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

  1. Greibin Villegas Barahona 1
  2. Nerea González García 1
  3. Ana Belén Sánchez-García 1
  4. Mercedes Sánchez Barba 1
  5. María Purificación Galindo-Villardó 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 30

Número: 4

Páginas: 442-448

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

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.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abdi, H., Williams, L., Valentin, D., & Bennani, M. (2012). STATIS and DISTATIS: Optimum multi-table principal component analysis and three-way metric multidimensional scaling. Computational Statistics, 4(2), 124-167. doi:10.1002/wics.198
  • Ackerman, T. (1992). A didactic explanation of item bias, item impact, and item validity from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(1), 67-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00368.x
  • 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. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
  • 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 research: Identifying and understanding non-invariance. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 40(1), 66-90. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1070823
  • Brown, T., & Moore, M. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (1st ed., pp. 361-379). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • 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: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29(4), 539-551. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2017.178
  • Carrasco, M., & Del Barrio, M. (2002). Evaluación de la autoeficacia en niños y adolescentes [Assessment of children’s and adolescent’s selfefficacy]. Psicothema, 14(2), 323-332.
  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodnessof-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255.
  • Goldstein, H. (1980). Dimensionality, bias, independence and measurement scale problems in latent trait test score models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 33, 234-246. doi: 10.1111/ j.2044-8317.1980.tb00610.x
  • Gómez-Benito, J., Balluerka, N., González, A., Widaman, K. F., & Padilla, J.-L. (2017). Detecting differential item functioning in behavioral indicators across parallel forms. Psicothema, 29(1), 91-95. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.112
  • Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244. doi: 10.1027/10155759.11.3.147
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Rotation and interpretation of principal components. In Springer (Ed.), Principal Component Analysis (2nd ed., Vol. 30, p. 487). Springer, New York, NY.
  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Applied Psychological Measurement (Vol. 5). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale. N.J. doi: 10.1177/014662168100500412
  • Lorezo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2011). Factor 8 (Release 10.8.03) [Manual of the program]. Tarragona, Spain: Universitar Rovira i Virgili.
  • 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 Database Theory and Application, 8(6), 57-74. doi: 10.14257/ ijdta.2015.8.6.06
  • 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 1), 1-97.
  • Scholz, U., Gutiérrez, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general selfefficacy a universal construct? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242
  • Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Measures in Health Psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Causal and Control Beliefs, 1, 35-37.
  • Sireci, S., & Padilla, J. L. (2014). Validating assessments: Introduction to the Special Section. Psicothema, 26(1), 97-99. doi: 10.7334/ psicothema2013.255
  • Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149-158. doi: 10.7334/ psicothema2018.33
  • 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 (Version 7.03) [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
  • 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, 15(2), 265-286. doi: 10.1198/106186006X113430
  • Zou, H., & Hastie, T. (2015). Elasticnet: Elastic-Net for Sparse Estimation and Sparse PCA (Version 1.1) [Computer software]. Minnesota: School of Statistics.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet