Empirical Properties of a Scale to Assess Writing SelfEfficacy in School Contexts
Pajares, Frank.Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 39. 4 (Jan
2007): 239-249.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers
Hide highlighting
Abstract (summary)
Translate AbstractTranslate
Press the Escape key to closeTranslate
The psychometric properties of a scale assessing the writing self-efficacy of 1,258 students
from Grades 4 to 11 were analyzed with exploratory factor analysis. Two factors emerged,
I designating basic grammar skills and I designating more advanced composition skills.
The Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (F. Pajares & G. Valiante, 1999) functioned equally well at
each academic level assessed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Full Text


Translate Full textTranslate
Press the Escape key to closeTranslate
Turn on search term navigationTurn on search
term navigation
Headnote
The psychometric properties of a scale assessing the writing self-efficacy of 1,258 students
from Grades 4 to 11 were analyzed with exploratory factor analysis. Two factors emerged,
I designating basic grammar skills and I designating more advanced composition skills.
The Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (F. Pajares & G. Valiante, 1999) functioned equally well at
each academic level assessed.
Researchers in the area of writing have traditionally focused either on the skills that
writers bring to this craft or on the instructional practices teachers use to improve their
students' composition skills (e.g., Faigley, 1990; Hairston, 1990). Primarily, these efforts
have been aimed at understanding the cognitive processes underlying students'
compositions (see Hayes, 2006). More recently, however, researchers have pointed out
that the relationship between students' cognitive skills and the manner in which they
engage text is mediated by the interpretations students make about the skills they possess
(Hidi & Boscolo, 2006; Pajares & Valiante, 2006). To account for this phenomenon,
investigators have explored the self-beliefs that underlie student motivation in writing.
Findings from this avenue of inquiry have led researchers to suggest that students' beliefs
about their own writing competence, or self-efficacy beliefs, are instrumental to their
ultimate success as writers (see Pajares, 2003). As a consequence, a number of
researchers have explored the relationship between students' self-efficacy beliefs about
writing, other motivation variables related to writing, and various writing outcomes.
Research findings have consistently shown that writing self-efficacy beliefs and writing
performances are related. Most early self-efficacy studies were conducted on college
students, and effect sizes for the influence of writing self-efficacy on writing performance
ranged from beta = .32 to beta = .42 (e.g., McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; Meier,
McCarthy, & Schmeck, 1984). Another consistent finding was that neither writing
apprehension nor other motivation variables were typically predictive of writing
performance in regression models that included self-efficacy. More recent findings support
these results (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999,
2001, 2006; Rankin, Bruning, & Timme, 1994; Wachholz & Etheridge, 1996; Zimmerman
& Bandura, 1994). In general, results reveal that writing self-efficacy makes an
independent contribution to the prediction of writing outcomes and mediates between
previous and subsequent achievement in writing. This is the case even when powerful
covariates such as preassessed writing ability or previous writing performance are included
in statistical models. Standardized regression coefficients and direct effects between
writing self-efficacy and writing outcomes in multiple regression and path analyses that
control for such preperformance assessments have ranged from .19 to .40. Correlations
between writing self-efficacy and writing performances typically range from .30 to .50,
often depending on the age and competence of the students.
Writing self-efficacy is also associated with motivation constructs that are themselves
related to writing performances. These concepts have been prominent in self-efficacy
studies and have included writing self-concept (see Grain. 1996; Marsh, 1989), writing
apprehension (Pajares & Valiante. 1997, 1999, 2001), self-efficacy for self-regulation
(Harris & Graham, 1992; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), students' perceived value of
writing (Shell, Colvin, & Burning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), and achievement
goal orientations (Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000).
The relationship between gender and self-efficacy has been a focus of research in the area
of writing, and findings have not been consistent. Some researchers have found no gender
differences in writing self-efficacy across academic grades (Shell et al., 1995). Others have
found that girls report stronger confidence in their writing capabilities than do boys, at
least through middle school (Pajares. Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 2001).
These differences may begin at early ages (Grain, 1996). Researchers have observed that
girls experience a drop in their academic motivation and perceptions of competence as
they reach high school (Bruning & Horn, 2000), perhaps because they begin to encounter
classroom structures that emphasize a masculine form of discourse (Cleary, 1996).
