Measuring Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy To Understand The Impact of Creative Activities For Learning Inn

Measuring entrepreneurial self-efcacy to understand the
impact of creative activities for learning innovation

Shima Barakat
a, *
, Monique Boddington
a, b
, Shailendra Vyakarnam
a, b
a
Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning, University of Cambridge Judge Business School, 10 Trumpington St, Cambridge CB2 1QA, UK
b
Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning, University of Cambridge Judge Business School, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 January 2014
Received in revised form 11 April 2014
Accepted 20 May 2014
Keywords:
Entrepreneurship education
Self-efcacy
Measuring impact
Creativity
Innovation
a b s t r a c t
It has been argued that if increased entrepreneurial activity is the outcome objective, then
self-efcacy provides a legitimate and robust construct that can be used to evaluate the
impact of entrepreneurial education (Barakat, McIellan, & Wineld, 2010). This is because
self-efcacy inuences the motivation and ability to engage in specic activities (Bandura,
1977) and is a strong, necessary condition of creative productivity, and in discovering new
knowledge (Bandura, 1997). Although the concept of self-efcacy can be used as a
promising tool to understand creativity and has been practically tested by Tierney and
Farmer (2002), entrepreneurial self-efcacy (ESE) as a multi-dimensional construct re-
mains under theorized. The aim of this paper is to provide details of a study and meth-
odology in order to offer an example of a usable survey tool plus preliminary results from
the data collected through a specic project called CAL4INO.Creative Activities in Learning
for Innovation (CAL4INO) is a European Union funded project that focuses primarily on
identifying the impact of different types of learning activities on the innovation potential
of participants. CAL4INO aims to review different education and training methods and
explore the impact different programmes have on entrepreneurship and innovation both
in the short term and long term. As part of this research a survey tool has been validated
that measures different factors of entrepreneurial self-efcacy (ESE).Further, the rela-
tionship between different dimensions of ESE are considered to build a better under-
standing of the multi-dimensional structure of ESE.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Creativity is viewed as central to entrepreneurship (Timmons, 1994) and entrepreneurial intentions (Hamidi, Wennberg, &
Berglund, 2008). Many entrepreneurial programmes now include learning activities designed to make the student think and
act more creatively. As education in this area moves away from more traditional approaches it is no longer sufcient to
measure courses by how well they teach students to write business plans or complete case study assignments or on student
feedback, employability and nancial returns. Creative learning activities aim to change the very behaviour of individuals as
creativity is strongly associated with entrepreneurship and innovation (Amabile, 1997). There is a need for a new type of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1223 766900.
E-mail address: s.barakat@jbs.cam.ac.uk (S. Barakat).
URL: http://www.cfel.jbs.cam.ac.uk
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The International Journal of Management Education
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ i j me
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.007
1472-8117/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The International Journal of Management Education xxx (2014) 1e13
Please cite this article in press as: Barakat, S., et al., Measuring entrepreneurial self-efcacy to understand the impact of creative
activities for learning innovation, The International Journal of Management Education (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijme.2014.05.007
measurement. With the growing number of creative learning activities nowbeing taught there is a need to better understand
what impact they are having and if they are lling the theoretical remit of making individuals more creative, innovative and
entrepreneurial.
Creative Activities in Learning for Innovation (CAL4INO), a European wide, EU funded project aims to investigate the role
of creative learning activities to enhance innovation within the context of entrepreneurship. The rationale behind this is
that people as teams, not lone geniuses, develop meaningful innovations by blending designs, technology and business
through creative activities synthesizing diverse perspectives, experiences and skills. To study and measure such activities,
instruments need to be exible enough to measure any creative learning activity that aims to enhance innovation and by
extension, entrepreneurial activity. The Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning at the University of Cambridge was (and
continues to be) responsible for designing and developing tools that are capable of studying and measuring creative
learning activities that aim to enhance innovation. Over the duration of the CAL4INO project a range of different pro-
grammes have been measured that use a mixture of different approaches. The overall aim of the tool is that by analysing
and comparing different creative learning activities it will be possible to enhance innovation at the technical, social and
institutional level. The tool must be sufciently robust to compare and measure a range of different creative learning ac-
tivities across Europe. It must also be adaptive and sensitive to the different socio-cultural contexts, interdisciplinary and
cross-sector nature of the study so that it is possible to compare creative activities across these boundaries. Within the
study reported here, a tool was used to measure educational initiatives using creative activities to enhance innovation.
Further categories were supplemented to allow for the measurement of enterprise and entrepreneurship education in
general.
