1 / 37

Purpose of Presentation

Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Recent Validation Research for a Service-Learning Assessment Tool Nyssa Snow (Graduate Student in Clinical Psychology) Roger N. Reeb , Ph.D. (Faculty Supervisor) University of Dayton. Purpose of Presentation.

jacoba
Télécharger la présentation

Purpose of Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Recent Validation Research for a Service-Learning Assessment ToolNyssa Snow(Graduate Student in Clinical Psychology)Roger N. Reeb, Ph.D.(Faculty Supervisor)University of Dayton

  2. Purpose of Presentation • To briefly review research and theory on the self-efficacy construct • To explain the role of self-efficacy in service-learning and engaged scholarship. • To review over 15 years of research and new validation research on the Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES). • To provide recommendations for future research.

  3. Definition of Self-Efficacy • “…an expectation of personal mastery…” • Source: Bandura (1977, p. 191) • “…self-appraisal of operative capability…” • Source: Bandura (1982, p. 123) • “…a conviction that one can execute the behavior required to produce the [desired] outcomes…” • Source: Bandura (1977, p. 193) • “…a belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations…” • Source: Bandura (1995, p. 2)

  4. Sources of Efficacy Information • Enactive Mastery Experiences • Past success and failure in the situation • Vicarious Experiences • Observations of how others cope in the situation • Verbal Persuasion • Encouragement and discouragement from others • Anticipatory Arousal • Emotional and physiological reactivity

  5. Self-Efficacy vs. Outcome Expectations • Bandura’s Distinction: • “…self-efficacy is a judgment of one’s ability to organize and execute given types of performances, whereas an outcome expectation is a judgment of the likely consequences such actions would produce…” • Source: Bandura (1997, p. 21) • Relevance of Distinction for Service-Learning: • “…In the area of service-learning,…a student may believe that a particular set of actions (e.g., performing as a literacy tutor) would make a positive difference in the community, but if the student has serious doubts as to whether he or she has the capacity to perform the set of actions, such information would not influence the student’s behavior…” • Source: Reeb et al. (1998, p. 48)

  6. Self-Efficacy: Overview of Research • Three decades of research supports Bandura’s (1977) original hypothesis: • “…expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior is initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences…” • Across situations, circumstances, and populations, research indicates that: • Self-efficacy improves in individuals over the course of interventions, treatments, or training experiences. • Self-efficacy is positively correlated with future performance attainments and inversely correlated with anxiety during performance.

  7. Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale(CSSES) - See Appendix A • Purpose: • “The CSSES was constructed to assess the individual’s confidence in his or her own ability to make clinically significant contributions to the community through service.” • Source: Reeb et al. (1998, p. 48) • Intended Uses: • The CSSES was intended for use as an outcome variable, mediating variable, or moderator variable in service-learning, engaged scholarship, and other community action research.

  8. Rationale for the CSSES • The construct of self-efficacy is inherently pertinent to the goals of service-learning. • CSSES fills a void, since most measures used in service-learning research focused on… • Motives (e.g., reasons to engage in service) • Values (e.g., social responsibility) • Beliefs and Attitudes (e.g., obligation to serve) • Perceived community needs • Self-Efficacy is considered a core element of the civic-minded graduate (Bringle & Steinberg, 2010).

  9. The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10Quite Certain Uncertain • ____ 1. If I choose to participate in community service in the future, I will be able to make a meaningful contribution. • ____ 2. In the future, I will be able to find community service opportunities which are relevant to my interests and abilities. • ____ 3. I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting social justice. • ____ 4. I am confident that, through community service, I can make a difference in my community. • ____ 5. I am confident that I can help individuals in need by participating in community service activities. • ____ 6. I am confident that, in future community service activities, I will be able to interact with relevant professionals in ways that are meaningful and effective. • ____ 7. I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting equal opportunity for citizens. • ____ 8. Through community service, I can apply knowledge in ways that solve “real-life” problems. • ____ 9. By participating in community service, I can help people to help themselves. • ____10. I am confident that I will participate in community service activities in the future.

  10. Reliability of CSSES • Internal Consistency • Coefficient alpha consistently above .90 • Test-Retest Reliability (Temporal Consistency) • The pre- to post-semester reliability coefficient was high in magnitude (r = .68) and statistically significant in studies of college students. • Over a six-month period, the coefficient was high in magnitude (r = .93) and statistically significant in a study of adolescents on probation.

