Is the General Self-Efficacy Scale a Reliable Measure to be used in Cross-Cultural Studies? Results from Brazil, Germany and Colombia

• Bruno F. Damásio ^[1] ; Felipe Valentini ^[2] ; Susana I. Núñes-Rodriguez ^[3] ; Soeren Kliem ^[4] ; Sílvia H. Koller ^[3] ; Andreas Hinz ^[5] ; Elmar Brähler ^[8] ; Carolyn Finck ^[6] ; Markus Zenger ^[7]
  1. [1] Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

     Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

     Brasil

     
  2. [2] Universidade Salgado de Oliveira

     Universidade Salgado de Oliveira

     Brasil

     
  3. [3] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

     Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

     Brasil

     
  4. [4] Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony

     Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony

     Region Hannover, Alemania

     
  5. [5] University of Leipzig

     University of Leipzig

     Kreisfreie Stadt Leipzig, Alemania

     
  6. [6] Universidad de Los Andes

     Universidad de Los Andes

     Colombia

     
  7. [7] University of Applied Sciences

     University of Applied Sciences

     Region Hannover, Alemania

     
  8. [8] University Medical Center of the University of Mainz (Germany)

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: The Spanish Journal of Psychology, ISSN 1138-7416, Vol. 19, 2016, 10 págs.
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2016.30
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 4 Citas
• Resumen

  • This study evaluated cross-cultural measurement invariance for the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) in a large Brazilian (N = 2.394) and representative German (N = 2.046) and Colombian (N = 1.500) samples. Initially, multiple-indicators multiple-causes (MIMIC) analyses showed that sex and age were biasing items responses on the total sample (2 and 10 items, respectively). After controlling for these two covariates, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was employed. Configural invariance was attested. However, metric invariance was not supported for five items, in a total of 10, and scalar invariance was not supported for all items. We also evaluated the differences between the latent scores estimated by two models: MIMIC and MGCFA unconstraining the non-equivalent parameters across countries. The average difference was equal to |.07| on the estimation of the latent scores, and 22.8% of the scores were biased in at least .10 standardized points. Bias effects were above the mean for the German group, which the average difference was equal to |.09|, and 33.7% of the scores were biased in at least .10. In synthesis, the GSES did not provide evidence of measurement invariance to be employed in this cross-cultural study. More than that, our results showed that even when controlling for sex and age effects, the absence of control on items parameters in the MGCFA analyses across countries would implicate in bias of the latent scores estimation, with a higher effect for the German population.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New-York, NY: Freeman.
  • Bandura A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164–180. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
  • Bond G. T., & Fox C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
  • Bonsaksen T., Kottorp A., Gay C., Fagermoen M. S., & Lerdal A. (2013). Rasch analysis of the General SelfEfficacy Scale in a sample of...
  • Borsa J. C., Damásio B. F., & Bandeira D. R. (2012). Adaptation and validation process of psychological measures among cultures: Some...
  • Brown T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Byrne B. M., Shavelson R. J., & Muthén B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial...
  • Chen F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research....
  • Cheung G. W., & Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling:...
  • Embretson S. E. & Reise S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
  • Hambleton R. K. (2005). Issues, designs and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton,...
  • Hinz A., Schumacher J., Albani C., Schmid G., & Brähler E. (2006). Standardization of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in the German population....
  • Jones T. L., & Prinz R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology...
  • Kim E. S., Yoon M., & Lee T. (2012). Testing measurement invariance using MIMIC: Likelihood ratio test with a critical value adjustment....
  • Komarraju M., & Nadler D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?...
  • Luszczynska A., Mohamed N. E., & Schwarzer R. (2005). Self-efficacy and social support predict benefit finding 12 month after cancer surgery:...
  • Luszczynska A., Scholz U., & Schwarzer R. (2005). The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology,...
  • Meredith W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825
  • Millsap R. E., & Kwok O.-M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological...
  • Muthén L. K., & Muthén B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. (7th Ed.), Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  • Padilla J. L., Acosta B., Guevara M., Gómez J., & González A. (2006). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión Española de la Escala de...
  • Peter C., Cieza A., & Geyh S. (2014). Rasch analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in spinal cord injury. Journal of Health Psychology,...
  • Sass D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal...
  • Sbicigo J. B., Teixeira M. A. P., Dias A. C. G., & Dell´Aglio D. D. (2012). Propriedades psicométricas da Escala de Autoeficácia Geral...
  • Schmidt F. L. (2010). Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 233–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369339
  • Scholz U., Doña B. G., Sud S., & Schwarzer R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries....
  • Schwarzer R., Bäbler J., Kwiatek P., Schröder K., & Zhang J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic selfbeliefs: Comparison of the German,...
  • Schwarzer R., Boehmer S., Luszczynska A., Mohamed N. E., & Knoll N. (2005). Dispositional self-efficacy as personal resource factor in...
  • Schwarzer R., & Jerusalem M. (1995). Generalized Selfefficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology:...
  • Vandenberg R. J., & Lance C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations...
  • Von Davier A. A. (2011). Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Zenger M., Berth H., Brähler E., & Stöbel-Richter Y. (2013). Health complaints and unemployment: The role of self-efficacy in a prospective...