![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The present study tested whether a reduced number of categories is optimal for assessing mathematics self-efficacy among middle school students using a 6-point Likert-type format or a 0- to 100-point format. Two independent samples of middle school adolescents (N = 1,913) were administered a 24-item Middle School Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale using either a 101-point or a 6-point response scale format. The findings suggest that the two different response scale formats were optimally represented by a 4-point scale and supported when samples were pooled. Results provide tentative evidence that middle school students make use of only 4 scale points and that the items on this scale are best matched with adolescents with average to below-average mathematics self-efficacy. Implications for the measurement of self-efficacy and related motivation constructs are discussed, and replications with a 4-point scale using category descriptors for each scale point are needed.
References
Section:
|
Alviar-Martin, T., Randall, J. D., Usher, E. L., Engelhard, G. (2008). Teaching civic topics in four societies: Examining national context and teacher confidence. The Journal of Educational Research, 101, 177-188. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.3.177-188 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education . (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar | |
|
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561-573. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/journal/11336 Google Scholar | |
|
Andrich, D. (2013). An expanded deviation of the threshold structure of the polytomous Rasch model that dispels any “threshold disorder controversy.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 78-124. doi:10.1177/0013164412450877 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Google Scholar | |
|
Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553-570. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1048 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks? In Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287-305). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Google Scholar | |
|
Bong, M., Hocevar, D. (2002). Measuring self-efficacy: Multitrait-multimethod comparison of scaling procedures. Applied Measurement In Education, 15, 143-171. doi:10.1207/s15324818AME1502_02 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brown, S. D., Lent, R. W. (2006). Preparing adolescents to make career decisions: A social cognitive perspective. In Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 201-223). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Google Scholar | |
|
Butz, A. R., Toland, M. D., Zumbrunn, S. K., Danner, F. W., Usher, E. L. (2014, April). What is the “magic number?” A review of response categories in measuring writing self-efficacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. Google Scholar | |
|
Cheema, J. R., Kitsantas, A. (2013). Influences of disciplinary classroom climate on high school student self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: A look at gender and racial-ethnic differences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1261-1279. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cipriani, D. J., Hensen, F. E., McPeck, D. L., Kubec, G. L. D., Thomas, J. J. (2012). Rating scale analysis and psychometric properties of the caregiver self-efficacy scale for transfers. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 32, 405-415. doi:10.3109/01942638.2012.694993 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51-57. doi:10.1177/0963721409359277 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Cowan, N., Morey, C. C., Chen, Z., Gilchrist, A. L., Saults, J. S. (2008). Theory and measurement of working memory capacity limits. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 49-104. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00002-9 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
de Ayala, R. J . (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar | |
|
Eckes, T. (2011). Item banking for C-tests: A polytomous Rasch modeling approach. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53, 414-439. Google Scholar | |
|
Embretson, S. E. (1996). Item response theory models and spurious interaction effects in factorial ANOVA designs. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 201-212. doi:10.1177/014662169602000302 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/publications/toc.aspx?jrnl=jrme Google Scholar | |
|
Hagquist, C., Bruce, M., Gustavsson, J. P. (2009). Using the Rasch model in nursing research: An introduction and illustrative example. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 380-393. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.007 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Kan, A. (2009). Effect of scale response format on psychometric properties in teaching self-efficacy. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 215-228. Retrieved from http://www.ejer.com.tr/index.php Google Scholar | |
|
Kang, S.-M., Waller, N. G. (2005). Moderate multiple regression, spurious interaction effects and IRT. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 87-105. doi:10.1177/0146621604272737 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and emerging directions. In Urdan, T. C., Karabenick, S. A. (Eds.), ADVANCES IN MOTIVATION AND ACHIEVEMENT: Vol. 16A. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 1-33). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85-106. Available from http://www.jampress.org/ Google Scholar | |
|
Linacre, J. M. (2003). Data variance: Explained, modeled, and empirical. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17, 942-943. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt173g.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Linacre, J. M. (2009). A user’s guide to Winsteps, Ministep, Rasch-model computer programs: Program manual 3.72.3. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com/a/winsteps-manual.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Linacre, J. M. (2011). Winsteps (Version 3.72.0) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com. Available from http://www.winsteps.com/ Google Scholar | |
|
Lozano, L. M., Garciá-Cueto, E., Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology, 4, 73-79. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Maurer, T. J., Pierce, H. R. (1998). A comparison of Likert scale and traditional measures of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 324-329. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.324 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Morony, S., Kleitman, S., Lee, Y. P., Stankov, L. (2013). Predicting achievement: Confidence vs self-efficacy, anxiety, and self-concept in Confucian and European countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 79-96. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Müller, H. (1987). A Rasch model for continuous ratings. Psychometrika, 52, 165-181. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics: E-standards. Available from http://standards.nctm.org Google Scholar | |
|
Pajares, F., Barich, J. (2005). Assessing self-efficacy: Are skills-specific measures better than domain specific measures? Psychology, 12, 334-348. Google Scholar | |
|
Pajares, F., Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0991 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221. Available from http://mec.sagepub.com/ Google Scholar | |
|
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics outcomes: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 190-198. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.190 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Pintrich, P. R., De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Schneider, W. (2008). Children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114-121. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.00041.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 33-45. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Schunk, D. H., Pajares, F. (2005). Competence beliefs in academic functioning. In Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85-104). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Smith, E. V., Wakely, M. B., De Kruif, R. E. L., Swartz, C. W. (2003). Optimizing rating scales for self-efficacy (and other) research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 369-391. doi:10.1177/0013164403251320 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Smith, R. M. (1996). Polytomous mean-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10, 516-517. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/ Google Scholar | |
|
Smith, R. M. (2000). Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 199-218. Available from http://www.jampress.org/ Google Scholar | |
|
Toland, M. D. (2014). Practical guide to conducting an item response theory analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 120-151. doi:10.1177/0272431613511332 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Usher, E. L., Pajares, F. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy in mathematics: A validation study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 89-101. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.09.002 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., . . .Blakemore, S.-J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 264-271. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M. (1992). Combining and splitting categories. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6, 233-235. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/contents.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Wright, B. D., Stone, M. H. (1999). Measurement essentials (2nd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range. Google Scholar |