  11. Reliability of CSSES (continued) • Alternate-Forms Reliability • Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale – Sensitive to Change (CSSES-SC) (see Appendix B) • An alternate form that prevents ceiling effects by asking participants to compare themselves to “an individual with 10 years of community service experience” as they rate items • Reliability Coefficient: N = 272, r = .57, p < .001

  12. Reliability of CSSES (continued) • Alternate-Forms Reliability • Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale - Retrospective Version (CSSES-RV) (Appendix C) • An alternate form designed to assess students’ retrospective perceptions of a course’s contribution to their self-efficacy for service. • Reliability Coefficient: N = 272, pr = .52, p < .001

  13. Factor Structure of CSSES • A factor analysis was conducted with a large sample of college students (N = 676). • CSSES items and items reflecting related constructs were factor analyzed. • CSSES items loaded heavily on a separate unique factor, suggesting that the CSSES is unidimensional.

  14. Defining the Nomological Network of the CSSES • As first explained by Cronbach and Meehl (1955), defining the nomological network for a measure involves examining… • Discriminant Validity • Convergent Validity

  15. Discriminant Validity of CSSES • Social Desirability • Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) • N = 394, r = .09, p > .05 • Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1988) • Total: N = 272, r = .16, p = .007 • Self-Deception: N = 272, r = .07, p > .05 • Impression Management: N = 272, r = .19, p = .002

  16. Discriminant Validity of CSSES (continued) • Social Alienation • Powerlessness Scale (Neal & Groat, 1974) • N = 121, pr = -.37, p < .001 • Dean Alienation Scale (Dean, 1961) • N = 608, pr = -.14, p < .01 • Anomia Scale (Srole, 1956) • N = 121, pr = -.29, p < .01 • Alienation Scale (Maddi et al., 1979) • N = 121, pr = -.23, p < .05

  17. Convergent Validity of CSSES • Generalized Self-Efficacy • New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al., 2001) • N = 608, r = .29, p < .001 • General Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982) • N = 608, r = .24, p < .001

  18. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Behavioral Intentions for Civic Action • Civic Action Scale (Moely et al., 2002) • N = 608, pr = .65, p < .001

  19. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Hope • The Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) • N = 608, pr = .27, p < .001

  20. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Self-Esteem • Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale • N = 608, pr = .17, p < .001

  21. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Generativity • Loyola Generativity Scale (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992) • N = 272, pr = .42, p < .001

  22. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Growth Motivation • Growth Motivation Index (Park et al., 2009) • N = 272, pr = .36, p < .001

  23. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Empathy • Multidimensional Emotional Empathy Scale (Caruso & Mayer, 1998) • N = 272, pr = .47, p < .001 • Interpersonal Reactivity Scale (Davis, 1983) • N = 272, pr = .32, p < .001

  24. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Five Personality Factors (International Personality Item Pool website: http://ipip.ori.org/) • Reeb et al, 2010 hypothesized “that individuals with a high level of community service self-efficacy tend to have the following personality pattern: low neuroticism, high extraversion, and high agreeableness” • Also hypothesized that those high in community service self-efficacy would also have moderate elevations in openness to experience and conscientiousness. • Extraversion: N = 534, pr = .26, p < .05 • Agreeableness: N = 534, pr = .32, p < .05 • Conscientiousness: N = 534, pr = .26, p < .05 • Openness to Experience: N = 534, pr = .14, p < .05 • Neuroticism: N = 534, pr = -.14, p < .05

  25. Convergent Validity of CSSES(continued) • Civic-Minded Graduate • Civic-Minded Graduate Scale (Steinberg, Hatcher, & Bringle, 2011) • Total: N = 177, pr = .46, p < .001 • Dispositions: N = 177, pr = .50, p < .001 • Efficacy: N = 177, pr = .46, p < .001 • Valuing Community Engagement: N = 177, pr = .46, p < .001 • Social Trustee of Knowledge: N = 177, pr = .48, p < .001

  26. Criterion-Related (Concurrent) Validity of CSSES • Across studies, the method of contrasting groups indicates that students who pursue service-learning have higher CSSES scores than those who do not. • For example, one study reported by Reeb et al. (1998) demonstrated a direct linear pattern: the more types of service that students participated in, the higher were their CSSES scores. • In that study, multiple regression analyses indicated: Among several measures of service-related beliefs or values, the CSSES was the best predictor of service involvement and satisfaction.

  27. Sensitivity in Detecting Changes • In quasi-experimental research (i.e., service-learning students vs. non-participants), the CSSES has detected changes in self-efficacy during service. • However, when students have strong service backgrounds at pre-test, a CSSES ceiling effect may preclude detection of self-efficacy improvements. • An alternate form (Appendix B) is more sensitive in detecting changes in this situation. • When pre-test assessment is not possible, an alternate retrospective form is useful (Appendix C).

