CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 393Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring General Self-Efficacy: A Comparison of Three Measures Using Item Response Theory

Scherbaum, Charles A., Cohen-Charash, Yochi, Kern, Michael J.·2006·Educational and Psychological Measurement
DOI 10.1177/0013164406288171
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

General self-efficacy (GSE), individuals'belief in their ability to perform well in a variety of situations, has been the subject of increasing research attention. However, the psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, validity) associated with the scores on GSE measures have been criticized, which has hindered efforts to further establish the construct of GSE. This study examines the reliability of responses to the items, as well as the item parameters of three GSE measures using item response theory. Contrary to the criticisms, the responses to the items on all three measures of GSE demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties, especially at lower levels of GSE. The results indicate that the New General Self-Efficacy Scale has a slight advantage over the other measures examined in this study in terms of the item discrimination, item information, and relative efficiency of the test information function. Implications for GSE research are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0013164406288171

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Drasgow, F., 1983, Journalof AppliedPsychology, 68, 363
  2. Guilford, J. P., 1954, Psychometric methods
  3. Nunnally, J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  4. Schwarzer, R., 1997, World Psychology, 3, 177
  5. Schwarzer, R., 1995, Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, 35
  6. Stanley, K., 1997, Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 123, 81
  7. Thissen, D., 2003, MULTILOG user's guide

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 393

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Scherbaum, C. A., Cohen-Charash, Y., & Kern, M. J.
Affiliations
The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
ORCID
Scherbaum, Charles A.
Venue
Educational and Psychological Measurement
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-12
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
1047-1063
ISSN
  • 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3888
DOI
10.1177/0013164406288171
OpenAlex
W1972525117
Cited by
393
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 17
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Educational and Psychological Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
general self-efficacy, self-efficacy measurement, psychometric properties, item response theory, item discrimination, test information function, reliability statistics, construct validity

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