Adaptation of Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form into Turkish and Investigating of Measurement Invariance

Year 2023, , 1129 - 1154, 15.09.2023

Ufuk Erdogan

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1082325

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale Short Form developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) into Turkish and to examine its measurement invariance in terms of gender, subject (subject teacher- classroom teacher), and grade (primary-secondary and high school). The research was conducted with a group of 704 teachers employed in public schools in different provinces of Turkey. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA). Reliability analyses were also conducted. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the three-factor structure of the short version of the self-efficacy scale showed a good fit with the data obtained from the Turkish sample. The fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), indicated a good model fit [CFI = .962, TLI = .950]. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) indicated a reasonable error of fit [RMSEA = .067, with a 90% confidence interval of 0.057 to 0.076]. The Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) was also within acceptable limits [SRMR = .032]. The standardized factor loadings of the items ranged from .647 to .818. The Cronbach alpha (α) coefficients ranged from .84 to .91, and the composite reliability coefficients (ω) ranged from .78 to .91. In terms of measurement invariance, it was found that the short form of the self-efficacy scale showed consistent performance across gender, subject, and grade levels. This means that the scale had configural, metric, and scalar invariance, indicating that it maintains its validity and reliability when applied to different gender groups, subjects taught, and grade levels. The results indicated that the short form of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale can be used as a valid and reliable measurement instrument.

Keywords

Teacher self-efficacy, scale development, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance.

Öğretmen Öz yeterliği Ölçeği Kısa Formu’nun Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Ölçme Değişmezliğinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Tschannen-Moran ve Woolfolk Hoy (2001) tarafından geliştirilen Öğretmen Öz Yeterliği Ölçeği Kısa Formu’nu Türkçeye uyarlamak ve cinsiyet, branş ve eğitim kademesi değişkenleri açısından ölçme değişmezliğini incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu Türkiye’nin farklı illerindeki kamu okullarında görev yapan 704 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin analizinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri kullanılmıştır, ayrıca güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda öz yeterlik ölçeği kısa formunun üç faktörlü yapısının Türk örnekleminden elde edilen veriler iyi uyum gösterdiği [CFI = .962, TLI = .950, RMSEA = .067, (%90 GA- 0.057, 0.076), SRMR = .032] belirlenmiştir. Ölçekte yer alan maddelerin standartlaştırılmış faktör yükleri .647 ile .818 arasında değişmektedir. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini belirlemek için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa (α) katsayılarının .84 ile .91 arasında, birleşik güvenirlik katsayılarının (ω) ise .78 ile .91 değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Ölçme değişmezliği açısından öz yeterlik ölçeği kısa formunun cinsiyet, branş ve eğitim kademesi değişkenleri arasında biçimsel, metrik ve skalar düzeyde değişmezliğe sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular öğretmen öz yeterliği ölçeği kısa formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak kullanabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

Öğretmen öz yeterliği, ölçek geliştirme, çoklu grup doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ölçme değişmezliği.

References

• Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. https://doi.org/Eric Document service No. 130 243
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1985-98423-000/
• Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman & Company.
• Berman, P., McLaughlin, M. W., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation.
• Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.
• Çapık, C., Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2018). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Florence Nightingale Hemşirelik Dergisi, 26(3), 199-210.
• Deniz, Z. (2007). Psikolojik ölçme aracı uyarlama. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 1-16.
• Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
• Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00032-4
• Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the Responsibility Teachers Assume For Academic Successes and Failures in the Classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718103200310
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3th edition). Guilford publications.
• Pajares, M. F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (pp. 1–49). JAI Press.
• Rose, J., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885308
• Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805.
• Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934.