Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence

Serkan Aslan; Mehmet Ali Gökdemir

doi:10.46778/goputeb.1901976

Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence

Abstract

This study developed an artistic self-efficacy scale for students in Grades 5–8 and examined its psychometric properties in visual arts education. A quantitative scale-development and validation design was used. Separate groups of experts and middle school students participated in content review, pilot testing, exploratory analysis, confirmatory analysis, reliability assessment, and measurement-invariance testing. Items were generated from the literature and refined through expert review and student feedback. Exploratory analyses yielded a theoretically interpretable structure involving technical application and material use, aesthetic evaluation and interpretation, and innovative production and adaptive strategies, while also indicating a strong general artistic self-efficacy component. Confirmatory analyses showed that the correlated three-factor model represented the data better than a single-factor model, and a higher-order model also supported the interpretation of an overall score. Reliability evidence was acceptable to strong, particularly for the total score. However, the dimensions were closely related and should not be treated as fully independent. The findings provide preliminary support for using the scale, especially its total score, to assess middle school students’ artistic self-efficacy. Further studies should examine its validity across samples and external criteria.

Keywords

Artistic Self-Efficacy, Scale Development, Visual Arts Education, Middle School Students

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Süleyman Demirel University. The ethics approval was granted on 11.12.2025 under the protocol number E.1170303. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with institutional and national ethical standards, the Helsinki Declaration, and applicable regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Thanks

We would like to thank the middle school students who participated in the study, as well as the teachers and school administrators who assisted with data collection.

References

Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. The Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
Bartholomew, D. J., Knott, M., & Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor analysis: A unified approach. Wiley.
Blunch, N. J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modelling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioural research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modelling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coşkun, K., Kayserili, M. E., & Coşkun, M. (2017). Görsel sanatlar öğretimi öz-yeterlik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Fine arts teaching self-efficacy scale: Validity and reliability study]. Journal of Turkish Studies, 12(14), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11711
Cui, S., & Fan, Q. (2026). Teacher support, peer support, and art creativity: The mediating roles of learning interest and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1763658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1763658
Deer, G., Tadesse, E., Chen, Z., Khalid, S., & Gao, C. (2023). The impact of Chinese adolescents’ visual art participation on self-efficacy: A serial mediating role of cognition and emotion. PLOS ONE, 18(11), e0288379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288379
Denee, R., Lindsay, G., & Probine, S. (2024). Visual arts self-efficacy: Impacts and supports for early childhood teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 52(6), 1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-023-01489-5
DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE.
Dilmaç, O. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin görsel sanatlar dersine yönelik öz yeterlilik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Determining primary school teachers’ self-efficacy levels toward visual arts courses]. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Science (ICES’08) (pp. 672–682). Eastern Mediterranean University.
Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
Erden Kocaarslan, G., & Riedler Eryaman, M. (2024). Visual arts self-efficacy and professional attitudes: A deep dive into pre-service primary teachers’ perspectives. Participatory Educational Research, 11(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.32.11.3
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2017-0515
Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity and reliability. Statistical Associates Publishing.
Garson, G. D. (2021). Data analytics for the social sciences: Applications in R. Routledge.
Garson, G. D. (2022). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: A social scientist’s toolkit. Routledge.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
Haase, J., Hoff, E. V., Hanel, P. H. P., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relation between creative self-efficacy and different creativity measurements. Creativity Research Journal, 30(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411436
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Irwing, P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale, and test development. Wiley.
Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford Press.
Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (2015). Handbook of test development. Routledge.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
Leder, H., & Nadal, M. (2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The Aesthetic Episode—Developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta Reinhart, R. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Nie, T., Tsai, K.-C., & Wu, J. (2026). Too much of a good thing? The moderating role of children’s perceived social support in drawing activities. PLOS ONE, 21(2), Article e0330470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330470
OECD. (2013). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. OECD Publishing.
Özdamar, K. (2016). Ölçek ve test geliştirme ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Scale and test development and structural equation modeling]. Nisan Kitabevi.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what is being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
Roos, J. M., & Bauldry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis. SAGE.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.
Schneider, V., & Rohmann, A. (2021). Arts in education: A systematic review of competency outcomes in quasi-experimental and experimental studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 623935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.623935
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.
Şen, Z., & Çaydere, O. (2024). The development of the Academic Self-Efficacy Scale for Art Education: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Research, 9(27), 300–327. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.738
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Ülger, K. (2018). The role of art education on the creative thinking skills of students in music and visual arts education: A comparison from the perspective of music education. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Journal of Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education], 18(2), 1175–1195. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018..-396608
Valquaresma, A., Coimbra, J. L., & Costa, P. (2022). Creative Self-Efficacy Scale for Children and Adolescents (CASES): A development and validation study. International Journal of Psychological Research, 15(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.5410
Vieira, M., Kennedy, J., Leonard, S. N., & Cropley, D. (2025). Creative self-efficacy: Why it matters for the future of STEM education. Creativity Research Journal, 37(3), 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2309038
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
Watkins, M. W. (2021). A step-by-step guide to exploratory factor analysis with SPSS. Routledge.
Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Routledge.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Curriculum and Instration (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Serkan Aslan ^*
0000-0001-8515-4233
Türkiye

Mehmet Ali Gökdemir
0000-0002-5100-5026
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

September 20, 2026

Publication Date

-

Submission Date

March 3, 2026

Acceptance Date

July 12, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: Advanced Online Publication

DOI

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1901976

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA68UC47AK

APA

Aslan, S., & Gökdemir, M. A. (2026). Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1901976

AMA

1.Aslan S, Gökdemir MA. Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence. IJTES. 2026;(Advanced Online Publication). doi:10.46778/goputeb.1901976

Chicago

Aslan, Serkan, and Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. 2026. “Artistic Self-Efficacy Scale for Middle School Students: Development, Validity, Reliability, and Measurement Invariance Evidence”. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, no. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1901976.

EndNote

Aslan S, Gökdemir MA (September 1, 2026) Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences Advanced Online Publication

IEEE

[1]S. Aslan and M. A. Gökdemir, “Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence”, IJTES, no. Advanced Online Publication, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.46778/goputeb.1901976.

ISNAD

Aslan, Serkan - Gökdemir, Mehmet Ali. “Artistic Self-Efficacy Scale for Middle School Students: Development, Validity, Reliability, and Measurement Invariance Evidence”. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences. Advanced Online Publication (September 1, 2026). https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1901976.

JAMA

1.Aslan S, Gökdemir MA. Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence. IJTES. 2026. doi:10.46778/goputeb.1901976.

MLA

Aslan, Serkan, and Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. “Artistic Self-Efficacy Scale for Middle School Students: Development, Validity, Reliability, and Measurement Invariance Evidence”. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, no. Advanced Online Publication, Sept. 2026, doi:10.46778/goputeb.1901976.

Vancouver

1.Serkan Aslan, Mehmet Ali Gökdemir. Artistic self-efficacy scale for middle school students: Development, validity, reliability, and measurement invariance evidence. IJTES. 2026 Sep. 1;(Advanced Online Publication). doi:10.46778/goputeb.1901976