2. Self-Efficacy
• Social Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura
• Self-efficacy is an important component of Social Cognitive Theory
• What is general self-efficacy?
“General self-efficacy is the belief in one’s competence to cope with a broad range of
stressful or challenging demands”(Luszczynska, Scholz, Schwarzer 2005)
• Self-efficacy is the foundation of human agency, which states individuals to be the
producers of their own experiences.
Rationale: You can create a favorable environment when you believe you have what it
takes to create one.
• Extensive research shows that efficacy beliefs affect the choice and persistence of
behavior.
• Efficacy beliefs can be increased in therapy, and this is the mechanism by which therapy
is effective, according to Bandura (Cloninger 2008)
3. Importance of Self-efficacy
- Self-efficacy positively correlates with sense of coherence, health behaviors, optimism (Posadzki, Stockl,
Musonda, Tsouroufli 2010).
- Self-efficacy influences coping in patients who underwent surgeries (Boehmer, Luszczynska, Schwarzer,
2007)
- Self-efficacy influences in weight regulation, taking up physical activity regularly, eating habits, prevention
of smoking and other addictions. (Zalewska-Puchala, Majda, Galuszka, Kolonko 2007).
- Self-efficacy is effective in predicting drug use, abstinence, and relapse (Gwaltney, Shiffman, Balabanis,
Paty 2005; Moos, Moos 2006).
- Self-efficacy promotes psychological well-being (Roos, Potgieter, Temane 2013)
- Self-efficacy is a predictor of anxiety and depression (Luszczynska, Gutierrez-Dona, Schwarzer 2005).
4. Research Gap
• There is no proper scale in Sri Lanka to determine self-efficacy of a person.
• By determining self-efficacy, low efficacious people can be taught to
enhance their beliefs of efficacy.
• Through that, they too can enjoy the benefits described previously.
• Also, having a validated scale will help practitioners to assess the
efficaciousness of a person.
• Effective with cognitive behavioral therapy (Brown et al. 2002) and
motivational interviewing.
• Thus, having a validated scale will help practitioners to incorporate self-
efficacy in their practice.
5. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)
• Developed by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer in Germany.
• Psychometric properties of the scale based on a sample of 19,120 that
belongs to 25 different countries (Scholz, Dona, Sud, Shwarzer 2002)
- Internal consistency is alpha .86
- Test re-test reliability, r= .67
- Good construct validity
- Unidemensional
6.
7. Aims and Objectives
• Enabling people of Sri Lanka to use the generalized self-efficacy scale.
• Demonstrating psychometric properties and the universality of the
scale.
• Demonstrating the applicability of the construct self-efficacy in Sri
Lankan context.
8. Cross-Cultural Validation of GSES
• Hypothesis : The items in the Sinhala version of the generalized self-
efficacy scale measures self-efficacy in Sri Lanka.
• Method:
A.Obtaining permission.
B.Translation to Sinhala.
C.Back translation.
D.Expert review
E.Pilot study with 15 undergraduates from few local universities
F.Delphi Process
G.Proof reading
H.Psychometric Testing
9. • Sampling strategy
A.Minimum sample size needed to perform a factor analysis – N=100
- Subject to Variable ratio 10:1, rule of 10
(Garson 2008; Everitt 1975; Velicer, Fava 1998: 232)
- Rule of 100
(Gorsuch 1983)
- But a sample of N=260 was collected.
B. Random collection of data
Data collected randomly from public places in Colombo, Galle, and Kandy.
C. Age group – 18 to 30 years
10. • Data collection
• Correlation matrix (to avoid multicollinearity and singularity)
A. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Index (sample adequacy)
B. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (to investigate how the current correlation matrix
diverges from the identity matrix)
• Exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis)
A. Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalue (above 1.0 are significant factors)
• Reliability -Cronbach’s Alpha
• Validity - Content validity and consensual validity (obtained
through the Delphi process conducted using 5 experts).
11. Ethics
• Informed consent
• Anonymity and confidentiality
• Researcher’s contact information was given to clarify any information
regarding the study
13. • Translation (Antunes et al. 2012)
• GSES was first translated to Sinhala.
• The Sinhala version was translated back to English.
• Discrepancies in translation was found through the expert review committee.
• Then a tentative version of the Sinhala GSES obtained after the feedback of
the expert review was forwarded to undergo a pilot study.
• The scale was revised slightly following the feedback obtained from the pilot
study.
• The scale finally underwent the Delphi process, to obtain validity.
• After obtaining the validity, the scale was psychometrically tested.
14. • Reliability
• Data collected from 260 participants.
• Cronbach’s alpha reliability was calculated.
• α = 0.81
15. • Validity
• Content and consensual validity obtained through the Delphi process.
• Delphi process obtains consensus from a group of experts.
• Experts present their opinion numerically.
• According to a predetermined method the obtained ratings were categorized
into 3 categories: 0-3, 4-6, 7-9 (de Zoysa, Rajapakse, Newcomb 2007: 8).
• Criteria:
• If 70% or more ratings of an item were in the category of 0-3, the item should be
reworded to make it more appropriate.
• If 70% or more of the ratings for a particular item were in categories 4-6 and 7-9, that item
can be retained.
• The Sinhala version of the GSES obtained ratings for each item in the
acceptable categories: 4-6, 7-9.
• Thus, all the items in the scale was retained from alterations.
16. • Principal component analysis (PCA)
• Correlation matrix was created to investigate how variables relate to each
other.
• All the items were inter-correlated.