Some findings have shed light on the development of writing self-efficacy beliefs as a
function of schooling. Shell et al. (1995) assessed the writing self-efficacy of students in
Grades 4, 7, and 10 and found no differences in their confidence that they possessed
various grammar, usage, and composition skills. Again, because older students are in
better possession of those skills, one wonders why confidence in skills does not increase
proportionately. Other researchers have reported that students in the 1st year of middle
school have stronger confidence in their writing skills than do students in subsequent
middle school grades even though older students have greater writing competence
(Pajares & Valiante, 1999). This pattern of decreasing confidence in language arts skills is
consistent with findings from expectancy-value researchers who have reported that
students' self-concepts of ability in English decrease from the start of Grade 6 to the end
of Grade 7 (Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991).
ASSESSING WRITING SELF-EFFICACY
Bandura (2006) has provided clear guidelines regarding how self-efficacy beliefs should be
operationalized and measured. Because efficacy beliefs vary in level, strength, and
generality, these dimensions are important in determining how instruments should be
constructed. Imagine that a researcher is interested in assessing the essay-writing selfefficacy of middle school students and wishes to compare that with students' capability to
write an essay, in any given domain, there are different levels of task demands that
researchers may tap. In writing an essay, these can range from the lower level of writing a
simple sentence with proper punctuation to the higher level of organizing sentences into a
paragraph so as to clearly express an idea. Students are asked to rate the strength of their
belief in their capability to perform each of the levels identified. Hence, a self-efficacy scale
should provide multiple items of varying difficulty that collectively assess the domain of
essay writing. In addition, items should be prototypical of essay writing rather than
minutely specific features of writing (e.g., confidence to form letters), and they should be
worded in terms of can, a judgment of capability, rather than ïé will, a statement of
intention.
The Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES; Pajares & Valiante. 1999) has been much used in
studies of writing self-efficacy. Items on this scale ask students to provide judgments of
their confidence in their ability to successfully perform grammar, usage, composition, and
mechanical writing skills, such as correctly punctuating a one-page passage or organizing
sentences into a paragraph so as to clearly express a theme (see Shell et al., 1995, and
Shell et al., 1989, for an eight-item self-efficacy scale using similar items). In the WSES,
students provide their judgments by filling in any number from O to 100 as a measure of
their self-efficacy for each skill or task. Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante (2001) found that a
writing skills self-efficacy scale with a 0-100 response format was psychometrically
stronger than one with a traditional Likert format. In analyses predicting middle school
students' grade point average (GPA) in language arts and teacher ratings of their students'
writing competence, the 0-100 scale predicted both outcomes, whereas the Likert-scale
assessment did not. Also, 37% of the variance in GPA and 28% of the variance in teacher
ratings was associated uniquely with the 0-100 scale, whereas the variance associated
uniquely with the Likert scale was negligible for each dependent variable. This is consistent
with Bandura's (1997) caution that "including too few steps loses differentiating
information because people who use the same response category would differ if
intermediate steps were included" (p. 44). Because neither a Likert-type scale nor a 0-100
scale is more difficult or longer than the other, using a format that adds predictive utility is
especially warranted.
Although the WSES scores have been found to have acceptable stability and internal
consistency in prior samples, its factor structure has not been examined. Determining the
sources of variance underlying individual differences on an instrument is a necessary step
in test validation. Therefore, a factor analysis is required to substantiate the results from
the various studies that have made use of this scale. The purpose of this study was to
conduct a factor analysis of the WSES to determine the homogeneity of its item pool.
