Response Format in Writing Self-Efficacy Assessment: Greater Discrimination Increases Prediction

By Frank Pajares, J. Hartley, Gio Valiante. 2001

348 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Management Science and Operations Research, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f6b0ae227f613a117e3291b600302d339ac6b42a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

College students’ homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs (2009, methodology): “Bandura (2005) has recommended the use of decile-based self-efficacy scales when feasible rather than scales involving fewer data points because the former are more sensitive and reliable, and there is evidence to support this assumption (Pajares et al. 2001).”
Meta-analysis of family-centered helpgiving practices research. (2007, background): “Findings from many different kinds of studies show that covariation between an independent and dependent variable are strongest when the targets of appraisal on outcome measures include indicators that are specifically hypothesized to be influenced by an intervention variable [see e.g., Bugental et ”
Self-efficacy and music performance (2006, methodology): “…adopted the approach recommended by Bandura (1997), who suggested that the reliability of a self-efficacy measure will be improved by asking subjects to record the strength of their beliefs using an 11-point scale, ranging in 10-unit intervals from 0 to 100 percent (see also Pajares et al., 2001).”
Leader Self and Means Efficacy: A multi-component approach (2012, methodology): “The 0–100 response format was used as it has been suggested by Bandura (1997) and validated by Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante (2001) as more accurate, predictive, and psychometrically valid than self-efficacy scales of less response span.”
Measuring Engineering Design Self‐Efficacy (2010, methodology): “A 0 to 100 response format was used because it is a stronger predictor of performance than a five-interval Likert scale (Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante, 2001) based on an individual’s common understanding of being typically scored in school on a 100-point scale.”
Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: effects of grade, sex, and ability (2013, positive): “Thus, we feel that the response format used by Pajares et al. (2001), where students generate a percent agreement on a full continuum, is likely a better approach when feasible and developmentally appropriate.”
Preservice Teachers' Content Knowledge and Self-Efficacy for Teaching Reading (2013, background): “The results of the 100-point scales also have greater discrimination than those scales with fewer response options (i.e., Bandura, 1997, 2006; Pajares et al., 2001).”
Current directions in self-efficacy research in sport (2011, background): “Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante (2001) supported his intention on the categories by comparing the 11-point scale to a 6-point Likert scale, and concluded that writing self-efficacy measures with 11 categories produced greater prediction of theoretically relevant external variables, along with…”
Optimizing Rating Scales for Self-Efficacy (and Other) Research (2003, background): “The first limitation is related to the comment Pajares et al. (2000) made justifying the use of a 0 to 100 range because it is the manner in which students are typically graded.”
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS, MOTIVATION, AND ACHIEVEMENT IN WRITING: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE (2003, background): “Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante (2001) found that a writing skills self-efficacy scale with a 07100 response format was psychometrically stronger than one with a traditional Likert format.”
GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING SELF-EFFICACY SCALES (2006, background): “Thus an efficacy scale with the 0-100 response format is a stronger predictor of performance than one with a 5-interval scale (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001).”