Subido por Delvis Leonel Fernandez Alminco

analisis factorial ingles

Anuncio
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
689
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2005), 75, 689–708
q 2005 The British Psychological Society
The
British
Psychological
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher
Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers
Gypsy M. Denzine1*, John B. Cooney2 and Rita McKenzie3
1
Northern Arizona University, USA
University of Northern Colourado, USA
3
Buena Vista University, USA
2
Background. Research on teacher self-efficacy has revealed substantive problems
concerning the validity of instruments used to measure teacher self-efficacy beliefs.
Although claims about the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on student
achievement, success with curriculum innovation, and so on, may be true statements,
one cannot make those claims on the basis of that body of evidence if the instruments
are not valid measures of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Aims. The purpose of this investigation is to employ the use of modern confirmatory
factor-analytic techniques to investigate the validity of the hypothesized dimensions
of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
Sample. Participants for this investigation were 387 prospective teachers recruited
from a university located in the south-western region of the UA. Participants for Study
2 were 131 prospective elementary teachers recruited from the same university as in
Study 1.
Results. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure was used to evaluate the
goodness-of-fit for two theoretical models of the TES items. The proposed two- and
three-factor models of teacher self-efficacy for prospective teachers were rejected.
A re-specified three-factor model of the TES was then derived from theoretical and
empirical considerations. The re-specified model hypothesized three dimensions:
self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and external locus-of-causality. In Study
2, the re-specified three-factor measurement model was evaluated in a new sample.
Results of the CFA procedure indicated satisfactory fit of the re-specified model to the
data; however, the results were not consistent with predictions derived from social
learning theory.
Conclusions. The results of this study call into question the use of the TES and the
interpretation of a large body of literature purporting to study the relationship
of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs to important educational outcomes.
* Correspondence should be addressed to Gypsy M. Denzine, Associate Dean, College of Education, Northern Arizona
University, PO Box 5774, NAU, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).
DOI:10.1348/000709905X37253
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
690
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
Since two Rand Corporation studies (Armor et al., 1976; Berman & McLaughlin, 1977)
investigated the role of teacher self-efficacy in teaching effectiveness, there has been a
steady increase in research in this area. The construct of teacher self-efficacy refers to
teachers’ beliefs about their ability to have a positive affect on student learning and their
achievement (Ashton, 1984). Previous research indicates teacher self-efficacy is related to
teachers’ success in curriculum innovation (Berman & McLaughlin, 1977), beliefs about
students’ capabilities (Ashton, 1984) and intelligence (Klein, 1996), quality of student
relationships (Ashton & Webb, 1986), confidence in working with parents (HooverDempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987), time spent on academic learning (Allinder, 1995), selfefficacy of low-achieving students (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), and their ability
to hold students accountable for their learning and performance (Ashton & Webb, 1986).
The more recent research on teacher self-efficacy has revealed substantive problems
concerning the validity of instruments used to measure teacher self-efficacy
beliefs (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003; Colardci & Fink, 1995; Henson, 2001, 2002; Henson,
Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001; Pajares, 1992; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
Although claims about the influence of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs on student
achievement, success with curriculum innovation, and so on, may be true statements,
one cannot make those claims on the basis of that body of evidence if the instruments
are not valid measures of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. And, although new instruments
for the measurement of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have recently appeared in the
literature (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) it is necessary to make sense of the existing
body of data. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to employ the use of modern
confirmatory factor-analytic techniques to investigate the validity of the hypothesized
dimensions of the TES (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) and to explore
alternative interpretations in the event the hypothesized dimensions are disconfirmed.
A brief history
In the original Rand studies, teacher self-efficacy was measured by asking two questions:
(a) ‘When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a
student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment’, and
(b) ‘If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated
students’. The first question was hypothesized to assess teachers’ outcome
expectations, typically labelled teaching efficacy (TE). In contrast, the second item
was hypothesized to reflect personal teaching efficacy (PE). From this perspective, TE
relates to a teacher’s outcome expectations and PE is based on the teacher’s judgments
of his or her personal ability to influence student learning. Early Rand researchers
grounded teacher self-efficacy in Rotter’s (1966) locus of control construct and placed
significant emphasis on outcome expectations and personal responsibility when
interpreting efficacy scores. Later, Ashton and Webb aligned the construct with a socialcognitive theoretical perspective of self-efficacy (1977, 1978). In contrast to the locus of
control perspective, the social-cognitive approach emphasizes the relations between
efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. According to Bandura, outcome and efficacy
beliefs are related but can be conceptually and empirically differentiated (1986, 1997).
For Ashton and Webb, TE and PE represent measures of outcome expectations and
efficacy expectations, respectively.
One of the earliest attempts to measure the dimensions of teacher self-efficacy was
conducted by Gibson and Dembo (1984), who developed the Teacher Efficacy Scale
(TES) based on Ashton and Webb’s conceptual model. Gibson first piloted a 53-item
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
691
version of the TES with 90 experienced teachers (Gibson & Brown, 1982). Based on
results from a principal-factor analysis with orthogonal rotation, the authors reduced the
TES to 30 items. Gibson and Dembo administered the revised 30-item TES to 208
elementary school teachers selected from 13 schools, with two-thirds of the sample
having 10 or more years of teaching experience. Results of a principal-factor analysis on
the TES items were used to infer the existence of two independent dimensions
(r ¼ :19). By eliminating items with a factor pattern coefficient less than .45 (items that
did not contribute to the reliability of the scale, and items that did not exhibit simple
structure), the TES was reduced from 30 items to 16 items. Factor 1 (labelled PE)
accounted for 18.2% of the total variance with a Cronbach’s a coefficient of .78 for the
scores on this scale. Factor 2 (labelled TE) accounted for 10.6% of the total variance with
a Cronbach’s a coefficient of .75 for the scores of this scale. Gibson and Dembo
interpreted their findings to be consistent with Bandura’s model, which states that PE
corresponds to self-efficacy, whereas TE measures an outcome expectancy dimension.
Extending the research on teacher self-efficacy to prospective teachers, Woolfolk
and Hoy (1990) administered a version of the TES that included the 16 items from the
TES developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984), two items concerning the adequacy of
their teacher preparation programme, and the two original Rand items. Woolfolk and
Hoy administered the TES to 182 undergraduate liberal arts majors (155 women and 27
men) enrolled in the teacher preparation programme at a state university in the eastern
region of the USA. The majority of the participants were sophomores (87%), with the
remaining 13% equally divided between freshmen and seniors. In the USA, sophomore
refers to second-year students. Freshmen, juniors, and seniors are first, third, and fourthyear students, respectively. Seventy percent of their sample were between the ages of 20
and 30. Fifty-seven percent of the sample were seeking certification in elementary
education, and the remaining 43% sought certification in secondary education.
Results from a principal axis factor analysis (using squared multiple correlations on
the diagonal and the PA2 extraction option in SPSSx) of the TES items were interpreted
by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) to compose two dimensions of teacher efficacy that
account for 27% of the variance in the data. Because the factors were essentially
uncorrelated (r ¼ :008), it was further argued that the dimensions are independent.
The factor structure and factor pattern coefficients were very similar to those reported
by Gibson and Dembo (1984). Consistent with previous researchers, Woolfolk and Hoy
labelled their two factors as teaching efficacy and personal efficacy; however,
they hypothesized that the TE factor is a measure of one’s beliefs about the ability of
teachers in general rather than a measure of outcome expectations, per se. To illustrate,
the item with the highest factor pattern coefficient for the TE factor reads, ‘A teacher is
very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student’s home environment is a large
influence on his/her achievement’. Cronbach’s a coefficients for the scores on the 12 PE
items and eight TE were .82 and .74, respectively. Two items (‘the influence of a
student’s home experiences can be overcome by good teaching’, and ‘some students
need to be placed in slower groups so they are not subjected to unrealistic
expectations’) were dropped because they were unrelated to either factor.
In further analysis, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) evaluated Guskey’s (1981) claim that PE
itself is actually composed of two dimensions. According to Guskey, positive and
negative student outcomes are different facets of responsibility that differentially
influence personal efficacy. The three-factor solution accounted for 32.8% of the
variance. The factor pattern coefficients for TE items were similar in the two- and threefactor solutions; however, the PE items separated into two moderately, but inversely
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
692
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
related (r ¼ 2:402) dimensions in the three-factor solution. Wookfolk and Hoy
interpreted their three-factor solution as being consistent with Guskey’s interrelated
dimensions of personal responsibility for positive (PE) and negative (PE) student
outcomes. Ultimately, however, Woolfolk and Hoy opted for parsimony by adhering to
the two-factor solution on the grounds that the relationships between efficacy and other
relevant independent variables (e.g. beliefs about control) remained the same whether
they used the two- or three-factor solution.
In their study based on 161 pre-service teachers, Emmer and Hickman (1991)
concluded the construct of teacher self-efficacy might be divided into three dimensions:
personal efficacy in the areas of management and discipline, external influences, and
personal teaching efficacy. They argue classroom management/discipline efficacy is
distinct from other types of teacher efficacy. Emmer and Hickman used the method of
principal axis factor analysis, followed by rotation using the varimax criterion. Although
the researchers claim their results support and extend the conception of teacher
efficacy advanced by Gibson and Dembo (1984), their interpretation of the obtained
factor structure may be challenged. Most concerning is the researchers’ decision to
move five items from one factor to another in order to provide a better conceptual fit of
the data. For example, the item, ‘if a student did not remember information I gave in
a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her reaction in the next lesson’ had
a factor pattern coefficient of .57 for the classroom management/discipline efficacy
factor but was moved to the personal teaching efficacy factor even though it had a factor
pattern coefficient of less than .25 for this factor.
Soodak and Podell (1996) replicated the factor structure obtained by Woolfolk and
Hoy (1990) in both the two- and three-factor solutions in a sample of 310 experienced
teachers (with a mean of 9.2 and a standard deviation of 8.2 years of
teaching experience). Soodak and Podell, however, disagreed with Guskey’s (1981)
interpretation that PE is composed of positive and negative dimensions of the same
underlying construct. Rather, they claim the three factors of the TES reflect independent
dimensions of personal efficacy, outcome efficacy, and teaching efficacy. In a subsequent
study, Soodak and Podell (1997) replicated the two-factor structure of the TES in a
sample composed of 169 prospective teachers and 626 experienced teachers.
The average number of teaching years was 7.7 (SD ¼ 7:6) for the experienced teacher
group. No differences were found between experienced and prospective teachers in
ANOVA tests on the scales. The researchers, however, did not investigate the invariance
of the measurement model across the two groups.
Guskey and Passaro (1994) administered the TES (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) to a
sample of 283 experienced teachers, (average 10.4 years teaching experience) and 59
prospective teachers. There were no differences in elements of the variance/covariance
matrix of item responses between the experienced and prospective teachers. The factor
model, however, was not evaluated for invariance. Although their results replicated the
factor pattern found by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), Guskey and Passaro concluded that
the two dimensions of teacher self-efficacy do not represent PE and TE. Rather, they
interpreted the scales as reflecting internal and external dimensions of efficacy.
According to Guskey (1998), the internal and external dimension is similar to, but not
isomorphic with, Rotter’s (1966) locus of control construct. The internal dimension
measures the extent to which teachers believe they, and teachers in general, can or do
have influence on students’ learning. Whereas the external dimension measures
teachers’ perceptions of the influences of factors that exist outside the classroom,
beyond the teacher’s control. Guskey distinguished these dimensions from internal
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
693
and external locus of control variables by arguing they are distinct and independent, not
simply opposite poles on a continuum, as is the case with the internal/external
dimensions of locus of control. Further, Guskey argued that previous studies have yet to
explain or describe the construct of teacher self-efficacy with these two dimensions, as
there may be other factors playing equally important roles in the construct of teacher
self-efficacy.
