Measuring Undergraduate Students' Engineering Self‐Efficacy: A Validation Study
Abstract
Background: Self‐efficacy has been shown to be positively related to undergraduate engineering students' achievement. Designing self‐efficacy measures to assess the multifaceted skills required of engineers could improve the predictive relationship between efficacy beliefs and performance. Purpose: This study evaluates the factor structure, validity, and reliability of general and skill‐specific engineering self‐efficacy measures created for use with undergraduate engineering students. Design/Method: Self‐efficacy items used for the measures were created and adapted from those used previously. Survey responses were collected from engineering students attending two southeastern universities. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to determine factor structure. Multiple regression analyses examined the relationship between engineering self‐efficacy and academic achievement and intent to persist in engineering, both uniquely and when considering other motivation variables. Results: Factor analysis results suggested two self‐efficacy scales. The General Engineering Self‐Efficacy Scale is unidimensional; the Engineering Skills Self‐Efficacy Scale is multidimensional with three factors representing experimental skills, tinkering skills, and design. General engineering self‐efficacy predicted academic achievement, even when prior achievement was controlled. Students' intrinsic value in engineering predicted their intentions to persist in the engineering profession. Conclusions: We found evidence for the reliability, validity, and predictive utility of the engineering self‐efficacy scales. These scales can be used to assess undergraduate students' beliefs in their capabilities to perform tasks in their coursework and future roles as engineers and to investigate the association between self‐efficacy and academic outcomes of interest.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mamaril et al. (2016) provide a perspective on engineering self-efficacy grounded in Bandura's theory, emphasizing theoretical knowledge and practical application and problem-solving capabilities.
“Mamaril et al. (2016) provide a perspective on engineering self-efficacy grounded in Bandura's theory, emphasizing not only theoretical knowledge but also practical application and problem-solving capabilities.”
From Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education (2025) · cites this paper as Mamaril et al. (2016)
The instrument used was adapted from validated frameworks (Chu et al., 2015; Mamaril et al., 2016), but its psychometric properties were not formally revalidated for this specific age group and educational context.
“Although the instrument used was adapted from validated frameworks (Chu et al., 2015;Mamaril et al., 2016), its psychometric properties were not formally revalidated for this specific age group and educational context.”
From Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education (2025) · cites this paper as Mamaril et al., 2016
The survey items were designed to accurately reflect the construct of self-efficacy aligned with established theories such as Bandura (2006) and Mamaril et al. (2016).
“Regarding the self-efficacy items included in the pre and post survey, the survey items were designed to accurately reflect the construct of self-efficacy aligned with established theories mentioned in the introduction, such as Bandura (2006) and Mamaril et al. (2016).”
From Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education (2025) · cites this paper as Mamaril et al. (2016)
The self-efficacy items (S1-S14) were inspired by the determinants of a Maker mindset proposed by Chu et al. (2015) and the engineering self-efficacy items proposed by Mamaril et al. (2016).
“As for the design of the self-efficacy items (S1-S14), it is inspired by the determinants of a Maker mindset proposed by Chu et al. (2015) and the engineering self-efficacy items proposed by Mamaril et al. (2016).”
From Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education (2025) · cites this paper as Mamaril et al. (2016)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 154 · Cited by 302
- Authors
- Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Clemson University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 366-395
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W101591081
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 154
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 33.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Engineering Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (EEC-1240327, EEC-1240328)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Engineering Education and Curriculum Development
- Keywords
- engineering self-efficacy, undergraduate engineering students, factor structure, academic performance, design skills, experimental skills, student motivation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review