Because the scale has been used with students in elementary, middle, and high school,
analyses were conducted at each of the three academic levels. Because this is the first
attempt to examine the latent correlational structure of the WSES, an exploratory factor
analysis was conducted. To provide construct validation, the relationship between scores
on the WSES and scores from scales of writing motivation often used in studies of writing
was also examined. These were writing self-concept, self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning, achievement goal orientation in writing, writing apprehension, and value of
writing. Teachers also provided ratings of their students' writing capability, and these were
used as measures of writing achievement.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1,258 students (633 girls, 625 boys) enrolled in Grades 4 to 11 and
attending one public elementary school (Grades 4 and 5; n = 296 [24%]) in the South,
one middle school (Grades 6, 7, and 8; n = 497 [39%]) in the Northeast, and one high
school (Grades 9, 10, and 11; n = 465 [37%]) in the South. Students' ages ranged from 9
to 18. The socioeconomic status of the schools and of the area that the schools served was
largely middle class, and students were primarily White. The sample consisted of only
students in regular education classes; that is, gifted, special education, and English as a
second language students were not included. The study took place during the second
semester of the academic year.
Instruments
Each student completed a 10-page instrument tapping writing attitudes and motivation
variables. Instruments were administered to groups in individual language arts classes
during one period. Students completed the instrument one item at a time as that item was
read aloud by the administrator. Instruments and variables used in the present study to
assess the motivation variables have been used by researchers in numerous investigations
of writing self-efficacy and motivation (e.g., Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997,
1999, 2001; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura. 1994). With the
exception of the WSES, items asked students to provide judgments about how true or false
they found a particular statement along a 6-point Likert-type continuum.
Writing self-efficacy was operationalized as students'judgments of their capability to
execute the various composition, grammar, usage, and mechanical skills required to write
an effective essay appropriate to their academic level. The WSES consisted of 10 items
asking students how sure they were that they could perform specific writing skills on a
scale from 0 (no chance) to 100 (completely certain). Items previously used by Shell el al.
(1989) served as a template for discussion with language arts teachers that resulted in the
WSES (see Pajares & Valiante, 1999, 2001; Pajares et al., 2001). Note that the same
items were presented to elementary school, middle school, and high school students. This
is possible because, when assessing self-efficacy beliefs related to grammar and
composition, items can be written so that they are equally appropriate across academic
levels. For example, an item asking students to provide a judgment of confidence to "write
simple sentences with good grammar" is as relevant to a student in Grade 4 as it is to a
student in Grade 11. Language arts teachers across each of the levels attested to the fact
that the self-efficacy items were appropriate for their students. Using a similar measure,
Pajares and Valiante (1997) reported coefficient alpha reliability of .88 and above .68
correlations between items and scale scores on a sample of Grade 5 students; Pajares et
al. (1999) reported a coefficient alpha of .85 with students in Grades 3, 4, and 5; and
Pajares and Valiante (1999, 2001) reported a coefficient alpha of .92 with middle school
students.
To test the construct validity of the WSES, academic motivation scales that have been
extensively used in studies of writing were selected. Achievement goal orientation in
writing was assessed using a scale provided by Middleton and Midgley (1997), which was
derived from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey. The self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning scale was adapted from Bandura's (2006) Children's Multidimensional Self-Efficacy
Scales, which assess students' judgments of their capability to learn in various academic
courses and to use various self-regulated learning strategies. Writing self-concept was
assessed with six items adapted from Marsh's (1990) Academic Self-Description
Questionnaire. Writing apprehension was measured with a scale used by Pajares et al.
(1999). Finally, the scale measuring value of writing was composed of items assessing
perceived importance, interest, and enjoyment of writing (see Seegers & Boekaerts,
1996). The motivation variables were all assessed in a Likert format. To be consistent with
the manner in which the Likert version of one of the self-efficacy scales was assessed,
students were provided with a response option consisting of 6 points on the Likert scale.
Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the latent constructs underlying
the items on the WSES following factor analysis guidelines recommended by Fabrigar,
Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999). The maximum likelihood method of factor
extraction (Jöreskog & Lawley, 1968) was used because this method is believed to produce
the best parameter estimates (Pedhazur, 1982). Multiple criteria were used for selecting
the number of factors: (a) Cattell's (1966) scree test, (b) a parallel analysis technique that
compares the eigenvalues of the reduced correlation matrices and those expected for
random data, (c) the percentage of common variance explained by each factor using the
weighted reduced correlation matrix, and (d) the interpretability of the rotated factors.
Because the factors were expected to be intercorrelated, the oblique rotation was chosen.
