Adolescent Literacy and Academic
Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB)
Sharon deFur, Virginia SPDG Evaluation
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Virginia’s SPDG 2005-2012
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
School wide initiative focused on
improving adolescent literacy based on
the KU-CRL Content Literacy Continuum
Began with 4 schools: 2 middle and 2 high
schools
School-based literacy teams
Intensive all Faculty and Administrator
Professional Development on
intervention(s) including follow-up,
coaching, implementation monitoring by
administrators and coaches, data
collections
School-wide student assessment to
identify students in need of interventions
beyond classroom routines
Teacher evaluation expectations for
evidence of use of interventions
Opportunities for career advancement
with additional professional development
for teachers
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Adolescent Literacy & Academic Behavior SelfEfficacy Survey (ALAB)
deFur & Runnells, 2011, Runnells & College of William and Mary, 2012
• Goals
– To develop a validated student self-efficacy measure
linked to reading and writing literacy achievement
enabling academic behaviors
• Intent
– To provide SPDG schools and teachers with a literacy
self-efficacy measure that could be used to identify
change in student literacy confidences and motivation
• Result
– 28 item survey for use
• Self-report from 0 – 9 reflecting self confidence
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Why Self-Efficacy Focus?
Positive self-efficacy
• These students work harder,
persist longer, persevere in
the face of adversity, have
greater optimism and lower
anxiety, and achieve more.
• The degree of self-efficacy
explains more than 25% of
the variance in the
prediction of academic
performance (Pajares, 2006).
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Pajares (2006) defined self-efficacy as the belief and confidence
students hold about their ability to succeed at a given task.
Important to this construct is that self-efficacy is context specific.
• Self-Efficacy refers to confidence in,
or beliefs about, one’s ability to
perform a skill and can result in a
self-fulfilling prophecy (Hunter &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Pajares, 2006; Schunk
& Meece, 2006).
• Self-efficacy strengthens as a
function of the continuum of skill
development from basic to mastery
(Lodewyk & Winne, 2005).
• Self-efficacy is widely used to predict
and explain student achievement
(Feldman, Kim, & Elliott, 2011; Mucherah &
Yoder, 2008; Pajares, Johnson, & Usher, 2007;
Phan, 2011)
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Study 1 - Validation of the Adolescent Literacy and Academic
Behavior Self-Efficacy Survey (ALAB) Development and Site
Selection /Analyses Processes
• DEVELOPMENT
– Developed based on selfefficacy assessment process
from the work of Pajares &
Urdan (2006) and Bandura
(2006) as well as the work on
adolescent literacy of
Scammacca et al. (2007),
Torgesen et al. (2007), Deshler
& Hock (2007), KU-CRL CLC.
– Field tested with 11 youth
– Expert review of survey
– 28 item survey
• DATA COLLECTION
– Surveys sent to schools
with a request to collect
information from a
representative sample
– Data entered into SPSS
– Data analyses included
descriptive statistics,
principal component
factor analyses, and
reliability analyses
Response Scale
• Scale from 0 to 9
Thinking about school-related tasks in any classroom,
how confident are you that you can…
Not sure I
can do this
Maybe I can
do this
Pretty sure I
can do this
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Real sure I
can do this
Comparison of validation studies
Study 1 (deFur & Runnells, 2011)
• 28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale, no
items dropped out
• N = 271, grades 6 – 11, eight
schools, all participating in the
SPDG literacy intervention at
varying levels of implementation
stages
• Near equal distribution of males
and females
• Non-random selection & Noncontrolled participation
• >8% self-reported having IEPs, no
data on race/ethnicity
• Reliability .96 for Total SelfEfficacy
• Factor analysis yielded four
correlated factors
Study 2 (Runnells, 2012)
•
•
28 item survey with 0 – 9 scale
N = 1110, grades 7-9, one SPDG
participating school division that did
not participate in Study 1; in initial
implementation stage of intervention
– 17% ELL
– ~13% SWD
• ~ 20% ELL
•
•
•
•
•
Near equal distribution of males and
females
39% Hispanic; 32% White; 15% Black;
5% Asian; 5% Other
Reliability .98 for Total Self-Efficacy
Factor analysis yielded five
correlated factors (original four plus
one new factor)
Correlation with literacy measure
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Factor Analysis – Study 2; N = 1,110
(Runnells & College of WM, 2012)
Reading
M=6.3
Strategic
Learning
M=5.9
Writing M=6.4
Total
Efficacy
M=6.3
SelfRegulation
M=6.7
Application
M=6.0
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Factor Survey Item Examples
1. READING
–
Read my textbooks
2. WRITING
–
Write good sentences
3. APPLICATION
–
Use diagrams or pictures to
remember what I am learning
4. SELF-REGULATION
–
Complete my homework on time
5. STRATEGIC LEARNING
– Ask questions in class
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Student Literacy Perceptions by
Program Classification (Runnells & WM, 2012)
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
ALAB Precautions & Considerations
• Significant correlation (p<.05) with the Measure of Academic
Progress (MAP) and Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy, but low effect
sizes
• Determined internal validity and reliability, but not test re-test
reliability
• Have not yet used longitudinally to assess utility in intervention
evaluation
• Maturation and time in school impacts self-efficacy – overall, 9th
grade students rated themselves as more confident than 8th, 8th
grade students were more confident than 7th grade students
• Students with disabilities (SWD) and Students who are English
Language Learners (ELL) expressed lower self-efficacy for some
factors (total self-efficacy, writing self-efficacy, & reading selfefficacy)
• Students who were ELL, but not disabled, had self-efficacy scores
comparable to SWD
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013
Disclaimer
• Funding for this project was partially provided by
a grant from the Virginia Department of
Education and the USDOE Virginia‘s State
Personnel Development Grant # H232070029.
This project was found to comply with
appropriate ethical standards and was exempted
from the need for formal review by the College of
William and Mary. The opinions expressed herein
do not reflect those of the Virginia Department of
Education or the USDOE.
sharon.defur@wm.edu March 2013