Development and Validation of the Sources of Self-Efficacy Inventory
(SOSI): Exploring a New Measure of Teacher Efficacy
Kevin M. Kieffer
James A. Haley VA Medical Center, Tampa
Texas A&M University
Robin K. Henson
University of Southern Mississippi
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement
in Education, New Orleans, April 25, 2000.
The present study described the development and construct validation of
a new instrument of teacher efficacy, the Sources of Self-Efficacy Inventory
(SOSI), which was created to address shortcomings in previous measures
that purported to measure this construct. Development of the SOSI was based
on a model of teacher efficacy posited by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy,
and Hoy (1998) that described four important areas of efficacy building
information as proposed by Bandura (1997). The SOSI was examined in a sample
of 252 precertification education teachers of varying experience levels
at a large Southwestern university. Resultant factor analysis of the 35
SOSI items yielded four interpretable factors that contained many of the
target items. However, many items were associated with non-intended factors
and it was apparent that item and subscale revision was necessary. Results
of a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) study of another teacher efficacy
instrument, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), are presented to further
explore the teacher efficacy construct.
Development and Validation of the Sources of Self-Efficacy Inventory
(SOSI): Exploring a New Measure of Teacher Efficacy
Albert Bandura (1977, 1997)
presented self-efficacy as a mechanism of behavioral change and self-regulation
in his social cognitive theory. An efficacy belief refers to a perceived
ability to carry out actions that will successively lead toward a specific
goal. Bandura proposed that efficacy beliefs were powerful predictors of
behavior because they were ultimately self-referent in nature and directed
toward specific tasks. Consequently, the predictive power of efficacy beliefs
has been empirically demonstrated in the research literature (Bandura,
1997; Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Researchers have applied
Bandura's social cognitive theory concepts to teachers, among the first
of which were Ashton and Webb (1982). These researchers argued that two
items which had been previously used by RAND researchers (Armor et al.,
1976; Berman et al., 1977) to study teacher efficacy actually corresponded
to Bandura's self-efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions of social
cognitive theory. They labeled the two dimensions personal teaching efficacy
(PTE) and general teaching efficacy (GTE), respectively. In an effort to
further the study of teacher efficacy, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed
the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) to measure both of these constructs. The
TES was the first substantative attempt to empirically develop a data collection
instrument that tapped into this potentially powerful variable in teachers.
The TES has subsequently become the predominate instrument in the study
of teacher efficacy, leading Ross (1994, p. 382) to label it a "standard"
measure in the field. Use of the TES has allowed researchers to classify
teacher efficacy as one of the few teacher characteristics consistently
related to positive teacher behavior and student outcomes (Anderson, Greene,
& Loewen, 1988; Coladarci, 1992; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Moore &
Esselman, 1992; Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993).
Recently, however, the TES
has been scrutinized on the basis of the test authors' conceptualization
of Bandura's (1997) self efficacy and outcome expectancy dimensions. In
particular, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) have argued that the GTE dimension
of the TES is a measure of external locus of control as opposed to outcome
expectancy. With this in mind, Tschannen-Moran et al. proposed a multi-dimensional
model of teacher efficacy that purported to more accurately coincide with
Bandura's social cognitive theory. The model takes into account Bandura's
(1997) four sources of efficacy building information: mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, social/verbal persuasion, and physiological/emotional
arousal. Of these four, Bandura proposed that mastery experiences were
the most powerful sources of information that result in bolstered self-efficacy.
The model proposed by Tschannen
et al. (1998) promises to result in new and potentially a more precise
study of teacher efficacy. However, the empirical validation of this theory
from multiple perspectives is necessary to substantiate its accuracy. The
present study is attempt to explore a portion of this model in a sample
of preservice teachers. Three questions guided the present study: (a) What
is the structure of Sources of Self Efficacy Inventory (SOSI), an instrument
developed to potentially assess Bandura's four sources of efficacy information?;
(b) Is the structure of the TES valid in a sample of preservice education
teachers?; and (c) What are the relationships between the TES, an established
teacher efficacy instrument, and the SOSI?
