choice format with items matched for social desirability. They found that teachers who scored higher on the Webb Efficacy Scale evidenced fewer negative interactions (less negative affect) in their teaching style (Ashton, et al, 1982). This measure, however, never met with wide acceptance and we found no published work beyond the original study in which the scale was used. Webb Efficacy Scale (Ashton, et al. 1982). Format: 7 items, forced choice. Participants must determine if they agree most strongly with the first or the second statement. Example Items A. A teacher should not be expected to reach every child; some students are not going to make academic progress. B. Every child is reachable. It is a teacher’s obligation to see to it that every child makes academic progress. A. My skills are best suited for dealing with students who have low motivation and who have a history of misbehavior in school. B. My skills are best suited for dealing with students who are academically motivated and generally well behaved. 4. The Ashton Vignettes

For a

copy of the Ashton Vignettes, click here.

In order to address the assumption that teacher efficacy is context specific, Ashton and her colleagues (1984) developed a series of vignettes describing situations a teacher might encounter and asking the teacher to make a judgment as to their effectiveness in handling the situation. The researchers tested two frames of reference for judgments. The first asked teachers to judge how they would perform in the described situation on a scale from "extremely ineffective" to "extremely effective." The second version asked teachers to make a comparison to other teachers, from "much less effective than most teachers" to "much more effective than most teachers." The norm-reference vignettes in which teachers compared themselves to other teachers were significantly correlated with Rand items but the self-referenced vignettes, rating effectiveness or ineffectiveness, were not (Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984; Ashton & Webb, 1986). Teachers also were asked to indicate the level of stress in each of the situations but, with correlations between efficacy and stress ranging from -.05 to -.82, with an average of -.39, it was concluded that stress could not be used as a proxy for efficacy. This measure has not received wide acceptance. Only one study was found where it was used since it was used in the original study.

Ashton Vignettes (Ashton, et al. 1982). Format: 50 items describing problem situations concerning various dimensions of teaching, including Example Items Your school district has adopted a self-paced instructional program for remedial students in your area. How effective would you be in keeping a group of remedial students on task and engaged in

motivation, discipline, academic instruction, planning, evaluation, and work with parents. Selfreferenced: "extremely ineffective" to "extremely effective." Normreferenced: "much less effective than most teachers" to "much more effective than other teachers."

meaningful learning while using these materials? A small group of students is constantly whispering, passing notes and ignoring class activities. Their academic performance on tests and homework is adequate and sometimes even good. Their classroom performance, however, is irritating and disruptive. How effective would you be in eliminating their disruptive behavior?

5. Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument

For a

copy of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument, click here.

Science educators have conducted extensive research on the effects of efficacy on science teaching and learning. Riggs and Enochs (1990) developed an instrument, based on the Gibson and Dembo approach, to measure efficacy of teaching science--the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). Consistent with Gibson and Dembo they have found two separate factors, one they called personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and a second factor they labeled science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). The two factors are uncorrelated. Exploring an even greater level of specificity, Rubeck and Enochs (1991) distinguished chemistry teaching efficacy from science teaching efficacy. They found that among middle-school science teachers, personal science teaching efficacy (PTE for teaching science) was correlated with preference to teach science, and that chemistry teaching self-efficacy (PTE for teaching chemistry) was related to preference to teach chemistry. Chemistry teaching self-efficacy was related to science teaching self-efficacy, and science teaching self-efficacy was significantly higher than chemistry teaching selfefficacy. Science teaching self-efficacy was related to the teacher’s experiences taking science courses with laboratory experiences and to experience teaching science, while chemistry self-efficacy was related to chemistry course work involving lab experiences and chemistry teaching experience. This instrument has been used in several studies (see Enochs, Posnanski, & Hagedorn, 1999). Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (Riggs & Enochs, 1990) Format: 25 item 5 point Example Items Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in disagree. teaching elementary science. Effectiveness in science teaching has little influence on the achievement of students with low motivation. 6. Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale

For a

copy of the Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale, click here

In the midst of the confusion about how to best measure teacher efficacy, an unpublished measure used by Bandura in his work on teacher efficacy has begun quietly circulating. Bandura (1997) pointed out that teachers’ sense of efficacy is not necessarily uniform across the many different types of tasks teachers are asked to perform, nor across different subject matter. In response, he constructed a 30-item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate. Each item is measured on a 9-point scale anchored with the notations: "nothing, very little, some

influence, quite a bit, a great deal." This measure attempts to provide a multi-faceted picture of teachers’ efficacy beliefs without becoming too narrow or specific. Unfortunately, reliability and validity information about the measure have not been available. Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (unpublished) Format: 30 items on a 9 point scale anchored at nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal. 7 subscales: Influence on decision making, influence on school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, enlisting parental involvement, enlisting community involvement, and creating a positive school climate. Example Items How much can you influence the decisions that are made in your school? How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on student learning? How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school? How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with your school? How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school? How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? References Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34 (2), 148-165. Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A. Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. (REPORT NO. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243). Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L. & McAuliffe, M. (1982, April). Measurement problems in the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton, P., Buhr, D., & Crocker, L. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: A self- or normreferenced construct? Florida Journal of Educational Research, 26 (1), 29-41. Ashton, P.T. (1985). Motivation and teachers’ sense of efficacy. In C. Ames and R. Ames (Eds.) Research on Motivation in Education Vol. 2: The Classroom Milieu . (pp. 141-174) Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R. B., (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Bandura, A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., Zellman, G. (1977). Federal Programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW) Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432). Brookover, W., Schweitzer, J., Schneider, C., Beady, C. Flood, P., & Wisenbaker, J. (1978). Elementary school social climate and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318. Brookover, W., Beady, C. Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York: Bergin. Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M.G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April) A path analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers’ experiences, reactions, and plans. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337. Coladarci, T., & Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource-room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 230-239. Coladarci, T., & Fink, D. R. (1995, April). Correlations among measures of teacher efficacy: Are they measuring the same thing? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Emmer, E. (1990, April). A scale for measuring teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA; (Revised, June, 1990). Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Enochs, L. G., Posnanski, T, & Hagedorn, E. (1999, March). Science teaching self-efficacy beliefs: Measurement, recent research, and directions for future research. Paper presented at the National Association of Research in Science Education, Boston, MA. Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80 (2), 81-85. Forsyth, P. B. & Hoy, W. K. (1978). Isolation and alienation in educational organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14, 80-96. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M., (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211. Glickman, C., & Tamashiro, R., (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in Schools, 19, 558-562. Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102-106. Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51. Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers’ perceptions of personal control of positive versus negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 7080. Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245-259. Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69 Guskey, T. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 439-453. Guskey, T., & Passaro, P. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643. Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992). An attempt to explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Henson, R. K., Bennett, D. T., Sienty, S. F., & Chambers, S. M. (2000, April). The relationship between means-end task analysis and context specific and global efficacy in emergency certification teachers: Exploring a new model of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93,356-372. Lee, V., Dedick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208. Lucas, K., Ginns, I., Tulip, D., & Watters, J. (1993). Science teacher efficacy, locus of control and self-concept of Australian preservice elementary school teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for research in Science Teaching, Atlanta. Meijer, C. & Foster, S. (1988) The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378-385. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J., (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student selfand task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Newman, F.M., Rutter, R.A. & Smith, M.S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 533-578. Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S. & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationship among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(4), 13-22. Podell, D. & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86 , 247-253. Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167. Riggs, I. (1995). The characteristics of high and low efficacy elementary teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. Riggs, I., Diaz, E. Riggs, M. et al. (1994). Impacting elementary teachers’ beliefs and performance through teacher enhancement for science instruction in diverse settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA. Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-638. Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J., (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185-190. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 , 385-400. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28. Saklofske, D., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Report, 63, 407-414. Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social and Personality Psychology, 71, 549-570. Soodak, L.& Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81. Soodak, L.& Podell, D. (1996). Teaching efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multifaceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 , 401-412.. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M.C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

Trentham, L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in Schools, 22, 343-352. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202-248. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research, 64, 557-573. Willower, D.J., Eidell, T.L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology. Penn State Studies Monograph No. 24. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K., (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Articles and clipping about education psychology, environmental education, attitude, behavior, scale and measurement, adult education, most of all due to my recent research. (Kumpulan artikel tentang pendidikan, psikologi pendidikan, pendidikan lingkungan hidup, skala dan pengukuran sikap dan perilaku, semua berkaitan dengan penelitian baru-baru ini).