  28. Sensitivity to Intervention Effects(Continued) • Adolescents with felony offenses (N = 40) were matched for age and randomly assigned to conditions (Reeb, 2006): • Community Service Diversion Program (n = 20) • Routine Probation (n = 20) • Results: • Adolescents in the Community-Based Diversion Program had increases in CSSES scores over a six-month period. • Adolescents in Routine Probation did not show changes in CSSES scores. • Recidivism was more likely for adolescents in Routine Probation (13 out of 20 cases) than for adolescents in the Community Service Diversion Program (5 out of 20 cases).

  29. CSSES: Gender Differences • Across studies, females score higher on the CSSES. • The gender difference is small-to-moderate, statistically significant, and consistently observed. • While males score higher on measures of general self-efficacy, the current finding is consistent with the finding that females score higher on measures of… • intentions for community service • obligation for community service • positive attitudes toward community service

  30. Recommendations for Future • Two General Sets of Research Recommendations: • Further validation research on psychometric properties of CSSES • Research capturing the complexities of the self-efficacy construct in service-learning and engaged scholarship • In general, prospective longitudinal research would be ideal. It would allow consideraton of Bandura’s (1978) principle of reciprocal determinism in examining changes in self-efficacy that emerge over time in individuals involved in community service.

  31. CSSES: Future Validation Research • Fully define the nomological network of the CSSES by continuing to examine convergent and discriminant validity. • Further validation of alternate CSSES versions to assure that they address assessment problems as intended. • Translate CSSES into different languages. • Cross validation research with diverse populations and individuals in different cultures. • Determine utility of CSSES for assessing changes in community members within the context of service-learning and engaged scholarship.

  32. Research Capturing Complexities of the Self-Efficacy Construct • How does community service self-efficacy change in students as they encounter success and failure experiences during service provision? • Does community service self-efficacy moderate or mediate other student outcomes (or community outcomes) during service-learning? • How do different reflection methods influence the community service self-efficacy of students in service-learning? • Does self-efficacy predict future community service? • Does self-efficacy predict community service effectiveness?

  33. Appendix A: The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10Quite Certain Uncertain • ____ 1. If I choose to participate in community service in the future, I will be able to make a meaningful contribution. • ____ 2. In the future, I will be able to find community service opportunities which are relevant to my interests and abilities. • ____ 3. I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting social justice. • ____ 4. I am confident that, through community service, I can make a difference in my community. • ____ 5. I am confident that I can help individuals in need by participating in community service activities. • ____ 6. I am confident that, in future community service activities, I will be able to interact with relevant professionals in ways that are meaningful and effective. • ____ 7. I am confident that, through community service, I can help in promoting equal opportunity for citizens. • ____ 8. Through community service, I can apply knowledge in ways that solve “real-life” problems. • ____ 9. By participating in community service, I can help people to help themselves. • ____10. I am confident that I will participate in community service activities in the future.

  34. Appendix B: The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale – Sensitive to Change Version (CSSES-SC)1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10 Less than the Greater than the experienced participant experienced participant Compared to an individual with 10 years of community service experience, how confident are you about… ____ 1. …making a meaningful contributions to the community through service?  ____ 2. …finding community service opportunities that are relevant to your interests and abilities? ____ 3. …helping to promote social justice through community service?  ____ 4. …making a difference in your community through service? ____ 5. …helping individuals in need by participating in community service activities? ____ 6. …interacting with professionals in meaningful and effective ways in future community service? ____ 7. ...helping to promote equal opportunity for citizens? ____ 8. …applying knowledge in ways that solve “real-life” problems? ____ 9. …helping people to help themselves? ____ 10. …being willing to participate in community service in the future? 

  35. Appendix C: The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale - Retrospective Version (CSSES-RV)1-------2-------3-------4-------5-------6-------7-------8-------9-------10 Quite Certain Uncertain This course increased or strengthened my confidence that, in the future, I will be able to… ____ 1. …make meaningful contributions to the community through service.  ____ 2. …find community service opportunities which are relevant to my interests and abilities. ____ 3. …help in promoting social justice through community. ____ 4. …service.make a difference in the community through community service. ____ 5. …help individuals in need by participating in community service activities. ____ 6. …interact with relevant community professionals in ways that are meaningful and effective. ____ 7. …help in promoting equal opportunity for citizens through my community service activities. ____ 8. …apply my knowledge to community service in ways that help to solve “real-life” problems. ____ 9. …help people to help themselves as I engage in community. ____ 10. …commit myself to community service.

  36. Questions & Discussion

  37. Thank you for attending!

More Related