Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T11:34:52.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2016

Bruno F. Damásio ,
Felipe Valentini ,
Susana I. Núñes-Rodriguez ,
Soeren Kliem ,
Sílvia H. Koller ,
Andreas Hinz ,
Elmar Brähler ,
Carolyn Finck  and
Markus Zenger
Bruno F. Damásio*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Felipe Valentini
Affiliation:
Universidade Salgado de Oliveira (Brazil)
Susana I. Núñes-Rodriguez
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Soeren Kliem
Affiliation:
Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Hannover (Germany)
Sílvia H. Koller
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)
Andreas Hinz
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig (Germany)
Elmar Brähler
Affiliation:
University Medical Center of the University of Mainz (Germany)
Carolyn Finck
Affiliation:
Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)
Markus Zenger
Affiliation:
University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg and Stendal (Germany)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bruno Figueiredo Damásio. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ. Institute of Psychology/Department of Psychometrics. Avenida Pasteur, 250. 22290–240. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). E-mail: bf.damasio@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

cross-culturalmeasurement invarianceMGCFAMIMICself-efficacy
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E29
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New-York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, G. T., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
Bonsaksen, T., Kottorp, A., Gay, C., Fagermoen, M. S., & Lerdal, A. (2013). Rasch analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in a sample of persons with morbid obesity. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-202 Google Scholar
Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Adaptation and validation process of psychological measures among cultures: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22, 423–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014 Google Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 Google Scholar
Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013193 Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 Google Scholar
Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hinz, A., Schumacher, J., Albani, C., Schmid, G., & Brähler, E. (2006). Standardization of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in the German population. Diagnostica, 52(1), 26–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.52.1.26 Google Scholar
Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004 Google Scholar
Kim, E. S., Yoon, M., & Lee, T. (2012). Testing measurement invariance using MIMIC: Likelihood ratio test with a critical value adjustment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 469–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164411427395 Google Scholar
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005 Google Scholar
Luszczynska, A., Mohamed, N. E., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Self-efficacy and social support predict benefit finding 12 month after cancer surgery: The mediating role of coping strategies. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 10, 365–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548500500093738 Google Scholar
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 439–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294825 Google Scholar
Millsap, R. E., & Kwok, O.-M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93 Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide. (7 th Ed.), Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Padilla, J. L., Acosta, B., Guevara, M., Gómez, J., & González, A. (2006). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión Española de la Escala de Autoeficacia General Aplicada en México y España [Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale applied in Mexico and Spain]. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 23, 245–252.Google Scholar
Peter, C., Cieza, A., & Geyh, S. (2014). Rasch analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in spinal cord injury. Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 544–555. http://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313475897 Google Scholar
Sass, D. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406661 Google Scholar
Sbicigo, J. B., Teixeira, M. A. P., Dias, A. C. G., & Dell´Aglio, D. D. (2012). Propriedades psicométricas da Escala de Autoeficácia Geral Percebida (EAGP) [Psychometric properties of the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES)]. Psico, 43, 139–146.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Scholz, U., Doña, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzer, R., Bäbler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self-efficacy Scale. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 69–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x Google Scholar
Schwarzer, R., Boehmer, S., Luszczynska, A., Mohamed, N. E., & Knoll, N. (2005). Dispositional self-efficacy as personal resource factor in coping after surgery. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 807–818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.016 Google Scholar
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-efficacy Scale. In Weinman, J., Wright, S., & Johnston, M., Measures in health psychology: A user´s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Davier, A. A. (2011). Statistical models for test equating, scaling, and linking. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Zenger, M., Berth, H., Brähler, E., & Stöbel-Richter, Y. (2013). Health complaints and unemployment: The role of self-efficacy in a prospective cohort study. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 32(1), 97–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.1.97 Google Scholar