RESULTS
Table 1 provides mean self-efficacy scores and standard deviations by school level and for
the full sample. Boys and girls differed significantly at the middle school level, with girls
reporting higher writing self-efficacy than boys (M = 78.1 for girls, M = 11.9 for boys; d =
.35), and for the full sample (M= 78.5 for girls, M = 75.1 for boys; d = .21).
Consistent with guidelines provided by Fabrigar et al. (1999), at least four measured
variables were used for each common factor expected to emerge, and the samples met the
minimal sizes recommended by MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong (1999, p. 96) for
adequate performance. To assess the tenability of the normality assumption required by
the maximum likelihood method of extraction (Jöreskog & Lawley, 1968), two
distributional properties of the items were used. Skewness and kurtosis of the items were
(a) -1.25 and 1.67, respectively, for the full sample; (b) -1.44 and 2.72, respectively, for
the elementary school sample; (c) -1.23 and 1.47, respectively, for the middle school
sample; and (d) -1.12 and 1.26, respectively, for the high school sample. These estimates
were well below the thresholds (skewness > 2, kurtosis > 7) for concerns about the
adequacy of the estimation method (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). For the elementary
school analysis, the skewness and the kurtosis of the items were between -2.21 and -1.36,
|M| = 1.78, and between 1.39 and 5.82, |M| = 3.34, respectively. For the middle school
analysis, the skewness and the kurtosis of the items were between -1.75 and -0.95, |M| =
1.36, and between 0.23 and 2.95, |M| = 1.42, respectively. For the high school analysis,
the skewness and the kurtosis of the items were between -1.72 and -0.82, |M| = 1.30,
and between -1.77 and 2.71, |M| = 1.26, respectively. All the estimates except one did
not exceed the thresholds (skewness > 2, kurtosis > 7) for concerns about the adequacy
of the estimation method. The minimum skewness (-2.21) of the items in the elementary
school analysis exceeded only slightly the threshold by a magnitude of 0.21. An
examination of individual items showed that 2 out of the 10 items displayed skewness
bordering the threshold. Given the minimal differences detected, the original metric was
used, with no transformations of item scores.
Each of the retention rules suggested a two-factor solution for the full sample and for each
academic level (elementary school, middle school, high school). For the full sample, two
eigenvalues from the weighted reduced correlation matrix (13.0 and 1.9) accounted for
99% of the variance; subsequent values were 0.25 or lower. Table 2 shows the
standardized regression coefficients from the rotated pattern matrix, communality
estimates, interfactor correlations, and proportion of variance explained for each factor.
Coefficients from the pattern matrix show the relationship between an item and a factor
when holding all other items constant. Coefficients of .40 or higher are typically considered
strong enough to demonstrate that the item relates to the common factor (Jõreskog &
Lawley, 1968). The items loading on Factor 1 (Items 1-5) showed standardized coefficients
ranging from .64 to .78; those loading on Factor 2 (Items 6-10) had coefficients ranging
from .47 to .86. None of the items cross-loaded, and interfactor correlation was .65. The
Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the full-scale scores of the WSES was .91 (.88 for Factor 1
and .86 for Factor 2). Henson (2001) suggested that, for general research purposes, alpha
values above .80 are acceptable for research purposes, whereas values above .90 are
preferred if scores are to be used for clinical or educational decisions (see also Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
Separate factor analyses were conducted for each of the subsamples of students by
academic level (elementary school, middle school, high school). As was the case for the
full sample, the retention rules were consistent in suggesting a two-factor solution at each
level of schooling. To determine the number of common factors at each level of schooling,
a parallel analysis (Montanelli & Humphreys, 1976) was also conducted. In this analysis,
the eigenvalues of the reduced correlation matrices and those expected for random data
were computed and compared using the principal axis/common factor analysis approach
(see O'Connor, 2000). The principal axis/common factor analysis was chosen because it
assumes an implicit underlying factor model by first estimating the communalities before
identifying the factor solution (Sharma, 1996). For the elementary school analysis, 2 of the
first 10 eigenvalues obtained from the random matrix (0.43, 0.31, 0.22, 0.15, 0.09, 0.03,
-0.03, -0.08, -0.13, -0.18) were less than their counterparts estimated from the reduced
correlation matrix (4.22, 0.52, 0.18, 0.04, -0.02, -0.04, -0.10, -0.11, -0.15, -0.22). For
the middle school analysis, again 2 of the first 10 eigenvalues estimated from the random
matrix (0.32, 0.23, 0.16, 0.11, 0.06, 0.02,-0.02,-0.06,-0.10,-0.15) were smaller than
those from the reduced correlation matrix (5.38, 0.62, 0.14, 0.08, -0.03, -0.08, -0.10, 0.11, -0.12, -0.15). The same pattern was again detected in the high school analysis: 2 of
the first 10 eigenvalues obtained from the random matrix (0.33, 0.24, 0.17, 0.12, 0.07,
0.02, -0.02, -0.07, -0.11, -0.15) were smaller than those from the reduced correlation
matrix (5.04, 0.72, 0.22, 0.03, -0.02, -0.05, -0.05, -0.13, -0.13, -0.19). Results of all
three analyses suggested two factors should be retained for each group.
