G ENERALISED S ELF E FFICACY A SSESSMENT I NSTRUMENTS

Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, and Rogers (1982) attempt to develop a measure of self-efficacy that was not tied to specific situations or behaviour resulted in the Self-Efficacy Scale. The original version consisted of 36 items and focused on 3 areas (a) willingness to initiate behaviour, (b) willingness to expend effort (c) persistence. They tested the instrument on 376 students who completed the Self-Efficacy Scale and a range of six (6) additional personality measures. The personality assessments included Rotter’s Internal-External Control Scale, Personal Control Subscale of the I-E Scale, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, the Ego Strength Scale, Interpersonal Competency Scale and the Self-esteem scale.

Factor analysis resulted in a 2-factor solution with 17-items loading to Factor 1, General Efficacy Subscale and, 6-items loading to Factor 2, the Social Self-Efficacy Subscale. Cronbach Alphas were .86 and .71 respectively.

Modifications were made resulting in a reduced 23-item scale based on the 2-factor model and the study was replicated with 298 students. All predicted correlations with the personality factors were obtained and none were large enough to indicate that the scales were measuring the same underlying concept.

A further study was conducted with 150 inpatients from the Tuscaloosa Veterans Admin Medical Centre to assess the criterion validity of the scale. Each subject completed the Self-Efficacy Scale and a Demographic Questionnaire. This study found that subjects with high Self Efficacy scores were more likely to be employed, have quit fewer jobs, to have been fired less. General Self Efficacy scores correlated positively with educational levels and military rank and General Self Efficacy scores predicted past success in vocational, educational and military goals.

Sherer and Adams (1983) conducted a further validation study which investigated the relationships between the Self-efficacy subscales and other personality measures, namely the MMPI, Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, and Ben Sex-role Inventory. The

93

results supported the validity of the Self-Efficacy Scale as a measure of generalised self-efficacy.

The Self-Efficacy Scale has been used by a number of researchers including Ferrari and Parker’s exploration of self-efficacy as a predictor of high school achievement (1992) and Woodruff and Cashman’s examination of the relationship between general and task-specific efficacy (1993). The full assessment instrument is provided in Appendix B.

b. New General Self-Efficacy Scale

The Self-Efficacy Scale discussed above showed moderate to high internal consistency however Chen and Gully, as reported by Chen et al. (2001), reported low test-retest results. In addition to the weak retest results Chen et al discussed additional issues with potential multi-dimensionality of the Self-Efficacy Scale. They state that

“there is a serious discrepancy between the conceptualization of GSE as an undifferentiated belief in one’s generalized ability as a unitary construct on one hand and the multi-factorial structure of the SGSE [Self-Efficacy Scale] scale” (Chen et al., 2001, 66). Chen et al created a New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE). The NGSE contained seven (7) of the Self-Efficacy Scales and an additional seven (7) scales created by the researchers. The instrument was tested on 317 students. The scale uses a 5-point Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree, to (5) strongly agree. The instrument was applied three (3) times with an average of 22 days between assessments. The aim of this first study was to examine the reliability and dimensionality of the NGSE scale. The NGSE was reduced to an eight (8) item instrument and a second study was conducted. The second study was designed to test whether the NGSE scale and the SGSE scale are distinct from self-esteem. And finally they conducted a third study to test the cross language and cultural robustness of the NGSE by testing it in Hebrew with a group of Israeli managers. Their results found that the NGSE had strong internal consistency results and measures a single dimension and in their opinion is “is a more valid measure of GSE than is the SGSE scale” (Chen et al., 2001, 77). The full assessment instrument is provided in Appendix B.

94

c. General Self-Efficacy Scale

The German version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale was created by Jerusalem and Schwartzer in 1979. It is currently available in twenty-seven (27) languages (Schwartzer, 2009a) translated and validated by a range of bi-lingual researchers. The General Self-Efficacy scale was originally presented as a 20-item instrument but has subsequently been reduced to a 10-item instrument that uses a 4-point scale 1 = Not at all true 2 = Hardly true 3 = Moderately true 4 = Exactly true, the full scale is provided in the Appendix below (Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995). The scale has been tested and validated in numerous studies (Zhang and Schwarzer, 1995, Bäßler and Schwarzer, 1996, Schwarzer et al., 1996, Schwarzer et al., 1997, Schwarzer et al., 1999, Rimm and Jerusalem, 1999, Luszczynska et al., 2005a, Luszczynska et al., 2005c) showing strong internal consistency

“The scale has been used in numerous research projects, where it has typically yielded internal consistencies between alpha = .75 and .91. Its stability has been examined in several longitudinal studies.” (Schwarzer and Scholz, 2000, 2)

As well as consistent results across cultures;

“The psychometric properties of the self-efficacy scale turned out to be very satisfactory and in line with previous research. The construct seems to be a universal one since very similar characteristics have been found in many cultures.” (Schwarzer and Scholz, 2000, 4)

The GSE has been used in several studies as part of the investigation of stress and coping. Luszcynska, Schloz and Schwartzer (2005c) in their study of cancer patients, heart disease patients, students, athletes and random individuals used the GSE scale in combination with the Brief COPE to explore the relationship between generalised self efficacy and the domain specific optimistic self-beliefs and their coping strategy selection. Their finding that GSE was related to adaptive, problem-focused coping with stress (Luszczynska et al., 2005c, 454) provides support for the hypotheses being explored in this study for project managers with stronger beliefs in their own ability to

95

effect positive outcomes from stressful encounters to select and apply more problem-focused coping strategies.

The GSE scale was also used by Jerusalem and Schwartzer in their study of 210 adults investigating the relationship between general self-efficacy and stress appraisals in a laboratory setting. Their finding that highly self-efficacy played a significant role in the buffering the experience of stress “whereas low self-efficacy puts individuals at risk for a dramatic increase in threat and loss appraisals.” (Jerusalem and Schwarzer, 1992, 195)

4.3.3 Summary

The analysis of the available approaches to self-efficacy assessment provided two (2) clear options. The first of these is the assessment of situation specific efficacy and the second is a more generalised assessment. In relation to the hypotheses being tested in this research and the research design which explores the coping patterns of project managers across multiple life domains and an indeterminate number of potential stressful events it was not deemed possible to accurately pre-define the specificity of the stressors required to create or use a situation specific efficacy tool. As such the concept and associated tools for a general self-efficacy assessment have been selected for use in this study. Similar to choosing the appropriate coping strategy assessment instrument a number of determining factors were applied including: consistent factor analysis results across a range of sample populations, high internal consistency coefficients, the availability of data from other studies for comparison against the project manager specific sample collected plus ease of administration. When applying these four key criteria the Generalised Self Efficacy assessment tool has been identified as the most appropriate tool for this study. The GSE has an available database of over 18000 respondents from studies conducted around the world which will act as a substitute control sample for this portion of the research (Schwartzer, 2009b).

96