Participants and Procedure
Participants in the present study were 252 undergraduate students at
a large Southwestern university who were enrolled in a junior level educational
psychology course. During class time, students were given the opportunity
to participate in completion of the two research instruments. The mean
age of the participants was 20.94 (SD=2.35), and there were more
females (218; 86.5%) than males. The majority of the respondents were nonminority
students (215; 85.3%), although there were four (1.6%) African American,
five (2%) Asian American, 22 (8.7%) Hispanic, and two (0.8%) Native American
students in our sample (four students did not provide racial/ethnic origin
information). A preponderance of the participants were at the junior college
level (114; 45.2%) with smaller percentages at the sophomore (51; 20.2%),
senior (80; 31.7%) and graduate student (7; 2.8%) levels.
Teacher Efficacy Scale
(TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The TES is a 16 item instrument that measures
global (non-context specific) self-efficacy. The instrument contains 16
items in six point Likert format ('1' strongly disagree to '6' strongly
agree) that measures the two efficacy constructs, PTE (nine items) and
GTE (seven items), as described previously. Coefficient alphas for the
two subscales were .4359 (GTE) and .7231 (PTE).
Sources of Self-Efficacy
Inventory (SOSI; Henson, 1999). The SOSI is a 35 item, Likert-type
scale instrument ('1' definitely not true for me to '7' definitely true
for me) that was constructed to measure self-efficacy in teachers. Four
scales were constructed based on the work of Bandura (1997): Mastery Experience
(nine items), Emotional/Physiological Arousal (seven items), Vicarious
Experience (nine items) and Social Verbal Persuasion (10 items). The SOSI
was developed after a thorough review of the literature, and items were
specifically developed to tap into each of Bandura's (1997) four efficacy
building areas. Both positive and negative historical events can potentially
provide information that impact self-efficacy. For example, it is possible
that a vicarious experience in which a preservice teacher witnesses an
experienced teacher succeed can bolster the preservice teacher's own belief
in his/her ability to succeed at the task. Furthermore, depending on the
preservice teacher's attributions, witnessing an experienced teacher fail
may also bolster the preservice teacher's efficacy if he/she perceives
him/herself as having better skills than the observed teacher. The SOSI
items were developed to potentially capture these varied sources of efficacy
information. Coefficient alphas for the four subscales were .7081 (Mastery
Experience), .6000 (Emotional/Physiological Arousal), .7797 (Vicarious
Experience) and .4495 (Social/Verbal Persuasion). The items on the SOSI
are presented in Appendix A.
Construct Validation of the SOSI: Exploratory Factor Analysis
We conducted an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) on the 35 items to determine instrument structure.
We used a principal components extraction procedure on the 35 item correlation
matrix. The eigenvalue-greater-than 1.0-rule (K1) and the Scree test (Cattell,
1966) were used to determine the number of factors to retain. Using the
K1 rule resulted in the retention of 10 factors whereas examination of
the Scree plot indicated four factors. Based on the recommendations presented
in Zwick and Velicer (1986), we decided to use the number of factors indicated
by the Scree test. Varimax rotation (Kaiser, 1958) of the four factors
resulted in an interpretable solution.
Based on the recommendations
posited by Kieffer (1999), a comparison of oblique and orthogonal rotations
indicated that the orthogonal rotation was appropriate to interpret (factor
correlations ranged from .019 to -.318, indicating a maximum of 10% common
variance by any two factors). Results of this analysis indicated that the
item structure posited by the present authors did not withstand empirical
scrutiny, as only portions of the four subscales clustered together on
the EFA. Consequently, we intend to conduct further analyses to examine
subscale structure. Further, because our subscales were not supported by
the EFA, we did not correlate these with the TES subscales in an effort
to provide evidence of score validity. Results of the EFA of the SOSI are
presented in Table 1.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the TES
In examining the structure of the TES with our sample
of 252 preservice teachers, we developed and tested two falsifiable models.
#1A (v=18) posited the instrument structure delineated by the
test authors in which two factors account for the 16 items on the scales.
Additionally, two items generated by the RAND group were included in the
analysis. Model #2A (v=18) stated that their was only one
factor responsible for the 18 test items. Results of the analysis using
AMOS version 3.6 resulted in stronger support for the Gibson and Dembo
(1984) model, although both the one factor and two factor models failed
to indicate acceptable model-to-data fit on GFI and AGFI statistics (0.810,
0.759 and 0.861, 0.823, respectively). However, reasonable model fit was
indicated by the root mean square residual statistic (RMSEA) on the two
factor model (0.078) (see Kieffer, 1999 for an explanation of these fit
indices). Results of the CFA of the TES are presented in Table 2.
As argued by Thompson (1994, p. 170), "replicability
analyses are attempts to look at data from perspectives intimately associated
with the sine qua non of science--finding noteworthy effects that replicate."