Deemer and Minke (1999) used a modified version of Gibson and Dembo’s (1984)
TES to test Woolfolk and Hoy’s (1990) hypothesis that items load onto factors due in part
to wording confounds within the scale, specifically the positive and negative
orientations of the items (‘I can: : :’ and ‘teachers cannot: : :’). This confound was
also pointed out by Guskey and Passaro (1994), who suggested internal and external
dimensions of efficacy instead of personal and teacher efficacy. Therefore, Deemer and
Minke investigated a two-factor solution indicating factors that would reflect the
positive or negative orientation of the wording of the items, and a four-factor structure,
which included Guskey and Passaro’s internal/external dimensions. The four-factor
solution was hypothesized to show items clustering into positive and negative
dimensions for both internally and externally oriented TES items. Two modified versions
of the TES, comprised the 16 Gibson and Dembo items and one of the items from
Woolfolk and Hoy’s instrument were used, reflecting items all written in the first person
with positively and negatively oriented wording available for each item. The sample
included 196 practising teachers, who were administered one of the two differently
worded versions of the TES. One group had an average of 6.8 years teaching experience,
while the other had 8.4 years of teaching experience. Using principal axis factoring with
oblimin rotation, it was found that the four-factor structure was not adequate, as items
did not cluster meaningfully into the internal/external and positive/negative
dimensions. In addition, the two-factor structure was not adequate, as items failed to
load meaningfully on either of the two proposed factors.
While the majority of previous researchers have employed exploratory factoranalytic techniques, Kushner (1993) used a confirmatory factor-analytic approach to
investigate a measurement model underlying the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Kushner
tested the two-factor model proposed by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) with two samples of
pre-service teachers. In an effort to validate the use of the TES for pre-service teachers,
Kushner modified several items so that they would better reflect an individuals’ status as
a future teacher. In this study, the wording of the 12 PE items used by Woolfolk and Hoy
was modified, to reflect status as a future teacher. For example, wording such as ‘when I
really try: : :’ was changed to ‘if I really try: : :’. The eight items from the TE scale were
not modified. The two original Rand items were not included in this study. The modified
scale was administered twice, once during the summer term to 192 pre-service
education majors and again in the autumn term to 162 pre-service education majors.
Principal axis factoring using PA2 and varimax rotation resulted in the researchers’
interpretation of a two-factor solution for the first administration. Results from the EFA
revealed several departures from Woolfolk and Hoy’s two-factor model interpretation.
Specifically, two PE items (Item 15 ‘if a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy,
I will know some techniques to redirect him/her quickly’ and Item 20, ‘my teacher
training programme and/or experiences will give me the necessary skills to be an
effective teacher’) loaded almost identically on the TE factor. Results from a subsequent
CFA indicated a lack of fit and a rejection of the measurement model. Specifically, the x
value (419.20), goodness-of-fit index (.80), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (.75), and root
MSE residual (.09) are all indicative of a poorly fitting model. Kushner used the second
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
694
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
sample to replicate the previous study. Using EFA (PA2 and varimax rotation) again with
the second administration revealed slightly different factor pattern coefficients, but
again subsequent CFA suggests a poor fit of the model. In the second study, CFA results
were fairly similar to those in the first analyses (x ¼ 419:20, goodness-of-fit index ¼ .83,
adjusted goodness-of-fit index .79, and root MSE residual (.9). Kushner concluded that
the rewording of items to better match the experiences of pre-service teachers did not
influence the structure of the construct when EFA techniques were employed. Based on
CFA results, Kushner concludes that TES items and subscales may need to be revised or
eliminated before the scale can be recommended for use with pre-service teachers.
Kushner did not, however, use CFA results to re-specify a proposed measurement
model for the TES. Brouwers and Tomic (2003) commented on Kushner’s (1993) work,
noting that it is not possible to conclude whether the observed lack of fit was
a consequence of a poorly fitting two-factor model, one or more poorly operationalized
items, or a combination of both.
In response to the competing measurement models of the TES, Brouwers and Tomic
(2003) conducted a study to test several factor models, which have been summarized in
this article. They tested the following four models: (a) the two-factor model initially
proposed by Gibson and Dembo (1984), (b) Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) and Soodak and
Podell’s (1996) three-factor model, (c) the three-factor model proposed by Emmer and
Hickman (1991), and (d) a four-factor model, which contained a teaching efficacy factor
and three factors in which the items of the personal teaching efficacy factor were
divided into three factors: the classroom management efficacy factor of Emmer and
Hickman, the outcome efficacy factor of Soodack and Podell, and the personal efficacy
factor of Soodack and Podell, excluding the items pertaining to classroom management.
Brouwers and Tomic used a confirmatory factor-analytic approach to investigate the
aforementioned measurement models with a sample of 540 practising teachers in
the Netherlands. Their sample included 321 male teachers and 219 female teachers.
Their average age was 44.7 (SD ¼ 8:97) with a range of 21–69 years. Their sample of
teachers had a wide range of experience from 0 to 39 years. The average number of years
of teaching experience was 18.8, with a standard deviation of 9.76. For this study, they
used Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) shortened 16-item version of the TES, which was
translated into Dutch and then calibrated using one-half of their sample. Because
Brouwers and Tomic’s sample comprised such an experienced group of teachers, and
our focus is on pre-service teachers, we will not describe their results in detail.
Of greatest importance is their finding that none of their four hypothesized models
provided an adequate fit to the data. Chi-squared values and other fit indices (AGFI,
RMR, TLI, CFI, and PCFI) showed problems with the proposed measurement models.
However, inspection of the modification indices suggested that a re-specified model
might improve the fit of the model. Even after removing three poor items, CFA results
based on the validation sample revealed an inadequately fitting model. In their
concluding remarks, Brouwers and Tomic stated ‘in the present study it is concluded
that this instrument, in its current state, is not suitable for obtaining precise and valid
information about teacher efficacy beliefs’ (p. 78).