The chosen method of measurement chosen was entrepreneurial self-efcacy (ESE). ESE is dened as an individual's own
belief in his/her skills and abilities linked to entrepreneurial activity. It stands among the important personal factors that
inuence the abilities and chances of entrepreneurs as it is a prerequisite for these groups to persist in their daily activities
and in the achievement of their goals. It is no surprise that ESE has been receiving an increasing amount of attention in the
literature (for example Chen, Green & Crick, 1998; Forbes, 2005; McGee, Peterson, Mueller, & Sequeira, 2009). ESE has been
identied as having a role in new venture creation (Barbosa, Gerhardt, & Kickul, 2007; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Chen, Greene,
& Crick, 1998; Zhao, Siebert, & Hills, 2005) and is seen as an important antecedent to entrepreneurial action (Chen et al.,
1998). Positively inuencing self-efcacy can hence be a major goal in entrepreneurship education, especially with regard to
promoting self-belief on efcacy in producing innovation and staying creative throughout the cumbersome innovation
process.
Despite the growing body of literature, ESE remains empirically underdeveloped (McGee et al., 2009) with many calls for
further renement (for example Forbes, 2005; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006). There is a lack of understanding of the multi-
dimensionality of ESE as the dimensionality of the construct has yet to be fully established (McGee et al., 2009). Therefore
further work is needed to explore and determine the different dimensions of ESE.
This paper focuses on the design, implementation and validation of the survey tool (using both exploratory and conr-
matory factor analysis) and preliminary ndings. This is a valuable and powerful tool as it provides entrepreneurship edu-
cators with a tool to understand the impact of different learning activities. The rst sectionwill focus on the background work
to the tool in terms of dening creativity and innovation and also previous work on how to measure the impact of enterprise
and entrepreneurial courses. This will be followed by a discussion of ESE, the chosen construct used for measurement and
therefore provides a context for the tool validated in this paper. Before moving on to showing howthe tool has been validated
and some preliminary results from data gathered for the CAL4INO project.
2. Dening creativity and innovation
The rst issues in measuring the impact of enterprise and entrepreneurship programmes is dening what is being
measured?: how do we dene creativity in relation to innovation?. Given the remit of the CAL4INO project an un-
derstanding of creativity for innovation is required that is contextualized within entrepreneurship. One major issue, as
Kaufmann (2003) notes, is that there is a lot of research that has focused on a bottom-up perspective, where devel-
opment of tests of creativity have taken priority over the clarication of basic conceptual and theoretical issues.(Kauf-
mann, 2003, 236) Without dening basic conceptual and theoretical constructs there is a real danger of undermining
any tool.
Referring to creativity, there are numerous models for creativity and a denition has been a matter of debate for decades,
this is a complex issue and one that is not detailed here (for more detailed discussion refer to Berg, 2011). For the purposes of
designing a measurement tool the project team began by debating and researching the concept of creativity. While any
denition of creativity is fraught with controversy, creativity in general can be dened as: The development of a novel
product, idea, or problem solution that is of value to the individual and/or larger social groups (Hennessey &Amabile, 2010).
General consensus in the eld supports this denition (See also, Fisher & Amabile, 2009; George & Zhou, 2001; Sternberg,
Kaufman, & Pretz, 2002; Tierney, Farmer, & Green, 1999).
Research has also indicated that creativity has a heuristic character within which, not only is the outcome novel, so too is
the process within which it is created (George & Zhou, 2001, 514). Within team creativity it is argued that creativity involves
interaction between individuals and environment (Sternberg et al. 2002). Further, given the rise of technology and
specialization, creativity has become more a product of organizational effort than lone geniuses (Fisher & Amabile, 2009).
S. Barakat et al. / The International Journal of Management Education xxx (2014) 1e13 2
j.ijme.2014.05.007
Creativity as related to innovation within the entrepreneurial process is therefore dened as:
the ability to develop novel products, ideas, or problem solutions which are of value to the entrepreneurial individual
and/or team in their pursuit of an entrepreneurial opportunity and that take place in a heuristic environment
Berg, 2011; CAL4INO theoretical framework.
This is a very brief overview of the theoretical background and constructs related to creativity but a working denition
makes it possible to move on situating creativity in terms of innovation. A number of themes can be drawn out when thinking
about creativity learning activities for innovation: Firstly the skills and abilities of an individual are crucial as part of the
creative process and in particular creative skills which is of a malleable nature (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). Personality
characteristics impact the creative process (Bull, Montgomery, & Baloche, 1995), particularly focused on here is condence in
performing specic tasks including creative tasks and attitude and views around risk (particularly relevant to the context of
entrepreneurship). As noted earlier and within the denition above it not lone creativity but also team creativity that plays a
crucial role in innovation. Creativity involves the interaction between individuals (Sternberg et al, 2002) particularly in a
world of rising specialization, more sophisticated technology and dispersed knowledge (Fisher &Amabile, 2009) The tool was
to be framed in terms of innovation and including measurements for creativity and entrepreneurship as these are so closely
related to innovation.