Table 2 shows the standardized regression coefficients from the rotated pattern matrix,
communality estimates, interfactor correlations, and proportion of variance explained for
the two-factor solutions for each of the three school levels. Note that the factors obtained
from the elementary school students were reversed from those obtained from the middle
school and high school students. At the elementary school level, the basic skills items
(Items 1-5) accounted for a greater proportion of the variance.
An examination of the items reveals that the items related to Factor 1 tapped grammar
and usage skills (spelling, punctuation, parts of speech, grammar, singulars and plurals,
verb tenses), whereas the items related to Factor 2 tapped more complex composition
skills (constructing and structuring paragraphs and essays, using topic sentences,
developing ideas). It is not surprising that the WSES items loaded on two factors or that,
for middle and high school students, the composition items (Items 6-10) accounted for the
greater proportion of variance (88% and 85%, respectively), whereas for the elementary
school students, the basic skills items accounted for the greater proportion of variance
(88%). As can be expected, the basic skills items had greater salience for the younger,
less experienced students, whereas the composition items had greater salience for the
older students who were more experienced in essay writing. The pattern loadings were
also generally stronger for the middle school and high school sample groups. Factor
analyses by gender, within and across school levels, were also conducted, but the results
were similar to those obtained at each school level. The only exception was that for high
school girls, Items 4 and 5 cross-loaded on both factors.
To determine whether the constructs measured by the items in the WSES were
distinguishable from related self-perception constructs, such as self-concept, three
exploratory factor analyses were conducted using items from the WSES and from the
writing self-concept, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, or writing apprehension
instruments. In each case, the self-efficacy items held their structure and loaded
separately from items on these scales. Finally, to examine the construct validity of the
WSES, its items were correlated with those from prominent motivation scales often used in
studies of writing. As Table 3 illustrates, both Factors 1 and 2 and the full-scale scores
correlated significantly with each of the variables, suggesting that items on the WSES have
strong construct validity.
DISCUSSION
Students' self-efficacy beliefs play a critical role in their academic choices and career
interests (Hackett, 1995). Zimmerman, Bonner, and Kovach (1996) urged teachers and
counselors to be cognizant of their students' self-efficacy beliefs and to ensure that
attention to these beliefs becomes foundational to their counseling practices and
instructional strategies carried out in classrooms and schools. Teachers and counselors can
use results of such assessments both to evaluate the effectiveness of academic programs
and intervention strategies and to monitor student progress.
Assessing students' self-efficacy beliefs can provide important insights about students'
academic motivation, behavior, and future choices. In many cases, unrealistically low selfefficacy perceptions, not lack of capability or skill, can be responsible for maladaptive
academic behaviors, avoidance of courses and careers, and diminishing school interest and
achievement. This is as true in the area of writing as it is in other academic areas.
Students who lack confidence in their writing skills are less likely to engage in tasks in
which writing is required, and they will more quickly give up in the face of difficulty. In
such cases, in addition to continued skill improvement, teachers and counselors must work
to identify their students' inaccurate self-beliefs and implement interventions to challenge
these self-beliefs. When problematically low self-efficacy is identified, students can be
helped to develop a better understanding of their potential to succeed in a desired path or
academic area. Often, low self-efficacy is due to an inaccurate understanding of what skills
a task or activity demands. In such cases, young people can be helped to better
understand what abilities and skills a course of action will actually require. Identifying,
challenging, and altering low self-efficacy is essential to success and adaptive functioning.