Teacher efficacy has been one of the few variables consistently demonstrated
important to positive teaching behavior and student outcomes. For example,
Woolfolk and Roy (1990) noted that, "Researchers have found few consistent
relationships between characteristics of teachers and the behavior or learning
of students. Teachers' sense of efficacy ... is an exception to this general
rule" (p. 81). Given the current and potential educational value of this
construct, concerted effort has been placed on how to best measure teacher
In the present study, we
presented a new scale designed to assess sources of efficacy building information.
Such an instrument would help further the study of the teacher efficacy
model proposed by
Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998). We also presented further construct
validation information for the TES. Results from this study indicated that
reasonable model-to-data fit was generated by the TES scales and
that further analysis of the SOSI is needed to clarify subscale composition.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., &
Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students' thinking
skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal
of Educational Research, 34, 148-165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera,
P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zeilman,
G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected
Los Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica,
CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 130 243)
Ashton, P., & Webb,
R. B. (1982, March). Teachers' sense of efficacy: Toward and ecological
model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy:
Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:
The exercise of control New York: W. H. Freeman.
Berman, P., McLaughlin,
M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation
and continuation (Rep. No. R-1 589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140432)
Cattell, R.B. (1966). The
scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers'
sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental
Education, 60, 323-337.
Gibson, S., & Dembo,
M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation.
Journal of Educational
Psychology. 76, 569-582.
Henson, R. K. (1999). The
Sources of Self-Efficacy Inventory. Unpublished instrument. Hattiesburg,
MS: University of Southern Mississippi.
Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The
varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika,
Kieffer, K.M. (1999). An
introductory primer on the appropriate use of exploratory and confirmatory
Research in the Schools 6(2), 75-92.
Moore, W., & Esselman,
M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement:
A desegregating district's experience. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Pajares, F. (1996, April).
self-efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes: The case for specificity and
correspondence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Podell, D., & Soodak,
L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. Journal
of Educational Research, 86, 247-253.
Ross, J. A. (1994). The
impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability
of teacher efficacy.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381-394.
Soodak, L., & Podell,
D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education
referral. Journal of Special Education 27, 66-18.
Thompson, B. (1994). The
pivotal role of replication in psychological research: Empirically evaluating
the replicability of sample results. Journal of Personality, 62,
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk
Roy, A., & Roy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
of Educational Research. 68, 202-248.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Roy,
W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Zwick, W.R., & Velicer,
W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components
to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
Items Contained on the SOSI
1. I have had many positive opportunities to teach.
2. I remember clearly those times when I have taught groups well.
3. I have learned about how to be a teacher by watching other skillful
4. Listening to others talk about teaching gives me useful information
5. I have developed many of my teaching skills by actually teaching.
6. When I say the wrong things to a class, I become anxious.
7. Watching other teachers make mistakes has taught me how to be a more
8. I learn little about how to actually teach effectively from suggestions
9. Often my attempts to teach children are not as successful as I would
10. The idea of being in a classroom as a teacher makes me nervous.
11. I have had meaningful opportunities to observe teachers in action.
12. The feedback I receive from others does not help me teach better.
13. I have learned a great deal from teaching in classrooms.
14. I get excited when I do something right to help a child learn.
15. My classroom observations are valuable to me.
16. When people I respect tell me I will be a good teacher, I tend to
17. I have made many mistakes when trying to teach children.
18. Educational textbooks and journal articles have helpful information
on how to teach.
19. My fears of making mistakes affect my ability to teach.
20. I believe I can teach as well as the teachers portrayed in popular
21. Feedback from other teachers is valuable to me.
22. When I make instructional mistakes, I am able to learn from the
23. I have felt my heart beat faster or harder when I have done well
with a lesson.
24. I often compare my own abilities to other teachers.
25. My coursework has helped me develop effective teaching strategies
26. I often wish that I had done things differently after teaching a
27. I have developed confidence in my own teaching by observing the
mistakes that other teachers make.
28. I tend not to believe others when they tell me I will be a good
29. Teaching well gives me a positive sense of personal success.
30. When I see other teachers do poorly, I am able to learn how to teach
31. The things I learn in coursework does not help me be an effective
32. There have been opportunities for me to teach well.
33. When I have made mistakes teaching, I have felt my heart beat faster
34. I am able to improve my own instruction by noticing the errors that
35. I often get important feedback from my professors about my teaching