In sum, two- and three-factor solutions yield similar factor pattern coefficients for the
items of the TES. Modifications of the TES consist of rewording items to balance positive
and negative statements to accommodate prospective teachers’ lack of teaching
experience, and have added little clarity to understanding construct validity. Kushner’s
rewording of items from the PE scale from past to future tense, did not lead to a better
understanding of the measurement model for the TES. Kushner’s CFA results, however,
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
695
were rather decisive in eliminating the model with revised wording from further
consideration. Early on, Gibson and Dembo (1984) expressed concern about the TES
and argued for the use of CFA procedures to evaluate the validity of the number of
hypothesized dimensions of the TES. To date, the research community has yet to
evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the proposed measurement models of the TES. Others
have also raised concerns about the psychometric properties (Colardci & Fink, 1995;
Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Henson, 2002; Soodak & Podell, 1996). Although Brouwers and
Tomic (2003) extended the literature by employing CFA techniques, their sample
included a very experienced group of practising teachers, whose beliefs about teaching
efficacy may vary from those of pre-service teachers.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the validity of the proposed twoand three-factor models of the TES using modern CFA techniques. Additionally, the
relationships among the constructs implied by theory will be evaluated using structural
equation models (SEM).
STUDY 1
Method
Sample and setting
Participants for this investigation were 387 prospective teachers recruited from a
university located in the south-western region of the USA. The mean age of participants
was 21.9. The majority of the participants were sophomores (83%), with the remaining
17% equally divided between freshmen, juniors, and seniors. Female students
comprised 71% of the sample. Of the participants, 2.4% plan to teach at the preschool
level, and 51.9%, 12.6%, 28.5%, plan to teach at K-5, middle school/junior high, and high
school, respectively.
The teacher preparation programme from which the participants were drawn
consisted of a traditional sequence of university courses, field experience, and a
semester-length student teaching experience. University students who are formally
admitted into the teacher education programme complete a formal fieldwork
experience during their second year in the programme. The college’s Office of Student
Services places pre-service teacher candidates into one of the local schools for a 45-hour
fieldwork experience. Pre-service teachers are placed with an experienced practising
teacher, who serves as a model for the teacher candidate and oversees the pre-service
teacher’s required fieldwork assignments. Pre-service teachers complete a fieldwork
contract, time sheets, written assignments, and retain artifacts for their professional
portfolio. Portfolios from the fieldwork experience are due in the Office of Student
Services 2 weeks prior to the end of the academic term.
At this university, students planning to become elementary school teachers major in
education and declare a content area in a specific discipline. Students planning to teach
in secondary education declare an academic major and minor and complete three
semesters of professional education courses. In terms of demographic characteristics
and educational context, this sample most closely resembles the sample studied by
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990).
Instrumentation
Teacher efficacy beliefs were assessed using the 20-item version of the TES developed by
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990). TES items were presented in a Likert scale format in which the
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
696
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
students selected a number to indicate their level of agreement with each item
(1 ¼ strongly disagree to 6 ¼ strongly agree). Additionally, a cover page contained
questions concerning selected demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender).
All responses were collected anonymously. Items comprising the TES are presented in
Table 1.
Procedure
The TES was administered to participants, as a group, in their undergraduate
Educational Foundations and Educational Psychology class. Participation in the study
was voluntary and participants did not receive remuneration or extra credit for their
participation.
Results
Mean responses, standard deviations, and correlations among the items of the TES are
presented in the Appendix. Goodness-of-fit for the two-factor and three-factor models
described by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) was evaluated using maximum likelihood
estimation procedures in EQS/Windows (Bentler, 1998).
Two-factor model
Each item is hypothesized to have a non-zero loading on the factor designated in Table 1
(PE or TE) with independent unique variance, and the two factors are assumed to be
correlated. The first step in evaluating the fit of the two-factor model is to check for
redundancy by comparing the fit of the two-factor model relative to a one-factor model.
Results are presented in Table 2. Although the two-factor model (Model 3) specified by
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) was a statistically significant improvement over the one-factor
model (Model 2), the chi-squared test, non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit
index (CFI), and the root MSE of approximation (RMSEA) for the two-factor model
indicate the fit of the model to the data is not acceptable. (See Bryant & Yarnold, 1998
for an overview of the various fit tests available.)
Three-factor model
The three-factor model of the TES (Model 4) specified by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990)
retains the hypothesis concerning the composition of the TE scale; however, the PE
scale was separated into two factors: personal efficacy for positive outcomes (PE þ )
and personal efficacy for negative outcomes (PE 2 ) as shown in Table 1. The threefactor model is identical to the two-factor model with the restriction that the correlation
between the PE þ and PE 2 is 1.0, and is therefore nested under the two-factor model.
Although the three-factor model is a statistically significant improvement over
the two-factor model (see Table 2), the chi-squared statistic, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA
for the three-factor model of the TES also indicate that the fit of the three-factor model to
the data is not acceptable. In sum, neither the two-factor or three-factor specifications of
the TES measurement model provide an acceptable fit to TES item covariance matrix
in this sample of prospective teachers.
Discussion
Evidence that the two-factor and three-factor models of the TES are not acceptable raises
questions about the search for a statistically acceptable and theoretically meaningful
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
697
Table 1. Measurement models of the Teacher Efficacy Scale
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Item
When a student does better than usually,
many times it is because I exert a little extra
effort.
The hours in my class have little influence
on students compared to the influence of
their home environment.
The amount a student can learn is primarily
related to family background.
If students aren’t disciplined at home, they
aren’t likely to accept any discipline.
I have enough training to deal with almost
any learning problem.
When a student is having difficulty with an
assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to
his/her level.
When a student gets a better grade than
he/she usually gets, it is usually because I
found better ways of teaching that student.
When I really try, I can get through to most
difficult students.
A teacher is very limited in what he/she
can achieve because a student’s home
environment
is a large influence on his/her achievement.
Teachers are not a very powerful influence
on student achievement when all factors
are considered.
When the grades of my students improve,
it is usually because I found more effective
teaching approaches.
If a student masters a new concept quickly,
this might be because I knew the necessary
steps in teaching that concept.
If parents would do more for their children,
I could do more.
If a student did not remember information
I gave in a previous lesson, I would know
how to increase his/her retention in the next
lesson.
