Development and psychometric evaluation of the high school chemistry self-efficacy scale

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 868-880

  Aydin, Yeşim Çapa ^a   Uzuntiryaki, Esen ^a  

^a MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Factor analysis; High school chemistry; Self efficacy; Structural equation modeling; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350218787     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164409332213     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 596-603.
2. Arbuckle, J.L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
6. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
7. Britner, S.L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271-285.
8. Britner, S.L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485-499.
9. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Carter, C.S., & Brickhouse, N.W. (1989). What makes chemistry difficult? Alternate perceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 223-225.
13. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504.
14. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
15. Dalgety, J., & Coll, R.K. (2006). Exploring first-year science students' chemistry self-efficacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 1-20.
16. Erdogan, I. (Ed.). (2002). Özel okullar ve eǧitimde kalite [Private schools and quality in education]. Istanbul: Özel Okullar Derneǧi.
17. Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 517-531.
18. Gopal, H., Kleinsmidt, J., Case, J., & Musonge, P. (2004). An investigation of tertiary students' understanding of evaporation, condensation and vapour pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1597-1620.
19. Graham, J.M., Guthrie, A.C., & Thompson, B. (2003). Consequences of not interpreting structure coefficients in published CFA research: A reminder. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 142-153.
20. Hancock, G.R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 91-105.
21. Hancock, G.R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and mimic approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373-388.
22. Henson, R.K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
23. Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
24. Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
25. Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
28. Kennedy, E. (1996). What do they think of chemistry? Australian Science Teachers Journal, 42(2), 53-59.
29. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
30. Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 123-137.
31. Lau, S., & Roeser, R.W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students' situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139-162.
32. MacCallum, R.C., & Austin, J.T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.
33. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
34. MacCallum, R.C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C.M., & Reith, J.V. (1994). Alternative strategies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 1-32.
35. Ministry of Education (MEB). (2007). PISA 2006 Ulusal ön rapor [National Preliminary Report]. Ankara: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://earged.meb.gov.tr/pisa/dokuman/2006/rapor/Pisa_2006_Ulusal_On_Rap or.pdf.
36. O'Connor, B.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
37. Pajares, F., Britner, S.L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406-422.
38. Pajares, F., & Schunk, D.H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex.
39. Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications for students with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 14-22.
40. Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
41. Thompson, B. (1997). The importance of structure coefficients in structural equation modeling confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 5-19.
42. Thompson, M.S., & Green, S.B. (2006). Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119-169). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
43. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals, and related concepts: Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 27, 271-287.
44. Watson, J., & McEwen, A. (1994). Sixth form A level students' perceptions of the difficulty, intellectual freedom, social benefit and interest of science and arts subjects. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12, 43-49.
45. Zwick, W.R., & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of the rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.