Schools have the dual responsibility of increasing students' competence and confidence.
When academic difficulties erode students' self-efficacy in their writing capability, it will be
difficult to improve this capability without altering the self-efficacy beliefs that are
instrumental in creating and nurturing it. In concert with Bandura's (1986) contention that
belief and behavior influence each other reciprocally, self-efficacy beliefs and writing
competence work in tandem, and improving one requires improving the other. To this end,
Bandura wisely argued that
educational practices should be gauged not only by the skills and knowledge they impart
for present use but also by what they do to children's beliefs about their capabilities, which
affects how they approach the future. Students who develop a strong sense of self-efficacy
are well equipped to educate themselves when they have to rely on their own initiative, (p.
417)
Assessing students' self-efficacy beliefs is warranted because these beliefs are not always
self-evident. Capable individuals often hold deep insecurities that they will not readily
admit. Moreover, students themselves need to be able to assess their own self-efficacy
beliefs so that they may use this information to gauge their own sense of confidence as
they select tasks, activities, and self-regulatory strategies to improve their academic
achievement (Zimmerman et al., 1996). Students confident in their capability are more
likely to engage in these strategies than are students beset with self-doubt.
Theoretical tenets cannot be effectively tested without reliable and valid self-efficacy
instruments. Researchers who wish to obtain insights into the nature of academic selfefficacy, and its relationship to academic competence, must use valid and reliable
measures that faithfully reflect the self-efficacy construct and its role in the broader
structure of social cognitive theory. This is especially important in the field of academic
motivation in which self-efficacy beliefs have often been operationalized and measured in a
manner that either bears little resemblance to the construct put forth by Bandura (1986)
or resembles other, less context-specific beliefs such as self-concept or expectancy
perceptions. These assessments have often led to confounded results and inconsistent
findings (see Bandura. 2006; Pajares, 1996, 1997). In addition, organizations such as the
National Association of Educational Progress and the Programme for International Student
Assessment regularly include assessments tapping students' motivational beliefs in their
studies of academic competence across domains. Items from scales such as the WSES
would be especially appropriate in these assessments as researchers move toward more
comprehensive national and international investigations of writing competence and
motivation.
Results of the factor and reliability analyses conducted in this study reveal that the WSES
is psychometrically sound and can be confidently used to assess writing self-efficacy with
children from Grade 4 through high school. The scale proved equally reliable with girls and
with boys and across grade levels. Also, although researchers can analyze the two factors
separately in studies of writing self-efficacy, the general lack of a discriminant pattern of
correlations between the two factors on the one hand and the motivation and achievement
variables on the other provides support for the use of the WSES as a unidimensional scale.
Moreover, as Pajares et al. (2001) contended, it is clear that even very young children at
the elementary school level can make a discriminating judgment using a 0-100 scale. I
concur with Bandura's (1997) warning that "including too few steps loses differentiating
information because people who use the same response category would differ if
intermediate steps were included" (p. 44). Researchers including measures of self-efficacy
in studies of academic motivation should do so with attention to Bandura's assessment
guidelines.
Teachers, counselors, and researchers wishing to assess students' self-efficacy beliefs
about writing (or any academic subject) would profit from doing so using scales with high
predictive utility. It should be kept mind, of course, that reliability is a characteristic of
scores from a specific sample of individuals who completed an instrument at a particular
time in particular situations. Researchers should continue to refine writing self-efficacy
scales such as the WSES with the aim of further enhancing their psychometric properties
and their applicability to other student populations and settings. Multigroups confirmatory
factor analyses should also be conducted to further establish that the WSES demonstrates
factorial invariance across groups (e.g., Chen, Sousa, & West, 2005).
References
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guidelines for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307337). Greenwich. CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bruning. R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist,
35, 25-38.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance for a
second-order factor model. Journal of Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492.
Cleary, L. M. (1996). I think I know what my teachers want now: Gender and writing
motivation. English Journal, 85(1), 50-57.