• KMO index = 0.860 (sample size is adequate to perform PCA)
• Bartlett’s test of sphericity
• current correlation matrix significantly diverges from the identity matrix χ2 = 638.960, df= 45,
p=.00.
• PCA was conducted and the factors were represented through the Kaiser-
Guttman eigenvalue criterion.
• eigenvalues: 3.879, .956, .925, .796, .775, .732, .584, .511, ..450, .392.
• Unidimensional
• Factor loadings
19. Discussion
• Result obtained in internal consistency reliability measure was further
confirmed through the principal component analysis (unidimensionality)
• Due to lack of time test re-test reliability could not be calculated.
• Validity was obtained through the Delphi process.
• The psychometric properties of this study is consistent with the previous
validations of the GSES in other countries.
• The sample size is adequate for the study, but increasing it further will be
helpful to rule out any threats to external validity.
• Tips for future research: Self-efficacy’s relationship with other constructs
such as optimism, self regulation, health behaviors, etc. can be probed. It
will help to establish criterion validity for the GSES as well.
20. • Conclusion
• The Sinhala version of the GSES was successfully validated to Sinhala
language.
• Everyone between the age category 18 to 30 can use the scale.
• Unidimensional.
• Outstanding reliability.
• Good content and consensual validity.
22. References
• Antunes, B., Daveson, B., Ramsenthaler, C., Benalia, H., Ferreira, P., Pausewein, C., Higginson, I, J. (2012) The Palliative Care
Outcome Scale (POS) Manual for Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation. [online] Available from <http://pos-
pal.org/doct/Manual_for_crosscultural_adaptation_and_psychometric_validation_of_the_POS.pdf> [16th July 2015]
• Boehmer, S., Luszczynska, A., Schwarzer, R. (2007) Coping and Quality of Life After Tumor Surgery: Personal and Social Resources
Promote Different Domains of Quality of Life. Anxiety, Stress, Coping. 20(1), 61-75. [online] Available from
<http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&sid=1ac2c02b-f083-4c3c-abd9-
ad473739800a%40sessionmgr111&hid=124> [8th June 2015]
• Brown T, G., Seraganian P, Tremblay J, Annis H. (2002) Process and outcome changes with relapse prevention versus 12-Step
aftercare programs for substance abusers. Addiction. 97(6), 677–689.
• Cloninger, S. (2008) Mischel and Bandura: Cognitive Social Learning Theory. Theories of Personality: Understanding Persons. 5th
edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 337-367.
• De Zoysa, P., Rajapakse, L., Newcomb, P, A. (2007) Adaptation and Validation of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire on 12
Year Old Children in Sri Lanka. New Psychological Tests and Testing Research. ed by. Boyar, L, S. New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. 185-202.
• Everitt, S. (1975) Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. British Journal of Psychiatry. 126, 2S7-240.
• Garson, D. G. (2008) Factor Analysis [online] Available from <http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm> [9th December
2014].
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1983) Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
• Gwaltney, C, J., Shiffman, S., Balabanis, M, H., Paty, J, A. (2005) Dynamic self-efficacy and outcome expectancies: Prediction of
smoking lapse and relapse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 114(4), 661–675.
23. • Luszczynska, A., Gutierrez-Dona, B., Schwarzer, R. (2005) General Self-Efficacy in Various Domains of Human Functioning: Evidence From Five
Countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80-89. [online] Available from
<http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=22&sid=1ac2c02b-f083-4c3c-abd9-ad473739800a%40sessionmgr111&hid=124> [29th
June 2015]
• Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Schwarzer, R. (2005) The General Self Efficacy Scale: Multicultural Validation Studies, The Journal of Psychology,
139(5), 439-457. [online] Available from < http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/self/gse-multicult_2005.pdf> [9th December 2014]
• Moos, R, H., Moos, B, S. (2006) Rates and predictors of relapse after natural and treated remission from alcohol use disorders. Addiction. 101(2), 212–
222. [online] Available from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976118/> [16th October 2015]
• Posadzki, P., Stockl, A., Musanda, P., Tsouroufli, M. (2010) A Mixed-Method Approach to Sense of Coherence, Health Behaviors, Self-Efficacy, and
Optimism: Towards the Operationalization of Positive Health Attitudes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 246-252. [online] Available from
<http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=22&sid=882d8696-569b-4f0b-bfce-05ca5b406b2d%40sessionmgr198&hid=106> [9th
December 2014]
• Roos, S., Potgieter, J., Temane, M. (2013) Self-Efficacy, Collective Efficacy and the Psychological Well-Being of Groups in Transition. Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 23(4), 561-568. [online] Available from <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=26&sid=882d8696-569b-
4f0b-bfce-05ca5b406b2d%40sessionmgr198&hid=106> [9th December 2014]
• Scholz, U., Dona, B, G., Sud, S., Schwarze, R. (2005) Is General Self-Efficacy a Universal Construct? Psychometric Findings from 25 Countries.
European Journal of Psychological Assessments, 18(3), 242-251. [online] Available from < http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/self/gse-
25countries_2002.pdf> [9th December 2014]
• Velicer, W, F., Fava, J, L. (1998) Effects of Variable and Subject Sampling on Factor Pattern Recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251. [online]
Available from <www.researchgate.net> [18th January 2015]
• Zalewska-Puchala, J., Majda, A., Galuszka, A., Kolonko, J. (2007) Health Behavior of Students versus a Sense of Self-Efficacy. Advances in Medical
Sciences, 52, 73-77. [online] Available from <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=24&sid=882d8696-569b-4f0b-bfce-
05ca5b406b2d%40sessionmgr198&hid=106> [9th December 2014]
