Cited by 371Teacher Professional Development and MotivationTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis

Chesnut, Steven Randall, Burley, Hansel·2015·Educational Research Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chesnut, S. R., & Burley, H.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University (US)
Corresponding author
Chesnut, Steven Randall
Venue
Educational Research Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
15
Pages
1-16
ISSN
1747-938X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014987202
Cited by
367
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Research Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Professional Development and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
teacher self-efficacy, teacher commitment, pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, teacher retention, self-efficacy measurement

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