Seven methods to determine the dimensionality of tests: application to the General Self-Effi cacy Scale in twenty-six countries

• Greibin Villegas Barahona ^[1] ; Nerea González García ^[1] ; Ana Belén Sánchez-García ^[1] ; Mercedes Sánchez Barba ^[1] ; María Purificación Galindo-Villardó ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de Salamanca

     Universidad de Salamanca

     Salamanca, España

     
• Localización: Psicothema, ISSN-e 1886-144X, ISSN 0214-9915, Vol. 30, Nº. 4, 2018, págs. 442-448
• Idioma: inglés
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Siete métodos para evaluar la dimensionalidad de los test: aplicación a la General Self-Effi cacy Scale en veintiséis países
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 6 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    Antecedentes: uno de los conceptos más importantes en la Teoría Social Cognitiva desarrollada por Bandura es la auto-eficacia percibida. Este concepto ha sido generalizado en 1981 por Mathias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer con una escala de 10 ítems, quienes establecieron que esta escala es un constructo unidimensional y universal. El objetivo principal de este trabajo es demostrar que la Escala General de Autoeficacia (GSE) no es un constructo unidimensional ni universal, como actualmente se asume. Método: los datos analizados corresponden a 19.719 personas de 26 países. Con el fin de identificar y entender la invariancia hemos utilizado siete técnicas estadísticas multivariantes. Resultados: los hallazgos sugieren la existencia de una estructura multidimensional y un funcionamiento diferencial por país. En la medida que haya funcionamiento diferencial por país, no es posible universalizar el constructo. También existen varios ítems de la escala que constituyen factores adicionales. El resultado confirma que el constructo auto-eficacia no es universal ni unidimensional. Conclusiones: un instrumento psicométrico debe ser evaluado y usado con extremo cuidado, la escala GSE analizada está siendo utilizada de manera general.

  • English

    Background: One of the most important concepts within Cognitive Social Theory as framed by Bandura is the perceived self-efficacy; this concept became widespread in 1981 when Mathias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer, using 10 items, established a one-dimensional and universal construct of this scale. The main purpose of this study is to show that the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) is not a one-dimensional and universal construct, as is currently assumed. Method: The data from 19,719 people from 26 countries were analyzed. In order to identify and understand invariance we applied seven multivariate statistical techniques. Results: The findings suggest the existence of a multidimensional structure and differential item functioning by country. Insofar as there is differential item functioning by country and it is not possible to universalize it, and there are several items on the scale that statistically constitute additional factors. The results confirm that the self-efficacy construct is neither universal nor unidimensional. Conclusions: A psychometric instrument must be valued and used with great care; the one in question is being used in a generalized way.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Abdi, H., Williams, L., Valentin, D., & Bennani, M. (2012). STATIS and DISTATIS: Optimum multi-table principal component analysis and...
  • Ackerman, T. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational...
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033295X.84.2.191
  • Bandura, A. (1978). Refl ections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 1(4), 237-269. doi: 10.1016/01466402(78)90012-7
  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
  • Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4(3), 359-373....
  • Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21-41. doi: 10.1111/1467-839X.00024
  • Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived selfefficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606
  • Brown, G. T., Harris, L. R., O’Quin, C., & Lane, K. (2015). Using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate cross-cultural...
  • Brown, T., & Moore, M. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation...
  • Byrne, B. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New Jork: Psychology Press.
  • Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance:...
  • Carrasco, M., & Del Barrio, M. (2002). Evaluación de la autoeficacia en niños y adolescentes [Assessment of children’s and adolescent’s...
  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodnessof-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling:...
  • Goldstein, H. (1980). Dimensionality, bias, independence and measurement scale problems in latent trait test score models. British Journal...
  • Gómez-Benito, J., Balluerka, N., González, A., Widaman, K. F., & Padilla, J.-L. (2017). Detecting differential item functioning in behavioral...
  • Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological...
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new...
  • Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Rotation and interpretation of principal components. In Springer (Ed.), Principal Component Analysis (2nd ed., Vol....
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Applied Psychological Measurement (Vol. 5). New York:...
  • Lorezo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2011). Factor 8 (Release 10.8.03) [Manual of the program]. Tarragona, Spain: Universitar Rovira i...
  • Muñiz, J. (2010). Test Theories: Classical Theory and Item Response Theory. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 57-66.
  • Ning-Min, S., & Jing, L. (2015). A literature survey on high-dimensional sparse principal component analysis. International Journal of...
  • Rajú, N. S. (1999). DFITP5: A Fortran program for calculating dichotomous DIF/DTF [Computer software]. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.
  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement., 34(Supplement...
  • Scholz, U., Gutiérrez, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general selfefficacy a universal construct? European Journal of Psychological...
  • Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Measures in Health Psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Causal and Control...
  • Sireci, S., & Padilla, J. L. (2014). Validating assessments: Introduction to the Special Section. Psicothema, 26(1), 97-99. doi: 10.7334/...
  • Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in likert scales:...
  • Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 72-101.
  • Thissen, D., Chen, W. H., & Bock, R. D. (2003). MULTILOG 7: Multiple categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory...
  • Thurstone, L. L. (1931). Multiple factor analysis of variance. Psychological Review, 38, 406-427.
  • Zou, H., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2006). Sparse principal component analysis. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics,...
  • Zou, H., & Hastie, T. (2015). Elasticnet: Elastic-Net for Sparse Estimation and Sparse PCA (Version 1.1) [Computer software]. Minnesota:...