If a student in my class becomes disruptive
and noisy, I feel assured that I know some
techniques to redirect him/her quickly.
Even a teacher with good teaching abilities
may not reach many students.
Woolfolk
and Hoy
Two-factor
model
Woolfolk
Re-specified
and Hoy
Three-factor Three-factor
model
model
PE
PE þ
Omitted
TE
TE
Omitted
TE
TE
E-LOC
TE
TE
Omitted
PE
PE 2
Omitted
PE
PE 2
Omitted
PE
PE þ
OE
PE
PE 2
Omitted
TE
TE
E-LOC
TE
TE
E-LOC
PE
PE þ
OE
PE
PE þ
OE
TE
TE
Omitted
PE
PE 2
SEB
PE
PE 2
SEB
TE
TE
Omitted
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
698
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
Table 1. (Continued)
Item
No.
17
18
19
20
Item
If one of my students couldn’t do a
class assignment, I would be able to
accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty.
If I really try hard, I can get through to
even the most difficult or unmotivated
students.
When it comes right down to it, a teacher
really can’t do much because most of a
student’s motivation and performance
depends on his/her home environment.
My teacher training program and/or
experience has given me the necessary
skills to be an effective teacher.
Woolfolk
and Hoy
Two-factor
model
Woolfolk
Re-specified
and Hoy
Three-factor Three-factor
model
model
PE
PE 2
SEB
PE
PE 2
Omitted
TE
TE
E-LOC
PE
PE 2
Omitted
Note. PE ¼ Personal Efficacy, TE ¼ Teaching Efficacy, PE þ ¼ Personal Efficacy for positive
outcomes, PE 2 ¼ Personal Efficacy for negative outcomes, SEB ¼ Self-efficacy beliefs, OE ¼
Outcome expectations, E-LOC ¼ External locus-of-causality beliefs.
Table 2. Fit indexes for alternative measurement models of the Teacher Efficacy Scale.
Model
x2
Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) measurement models
1. Independence model
1905.86*
2. One-factor model
1126.21*
3. Two-factor model
795.33*
Difference between Model 2 and Model 3
330.88*
4. Three-factor model
549.25*
Difference between Model 3 and Model 4
246.08*
Respecified measurement model
5. Independence model
835.02*
6. Respecified three-factor measurement model 61.94*
Difference between Model 5 and Model 6
773.08*
Cross-validation of respecified measurement model
5. Independence model
372.29*
6. Re-specified one-factor measurement model
145.52*
Difference between Model 5 and Model 6
226.77*
7. Re-specified two-factor measurement model 82.45*
Difference between Model 6 and Model 7
63.07*
8. Respecified three-factor measurement model 35.97
Difference between Model 7 and Model 8
46.48*
df
x2/df
NNFI
CFI
RMSEA
190
170
169
21
167
2
10.03
6.62
4.71
.38
.59
.44
.64
.171
.098
3.29
.75
.78
.077
1.94
.95
.96
.049
8.27
4.16
.57
.66
.156
2.42
.80
.85
.105
1.12
.98
.99
.032
45
32
13
45
35
10
34
1
32
2
Note. NNFI ¼ Non-normed fit index, CFI ¼ Comparative fit index, RMSEA ¼ Root mean squared
error of approximation. * p , :05.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
699
specification of a measurement model for the TES items. One approach to improving
model specification is to use modification indexes such as the multivariate Lagrange
Multiplier (LM) test (for adding parameters) and the Wald W statistic for trimming
parameters. The multivariate LM test associated with the three-factor model, for
example, indicated the chi-squared statistic could be reduced approximately 473 points
by estimating 34 additional parameters. The search for proper model specification based
solely on modification indexes, however, is unlikely to identify the proper specification
(Silvia & MacCallum, 1988). An alternative starting-point for developing a more
satisfactory measurement model of the TES is to evaluate the items with respect to
theoretical guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 1997, 2005).
Self-efficacy beliefs are personal judgments about one’s generative capability for
cognitive, behavioural, social, and emotional actions that vary in terms of their level
(i.e. task demands), generality (range of activities) and strength (durability; Bandura,
1986, 1997). Items assessing self-efficacy are written in a form that expresses a belief
about one’s capability to execute some action (e.g. ‘how certain are you that you can
quickly redirect a disruptive student to the lesson you are teaching’?). Respondents are
asked to rate the strength of their beliefs to perform the action on a 100-point scale with
10-point increments ranging from 0 (certain I cannot do) to 50 (moderately certain
I can do) to 100 (certain I can do). It is important to distinguish self-efficacy beliefs from
outcomes and the expectations for certain outcomes. In the item above, the respondent
is asked to evaluate their capability for redirecting a disruptive student. Redirecting the
disruptive student is an action, not an outcome. Outcome expectations refer to
judgments about the probable consequence(s) of a specific action and may include
physical effects, social reactions, and/or self-evaluative reactions (Bandura, 1997).
An item that reads, ‘when I redirect a disruptive student to the lesson they will learn the
concept I am teaching’, reflects the expectancy of a specific outcome for a particular
action. This relation between responses and outcomes has been referred to as ‘responseoutcome expectancy’ by Bandura (1977) and as ‘action-outcome expectancy’ by
Heckhausen (1977). Social cognitive theory also distinguishes outcome expectations
from the locus-of-causality construct (Heider, 1958; Rotter, 1966; Weiner, 1986).
For example, endorsing an item that reads, ‘teachers are the most important influence
on student achievement’ reflects an internal locus of outcome causality, whereas ‘the
home environment is the most important influence on student achievement’ reflects an
external locus of causality. Unlike outcome expectations, items assessing locus-ofcausality beliefs are more general in nature items. The examples given, specific actions
of the teacher, or elements of the home environment that might affect student
achievement are global. Similarly, the specified outcome, student achievement, is also a
global outcome.