Crain, R. M. (1996). The influence of age, race, and gender on child and adolescent
multidimensional self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept:
Development, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 395-420). New York: Wiley.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener. D. T., MacCallum. R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272299.
Faigley, L. (1990). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. In R. L.
Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and composition (pp. 38-53). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hackett. G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and development. In A. Bandura (Ed.),
Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hairston, M. (1990). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching
of writing. In R. L. Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and composition (pp. 3-15). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: Apart of the writing
process. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence
and literacy in school (pp. 277-309). San Diego. CA: Academic Press.
Hayes, J. (2006). A cognitive theory of writing development. In C. A. Macarthur, S.
Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28-10). New York:
Guilford Press.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A
conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 34, 177-189.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation in writing. In C. A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 140-157). New York: Guilford Press.
Joreskog, K. G., & Lawley, D. N. (1968). New methods in maximum likelihood factor
analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 21, 85-96.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor
analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.
Marsh, H.W.(1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept:
Preadolescence to adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81. 417-430.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh-Shavelson Model.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.
McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing. College
Composition and Communication, 36, 465-471.
Meier, S., McCarthy. P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor
of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107-120.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Montanelli, R. G., Jr., & Humphreys, L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation
matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study.
Psychometrika, 41, 341-348.
Nunnally, J, C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of
components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396-402.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10. pp. 1-49). Greenwich. CT: JAI
Press.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review
of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and
self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational
Psychology; 25, 406-422.
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy
assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs
of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50-61.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of writing self-efficacy beliefs on the writing
performance of upper elementary' students. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.
Pajares. F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing selfbeliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 24, 390-405.
Pajares. F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and
achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary
Educational Psychology: 26, 366-381.
Pajares. F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing
development. In C. A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing
research (pp. 158-170). New York: Guilford Press.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and
prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Rankin, J. L., Bruning, R. H., & Timme, V. L. (1994). The development of beliefs about
spelling and their relationship to spelling performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8,
213-232.
Seegers, G., & Boekaerts, M. (1996). Gender-related differences in self-referenced
cognitions in relation to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27,
215-240.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied muitivariate techniques. New York: Wiley.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and
achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386-398.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
91-100.
Wachholz, P. B., & Ethendge, C. P. (1996). Writing self-efficacy beliefs of high- and lowapprehensive writers. Journal of Developmental Education, 19, 16-24.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with
nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and application (pp. 56-75). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
Wigfield, A., Eccles. J., MacIver, D., Reuman. D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at early
adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general selfesteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology; 27, 552565.
Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing
course attainment. American Education Research Journal, 31, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., & Kovach, R. (1996). Developing self-regulated learners:
Beyond achievement to self-efficacy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
AuthorAffiliation
Frank Pajares, Division of Educational Studies, Emory University. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to Frank Pajares, Division of Educational
Studies, 1784 N. Decatur Road, Suite 240, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 (e-mail:
mpajare@emory.edu).
© 2007 American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.
Copyright American Counseling Association Jan 2007
Word count: 5708
Indexing (details)
Cite
CloseSubject
Elementary schools;
Academic achievement;
College students;
Motivation;
Writing;
Studies;
Gender differences;
Composition;
Middle school students;
Children & youth
Title
Empirical Properties of a Scale to Assess Writing Self-Efficacy in School Contexts
Author
Pajares, Frank
Publication title
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
239-249
Number of pages
11
Publication year
2007
Publication date
Jan 2007
Year
2007
Publisher
American Counseling Association
Place of publication
Alexandria
Country of publication
United States
Journal subject
Education
ISSN
07481756
Source type
Scholarly Journals
Language of publication
English
Document type
Feature
Document feature
Tables;References
Subfile
Academic achievement, Studies, Children & youth, Motivation, College students, Gender
differences, Composition, Middle school students, Elementary schools, Writing
ProQuest document ID
195601453
Document URL
http://search.proquest.com/docview/195601453?accountid=45993
Copyright
Copyright American Counseling Association Jan 2007
Last updated
2011-09-08
Database
ProQuest Education Journals