Background
Item # | Item description |
---|---|
1 | I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough |
2 | If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want |
3 | It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals |
4 | I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events |
5 | Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations |
6 | I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort |
7 | I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities |
8 | When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions |
9 | If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution |
10 | I can usually handle whatever comes my way |
Purpose
Aims and research questions
Methods
Sample
Instruments
Statistical analysis
Ethics
Results
Sample characteristics
Demographic characteristic | GSE scores mean ( SD) | |
---|---|---|
Full sample, range 12 – 39 | 26.5 (6.3) | |
Age (years), range 20 – 60 | 42.4 (10.4) | |
< 40 years |
n = 57 (40%) | 26.7 (6.5) |
≥ 40 years |
n = 84 (60%) | 26.4 (6.3) |
Sex | ||
Male |
n = 41 (29%) | 27.0 (6.1) |
Female |
n = 100 (71%) | 26.3 (6.5) |
Relationship status (n = 140) | ||
Not in paired relationship |
n = 48 (34%) | 26.3 (6.1) |
In paired relationship |
n = 92 (66%) | 26.6 (6.5) |
Education level | ||
≤ 12 years |
n = 95 (67%) | 26.2 (6.5) |
> 12 years |
n = 46 (33%) | 27.2 (6.0) |
Employment status (n = 140) | ||
Not working |
n = 63 (45%) | 26.9 (6.1) |
Working |
n = 77 (55%) | 26.1 (6.7) |
Rating scale functioning
The fit of the items to the Rasch model
Step | Psychometric property | Statistical approach and criteria | Results original 10-item GSE | Results reduced 7-item GSE (omits items with poor fit)
a
|
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
Rating scale functioning: Does the rating scale function consistently across items? (substantive validity) | • Average measures for each step category and threshold on each item should advance monotonically | • Rating scale met criteria for all items but item 2. Scale steps 1 and 2 reversed. Recoded into 1(2)34scale | • Rating scale met criteria |
• z-values < 2.0 in outfit mean square (MnSq) values for step category calibrationsb
| ||||
2 |
Internal scale validity: How well do the actual item responses match the expected responses from the Rasch model? (content validity) | Item goodness-of-fit statistics • MnSq values < 1.3c
| • 3 items failed to meet criteriond: • Item 2: MnSq=1.64 (1) • Item 3: MnSq=1.39 (2) • Item 1: MnSq=1.38 (3) | • All items met criterion |
3 |
Internal scale validity: Is the scale unidimensional (i.e., does it measure a single construct)? (structural validity) | Principal component analysis • ≥ 50% of total variance explained by first component (general self-efficacy)e • Any additional component explains < 5% (or eigenvalue<2.0) of the remaining variance after removing first componente No more than 5% (or 1 out of 20) of the residual correlations >.30 | • First component explained 61.3% of total variance • Second component • explained 6.9% of total variance, but eigenvalue <2.0 (1.8) • One out of 45 (2.2%) residual correlations >.30 (#3 - #8: r = -.31) | • First component explained 64.5% of total variance • Second component explained 8.9% of total variance, but eigenvalue <2.0 (1.7) • One out of 21 (4.8%) residual correlations >.30 (#4 - #9: r = -.33) |
4 |
Person-response validity: How well do the individual responses match expected responses from the Rasch model? (substantive validity) | Person goodness-of-fit statistics • Infit MnSq values < 1.5 and z- value ≤ 2.0f • ≤ 5% of sample fails to demonstrate acceptable goodness-of-fit valuesf
| • 13/14 respondents (9.2/9.9% of sample) failed to demonstrate acceptable goodness-of-fit values | • 8/9 respondents ( 5.7/6.4% of sample) failed to demonstrate acceptable goodness-of-fit values |
• Infit MnSq values < 1.5 and z- value ≤ 2.0f
| ||||
• ≤ 5% of sample fails to demonstrate acceptable goodness-of-fit valuesf
| ||||
5 |
Person-separation reliability: Can the scale distinguish ≥3 distinct groups of self-efficacy in the sample tested? (reliability) | Person-separation index • ≥ 2.0g
| • 2.75 | • 2.67 |
6 |
Internal consistency: Are item responses consistent with each other? (reliability) | Cronbach’s alpha coefficient • > 0.8g
| • 0.93 | • 0.93 |
Item # | Item description | Item measure (logits) | Item fit statistics |
---|---|---|---|
7 | I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities | 60.65 | 1.00 |
5 | Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations | 55.99 | 0.89 |
4 | I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events | 54.47 | 0.86 |
10 | I can usually handle whatever comes my way | 53.17 | 1.17 |
8 | When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions | 49.44 | 1.00 |
9 | If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution | 40.55 | 0.86 |
6 | I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort | 35.72 | 1.14 |
Unidimensionality
Person-response validity
Person separation reliability and internal consistency
Differential item functioning (DIF)
Differential item functioning | Results | Results |
---|---|---|
(DIF): Are item difficulty calibrations stable in relation to the following demographic variables? (generalizability validity) | Original 10-item GSE | Reduced 7-item GSE (omits items with poor fit)a
|
Age | Item 1: easier to agree with for people < 40 (p = .045) | • No DIF |
Gender | • No DIF | • No DIF |
Work | • Item 7: easier to agree for workers (p = .012) | • Item 7: easier to agree for workers (p = .003) |
Education | • Item 2: easier to agree for persons with higher education (p = .045) | • Item 8: easier to agree for higher education (p = .046) |
• Item 4: easier to agree for persons with lower education (p = .024) | ||
Relationship | • No DIF | • No DIF |