Re-specification of the TES measurement model
Two criteria were applied to the re-specification of the TES measurement model in an
attempt to align the items with self-efficacy theory. Each item was first evaluated on
rational grounds for compatibility with the theoretical definitions of: (a) self-efficacy
beliefs, (b) outcome expectations, or (c) locus of causality. If an item was judged to be
consistent with one of these theoretical definitions, it was retained for further
consideration. Next, the location of items was identified. Items located on a common
factor with a squared factor pattern coefficient greater than .20 were retained in the
re-specified measurement model of the TES.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
700
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
Four TES items in Table 1 (V6, V14, V15, and V17) were judged as being the
most consistent with the theoretical definition of self-efficacy beliefs. Although these
items ask students to make a judgment about their capabilities (e.g. ‘: : :I would
know how to increase his/her retention: : :’), the items do not ask for judgments
about their capability to accomplish a specific action (e.g. ‘: : :I know how to use
advance organizers to increase his/her retention: : :’). Thus, there is some ambiguity
about whether the judgment involves an action or an outcome. Each of these items
is located on the PE factor specified by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) with factor
pattern coefficients of .18, .73, .80, and .65, respectively. Despite the apparent
similarity of the items, the magnitude of the factor pattern coefficient for V6 is small
in both absolute and relative terms. Moreover, Item V6 is associated with eight
standardized residuals with an absolute value greater than .10, whereas the other
items are associated with two, and at most three, standardized residuals with
absolute value greater than .10. Thus, Item V6 was eliminated and the measurement
model for self-efficacy beliefs (SEB) was re-specified to include items V14, V15, and
V17. In sum, only three items were judged as potential indicators of self-efficacy
beliefs about teaching. One item refers to classroom management and the remaining
two items refer to instructional capabilities. None of the items affords measurement
of the level or generality of self-efficacy beliefs.
Analysis of the TES items for consistency with the definition of outcome
expectations identified items V1, V7, V11, and V12 as the best candidates for the
re-specified measurement model. Item V1, however, is less precise with regard to the
specification of the outcome (‘when a student does a little better: : :’) in relation to a
performance attainment (exerting a little extra effort) than item V12, for example,
which specifies concept mastery as an outcome of knowing the steps for teaching
a concept. In view of the ambiguous outcome and performance attainment, item V1 was
eliminated from further consideration. The remaining items (V7, V11, and V12),
originally specified on the PE factor by Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), exhibit moderate to
large magnitude factor pattern coefficients (.65, .74, and .61, respectively) in the present
study. Insofar as the outcomes are not linked to a specific action, it could be argued that
items V7, V11, and V12 measure a persons’ belief in an internal locus-of-causality
(Guskey, 1998; Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Tentatively, these items were included in the
re-specified measurement model as hypothesized indicators of outcome expectations
(OE).
Among the remaining items of the TES, six items (V3, V4, V9, V10, V16 and V19)
were considered potential indicators of beliefs about the locus-of-causality in student
achievement. Specifically, the items reflect an external locus-of-causality, the influence
of the students’ family background or home environment. Only four (V3, V9, V10 and
V19) of these six items, however, had squared factor pattern coefficients greater than
.20. Hence, only these four items were included in the re-specified model as possible
indicators of pre-service teachers’ external locus-of-causality (E-LOC).
In sum, theoretical and empirical criteria were applied to the items of the TES to
re-specify a measurement model that is hypothesized to be more closely aligned
with the theoretical constructs of self-efficacy beliefs (SEB), outcome expectations
(OE), and external locus-of-causality (E-LOC). Only 10 items were retained from the
original 20-item scale (See Table 1). Because the re-specified measurement model is
based on post hoc analysis, it was evaluated in an independent sample of pre-service
teachers.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
701
STUDY 2
Evaluation of the validity of the re-specified measurement model is accomplished in two
steps. The first step consists of fitting the re-specified model to the data as a first-order
model with three correlated factors. If the model is an acceptable fit to the data, an
equivalent model with a causal structure can be fit to the data to evaluate relationships
among the constructs predicted by theory. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), for
example, posits the relationship between efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations is
mediated by the structure of the contingencies, actual or perceived, between actions
and outcomes in a given domain. When outcomes are contingent upon the quality of
actions, efficacy beliefs account for most of the variance in outcome expectancies.
In contrast, when outcomes are not contingent upon the quality of actions, self-efficacy
beliefs become independent of outcome expectations.
Method
Participants
Participants for this investigation were 131 prospective elementary teachers recruited
from the same university in Study 1. None of the students in the second study
participated in the first study. All of the students in this sample were enrolled in a
required course for teacher licensure, in which they complete a practicum experience
in an elementary school classroom setting. Experiences include teaching observation,
small group interaction, and one-on-one assistance to children. Students included in this
sample ranged in age from 20 to 53, with a mean age of 22.8. Of the sample, 87% fell
within the age range 20–23. A majority of participants were in their senior (61%) or
junior (33%) year in college, with the remaining 6% either in a postgraduate certification
programme or had provided insufficient data on their college level. 93.9% (N ¼ 123) of
the sample were female, 85.5% were White, 3.1% were Native American, 6.9% were
Hispanic, and 3.1% self-identified as multiracial. All participants were admitted to the
elementary education programme. In contrast to the participants in Study 1, Study 2
participants were further along in their educational programme, had more supervised
teaching experience and were, on average, 11 months older.
Instrumentation
The instrument completed by participants in Study 2 was identical to the instrument
used in Study 1.
Procedure
The TES was administered to participants, as a group, in their usual classroom setting.
Participation in the study was voluntary and participants did not receive remuneration
or extra credit. All responses were collected anonymously.
Results and discussion
Correlations, means and standard deviations for all TES items are presented in the
Appendix. Although data for all 20 items of the TES are presented in the Appendix, the
CFA analysis is based only on the 10 items specified in Table 1. The first step in
evaluating the fit of the re-specified three-factor is to check for redundancy by
comparing the fit of the three-factor model relative to a two-factor model that combines
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
702
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
the external locus-of-causality (E-LOC) and outcome expectancy (OE) scales and a onefactor model. The results are shown in Table 2.