2.1. How do we measure creativity and innovation?
We therefore move on, from considering what is being measured to how to do it? How do we measure creativity and
innovation if that is our outcome objective? Many different methods have been used to measure creativity and innovation.
We had to decide on the one that tted best with the needs and resources of the project. We also wanted to move away from
more traditional methods that focused on longitudinal research, for example value of businesses created, towards an impact
measure that could produce results in the short term and also one that could capture impact on a more nuanced level. For
example measuring purely in terms of nancial value of start-ups does not capture the value of individuals starting up for
example social enterprises or intrapreneurship.
Looking rst at creativity, the most common method of measurement is psychometric testing (Plucker & Makel, 2010;
Plucker & Runco, 1998). It is suggested that the predominance of psychometric testing is due to researchers extending
their research fromother areas, for example aptitude and ability scores, and extending the methodology to measure creativity
(Plucker & Makel, 2010, 49). Historically the most popular form of testing has been divergent thinking (DT) tests, for example
the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) and Wallach and Kogan (1965) Test. While DT tests do vary, they
generally ask for multiple responses to either gural or verbal prompts, and responses are scored for uency, exibility,
originality, and elaboration of ideas. (Plucker & Makel, 2010, 52) However, these tests are undermined by their lack of
predictive validity (Baer, 1993; Gardner, 1993; Wiesberg, 1993). Nonetheless a number of studies have demonstrated the
discriminate and predictive validity of DT tests though the response is mixed (Plucker & Makel, 2010, 54). Further de-
velopments in recent years in this area have emphasised the importance of implicit theories towards social validation of
creativity tests (Plucker & Runco, 1998).
Within an innovation/entrepreneurial setting there are a number of studies that use a range of techniques to test creativity
Taggar (2002), studying individual and group creativity within an organizational background, tested creativity through the
use of case study questions (relevant to the background of individuals) analysed by observational scale measures and written
work scoring. Forms of psychometric testing continue to be popular (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2002; Liao, Liu, & Loi,
2002; Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004).
While the tool had to be both robust and able to create meaningful indicators, one of the biggest deciding factors was that
it had to be easy to implement and use across multiple programmes and multiple countries. It was therefore felt that most
methods of psychometric testing, specically DT tests, required too much in terms of man hours and other resources to be
practical. Alternative measurement tools that score individual creativity through observation and written tests were again too
resource heavy and arguably, results from different studies would be incommensurable (with different people producing
different ratings).
Innovation has been generally measured in a more traditional manner, for example return on investment. To analyse
innovation there have been three broad areas of indicators: the use of R &D data, data frompatent applications and scientic
publication and citation (Smith, 2005). However looking at creativity for innovation we wanted, as stated previously, to move
away from such markers and look at how to measure the change in the individual becoming more innovative. We therefore
turned to a form of psychometric test different to those detailed above.
3. Self-efcacy
The survey tool adopted is rooted in the concept of self-efcacy which is best understood as a person's condence in
their own ability to perform a specic task (Bandura, 1977). It is argued that self-efcacy provides a legitimate and
robust construct that can be used to evaluate entrepreneurial education (Barakat, McIellan, & Wineld, 2010; Chen et al.,
1998; Lucas & Cooper, 2005). Self-efcacy inuences the motivation and ability to engage in specic activities (Bandura,
1977) and is a strong, necessary condition of creative productivity and in discovering new knowledge (Bandura, 1997). It
j.ijme.2014.05.007
has been argued, that the concept of self-efcacy can be used as a promising construct to understand creativity (Tierney
& Farmer, 2002). This has been practically tested (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003; Tierney & Farmer, 2002) by
focussing on the practical implications of Ford's (1996) theory that self-efcacy inuences employees' creativity. Ford
presented a theory of individual creative action within organizational settings. Creativity and innovation are seen as
closely interlinked and creativity plays different roles across different layers of the innovation process. Creativity is
facilitated and constrained by a number of mechanisms including: sensemaking, motivation, knowledge, ability and
capability beliefs or as referred here self-efcacy. The ndings of the study supported Ford's theory that self-efcacy
inuences employees creative decision making in their work and compared to other factors was the only one to have
alone a main effect. (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). This research practically demonstrates that self-efcacy is an effective
marker of creativity.