Although the one-factor model is a statistically significant improvement over
the independence model, the chi-squared test and fit indexes indicate that the one-factor
model is unacceptable fit to the data. Similarly, the re-specified two-factor model is
a statistically significant improvement over the one-factor model; however, the
chi-squared test, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA lead to the rejection of the model as an
acceptable fit to the data. Finally, the CFA results in Table 2 show the three-factor model
is a statistically significant improvement over the two-factor model. Moreover, the
chi-squared test, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA all provide evidence the model is an acceptable
fit to the data.
Standardized and unstandardized estimates of the model parameters are presented in
Fig. 1 and Table 3, respectively. Inspection of the unstandardized solution reveals that all
indicators have statistically significant factor pattern coefficients on the re-specified
constructs. The standardized solution further reveals the factor pattern coefficients are
moderate to large in magnitude, and the relationships among all latent constructs are
positive and statistically significant. This simple correlated factors measurement model,
however, does not evaluate the critical predications of social cognitive theory. It would
be helpful in this context to specify a model that estimates the relative contributions of
the external locus-of-causality in achievement and self-efficacy beliefs to the prediction
of outcome expectancies. The need for such specificity was stated by Skinner (1996),
who argued this is a proliferation of constructs related to ‘control’, which has been
costly to the understanding of control in theoretical, empirical, and practical terms.
The path model in Fig. 2 is mathematically identical to the model specified in Fig. 1
(cf. Lee & Hershberger, 1990). The chi-squared value, fit indexes, and factor pattern
Figure 1. Re-specified three-factor measurement model of the Teacher Efficacy Scale.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
703
Table 3. Estimates of the measurement model for the Revised Teacher Efficacy Scale
Latent variable and measure
SEB – self-efficacy beliefs
V14
V15
V17
OE – outcome expectations
V7
V11
V12
E-LOC – external locus-of causality beliefs
V3
V9
V10
V19
Latent variable covariances
SEB, OE
SEB, E-LOC
OE, E-LOC
Unstandardized estimate
Standard error
z-statistic
0.827
0.146
5.66*
0.867
0.145
5.98*
0.791
0.113
7.00*
0.795
0.115
6.91*
0.963
0.182
5.29*
0.826
0.918
0.160
0.165
5.16*
5.56*
0.357
0.326
0.263
0.090
0.091
0.096
3.97*
3.58*
2.74*
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Variances
0.561
0.630
0.392
0.522
0.798
0.477
0.438
0.514
0.723
1.111
0.892
0.899
0.758
*p , :05.
coefficients of the indicators for the model in Figs. 1 and 2 are identical. What is different
about the model in Fig. 2 is that it reflects the causal structure specified by self-efficacy
theory assuming valid measurement of the constructs. The magnitude of the
relationship between self-efficacy beliefs (SEB) and outcome expectations (OE), for
example, should depend on the magnitude of relationship between the respondents’
external locus-of-causality (E-LOC) and outcome expectations (OE). Specifically, we are
interested in testing the following structural relations among the hypothesized
constructs (Fs) of the re-specified model for consistency with predictions from social
cognitive theory:
F ðSEBÞ ¼ b1 £ F ðE2LOCÞ ; and
F ðOEÞ ¼ b2 £ F ðSEBÞ þ b3 £ FðE2LOCÞ
Figure 2. A structural model of the Teacher Efficacy Scale.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
704
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
Social cognitive theory predicts that b2 . 0 as b3 ! 0. Predictions concerning b1 are
less precise, although Bandura (1997) argues that beliefs ‘about whether one can produce
certain actions (perceived self-efficacy) cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
considered the same as beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of control)’
(p. 20). Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs and global perceptions about the locus-of-causality
are differentially related to successful functioning across many domains (Smith, 1989;
Taylor & Pompa, 1990). Hence, a reasonable hypothesis is that b1 ¼ 0.
It is important to note that in the present study, we are dealing with perceived
control (i.e. an individual’s beliefs about how much control is available) rather than
objective control or experiences of control (Skinner, 1996). A second basic premise
important to note is that the previously mentioned hypothesis is dealing with a means–
ends type of relation. Due to the complex and complicated nature of the use of control
terms in research, Skinner (1996) has argued researchers must be explicit about agents,
means, and ends of control. In the present study, the agent is the individual pre-service
teacher. The means refers to the pathway through which control is exerted (i.e. direct
pathway to outcome expectations and unrelated to self-efficacy beliefs). Ends refer to
the desired or undesired outcomes over which control exerted (e.g. student
achievement). Bandura (1997) contended that even in cases whereby the individual
believes that outcomes can be influenced by one’s behaviour or efforts, they will not
attempt to exert control unless they also believe they are capable of producing the
requisite responses themselves. We also note in the present study that we are referring
to behavioural rather than cognitive control or responses.
Standardized estimates of the relationships among the latent constructs for the
equivalent model are shown in Fig. 2. As the structural model shows, outcome
expectations are independent of external locus-of-causality beliefs (b3 ¼ 0). Hence,
we would expect b2 . 0. Consistent with social cognitive theory, the path coefficient
between self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations is positive, moderate
in magnitude, and statistically significant. Contrary to the prediction of social cognitive
theory, however, external locus-of-causality beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs are not
unrelated, b1 . 0. Indeed, there is considerable overlap in the two constructs.
Approximately 25% of the variance in the constructs is common variance. Moreover, the
direction of the relationship is opposite of what would be expected between external
locus-of-causality beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs. In sum, the magnitude and direction of
the relationship between these two latent variables casts doubt on the validity of the
constructs as locus-of-causality and/or self-efficacy.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Originally developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984), and revised by Woolfolk and Hoy
(1990), the TES was designed to measure teachers’ beliefs about (a) their ability to
influence student learning, labelled PE scale, and (b) outcome expectations, labelled TE
scale. Other investigators, however, have argued that the TES represents three
dimensions of teachers’ beliefs. Guskey (1981), for example, interpreted the PE scale as
composed of positive and negative dimensions of the same underlying construct:
personal responsibility for positive (PE) and negative (PE) student outcomes. In
contrast, Soodak and Podell (1996) argued the three dimensions of the TES reflect
independent dimensions of personal efficacy, outcome efficacy, and teaching efficacy.
Results from a confirmatory factor analysis of the TES, however, lead to the rejection of
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
705
the two-factor and three-factor measurement models. Thus, the interpretation of the
hypothesized factor structures of the TES is moot.
A re-specified measurement model for the TES was derived from the application of
rigorous theoretical and empirical criteria. The re-specified measurement model
retained 10 of the 20 original items hypothesized as indicators of three latent variables:
self-efficacy beliefs (SEB), outcome expectations (OE), and an external locus of causality
(E-LOC). Although the three-factor measurement model was an acceptable fit to the
data, the structural relations among the constructs were not consistent with the
predictions of social cognitive theory. Whereas, social cognitive theory specifically
posits self-efficacy beliefs and locus-of-causality beliefs are theoretically unrelated
constructs (Bandura, 1997), and whereas other investigators have found no connection
between self-efficacy beliefs and locus-of-causality beliefs (Smith, 1989; Taylor & Pompa,
1990), results from this investigation are inconsistent with theory and evidence about
the relationship between locus-of-causality beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs.
The hypothesized constructs of self-efficacy beliefs (SEB) and external locus-of-causality
show a moderate positive statistically significant association. Approximately 25% of the
variance in the two constructs is common variance.
In sum, the results of this investigation provide the empirical evidence for arguments
that the adoption of the TES as a measure of teachers’ self-efficacy was premature
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Henson, 2001, 2002). Perhaps the most important implication
of the present study is that the results call into question the interpretation of a large body
of data involving the TES. Although studies using the TES may have identified important
relationships between the TES and aspects of teaching and learning, we would conclude
on the basis of the findings presented here that the previously reported relationships
are questionable. Given the problems associated with the TES, we suggest the
abandonment of previous evidence rather than a re-analysis of the data collected from
the use of the TES.
One alternative interpretation of the data is that problems with the validity of the TES
as a measure of self-efficacy beliefs about teaching is restricted to pre-service teachers.
That is, the measure is valid in the population of experienced teachers, but not preservice teachers. There are theoretical and empirical arguments against this alternative
interpretation. First, to claim that pre-service teachers have no basis for making
judgments about their capabilities in various teaching situations is unwarranted: there is
no stricture in the tenets of social cognitive theory that would preclude a novice from
making accurate judgments about his or her capabilities in any domain of functioning.
Naı̈vety would be reflected in the mean structure (i.e. lower or higher mean scores for
pre-service teachers than experience teachers) of the TES items, not their covariance
structure. Second, Guskey and Passaro (1994) reported invariance in the TES item
variance covariance matrix between experienced and pre-service teachers. In sum,
there is little support for the alternative interpretation that the results of the present
investigation are peculiar to pre-service teachers. The findings from the present study
corroborate Brouwers and Tomic’s (2003) findings, which were found in their study
based on an experienced sample of teachers, that the TES is not an adequate scale for
obtaining precise and valid information about teacher efficacy beliefs.
Recently, new instruments for measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have emerged
in the literature (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The items of the instrument, Teachers’
sense of efficacy scale (originally titled the Ohio state Teacher Efficacy Scale) are based
on a subset of items that accompany an unpublished manuscript providing guidelines
for the construction of self-efficacy scales (Bandura, 1990). The items were specifically
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
706
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
constructed to measure teachers’ capabilities in seven domains of functioning: efficacy
to influence decision-making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional
efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist community involvement, efficacy to
create a positive school climate, and efficacy to enlist parental involvement.
Investigators, however, failed to find evidence for the originally hypothesized
dimensions of the new instrument (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The strategy of
abandoning the a priori dimensions discerned from a careful analysis of the capabilities
necessary to succeed in a domain of functioning in favour of re-labelling the scales on
the basis of factor pattern coefficients from exploratory factor analysis places this
instrument at risk for psychometric problems similar to those underlying the TES.
References
Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationships between teacher efficacy and
curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special Education,
16, 247–254.
Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, P., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority
schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 28–32.
Ashton, P., & 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. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Sanford, CA:
Stanford University.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2005). Guide for constructing self efficacy scales. Retrieved from: http://www.des.
emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html#instruments.
Bentler, P. M. (1998). EQS for Windows (Version 5.7b) [Computer Software]. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol.
VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2003). A test of the factorial validity of the Teacher Efficacy Scale.
Research in Education, 69, 67–80.
Bryant, R. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1998). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Gimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding
multivariate statistics (pp. 66–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Colardci, 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.
Deemer, S. A., & Minke, K. M. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the teacher
efficacy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 3–10.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 755–765.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Teacher self-efficacy
707
Gibson, S., & Brown, R. (1982, March). The development of a teacher’s personal
responsibility/self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes
and failure in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44–51.
Guskey, T. R. (1998, April). Teacher efficacy measurement and change. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643.
Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model.
Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283–329.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas. Keynote address presented at the meeting of the Educational Research Exchange,
College Station, TX, USA.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and
measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 137–150.
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the
teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
61, 404–420.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of
teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American
Journal of Educational Research, 24, 417–435.
Klein, R. (1996). Teacher efficacy and developmental math instructors at an urban university:
An exploratory analysis of the relationships among personal factors, teacher behaviors, and
perceptions of the environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron,
Ohio, USA
Kushner, S. N. (1993, February). Teacher efficacy and preservice teachers: A construct validation.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association,
Clearwater Beach, FL, USA.
Lee, S., & Hershberger, S. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance
structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 313–334.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Changes in teacher efficacy and students self- and
task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 247–258.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.
Silvia, E. S. M., & MacCallum, R. C. (1988). Some factors affecting the success of specification
searches in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 297–326.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping skills training on generalized self-efficacy and locus of
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 228–233.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multifaceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401–411.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of efficacy among
preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30,
214–221.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
708
Gypsy M. Denzine et al.
Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). An examination of the relationships among career decisionmaking, self-efficacy, career salience, locus of control, and vocational indecision. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 17–31.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Woolfolk, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81–91.
Received 27 August 2003; revised version received 19 August 2004
Descargar