The tool focuses on entrepreneurial self-efcacy (ESE) in particular and thus measuring creativity and innovation with
the context of entrepreneurship. Within the context of entrepreneurial education, ESE is strongly correlated to new
venture creation (Zhao et al., 2005). Entrepreneurial self-efcacy is linked to certain behaviours, for example opportunity
recognition and innovation associated with entrepreneurship (Chen et al., 1998). Lucas and Cooper (2005) have argued
that self-efcacy, more than any other psychological construct, is linked to commitment to accomplish goals. Determi-
nation is an essential for would-be entrepreneurs who often take many risks and spend many years in the face of
adversity.
Self-efcacy has been researched extensively within social science disciplines but only more recently within management
and entrepreneurial research. As a method of measurement it has been employed in only a few studies. Given the clear links
between self-efcacy and entrepreneurship, and in particular creative self-efcacy and entrepreneurial education, it is clearly
a powerful concept that can be used to better understand creative learning activities for innovation in entrepreneurial ed-
ucation and enhance teaching within this area. Further, given the nature of survey tools, participants are asked about their
perceptions and with self-efcacy being one's own condence in ones own ability it is therefore an ideal construct for a
survey based tool that collects self-reported data.
4. The tool
The tool to be designed needed to be able to measure the impact of creative learning activities on innovation within the
context of entrepreneurship. Therefore the tool needed to understand the impact on ESE as related to creativity, innovation
and other factors of ESE as related to the more general context of entrepreneurship. Rather than designing a new, untested
and untried survey tool, we chose to identify and collate existing survey elements that have been shown to measure the
different aspects that we sought. The rst part of the survey is made up of the EGHI group/Cambridge-MIT Institute ques-
tionnaire, which has been tested and employed in various studies (e.g.: Barakat, McLellan, & Wineld, 2010; Cave, Cooper,
Good, & Ward, 2006; Lucas & Cooper, 2005). McGee et al. (2009) contend that although the majority of theorists advocate
a multi-dimensional concept in their theoretical framework, the research itself relies on a construct of ESE which is very
limited in scope. They argue that the level of dilution is increased when such studies fail to take into account the underlying
dimensions of ESE. When there is a lack of variety among the sample populations tested, as is often the case, this can lead to a
theoretically impoverished construct (for a more comprehensive review of the tensions in the literature around the ESE
construct and its measurement please see McLellan, Barakat, &Wineld, 2009). Therefore, both the tool development and the
sample data in our database have taken these concerns into account. Firstly, the tool was used to assess the underlying di-
mensions of ESE and secondly, the measurement of individuals from across Europe taking part in different learning activities
therefore increasing the variety of the sample population.
To account for this multi-dimensionality the tool employed here has a number of sections. An additional ve sections
were added to the original EGHI survey, all directly related to the literature review of creativity and innovation, as briey
discussed earlier. On 5-point and 6-point scales, questions ranged from the more general (for example, applying creative
solutions to problems) to the more specic (for example, nding new uses for existing methods or equipment). Three of
the sections relate to individual creative self-efcacy and two sections relate to group self-efcacy. In consultation with
other project partners it was felt that both individual and group self-efcacy needed to be considered. These questions
were adopted from several previous successful studies. Questions were adapted from the study of George and Zhou
(2001) into understanding how different traits, including creative behaviour, related to behaviour in the workplace.
Further questions were adapted from the study of Tierney et al (1999) which looked at the effects of manager and
employee creativity within a large chemical company. The section on innovation was also adapted from the George and
Zhou (2001) study.
The nal questionnaire has seven sections containing items related to ESE and attitude measurements. From the original
EGHI instrument: skills and abilities related to entrepreneurship, peer reviewed (6 point scale), condence in specic tasks
(percentage scales) and attitude towards starting up and risk (7 point scale) (for more details see McLellan et al., 2009).
Additional sections were crucial for helping with both the measurement and theorising of ESE. The additional new sections
focussed on accounting for the role of creativity as related to innovation within the entrepreneurial process (in terms of the
individual and teams): creativity (6 point scale), creativity in a teams (6 point scale), teamwork (5 point scale) and innovation
(6 point scale). Further sections collected demographic information and information on future career intentions.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
To gauge the impact of different creative learning activities, the survey was designed to be taken before the learning
activity being measured, after and 6 months after that. All three surveys are almost identical to allowfor comparison. Certain
questions related to demographic questions were removed from the post surveys as there was no need to ask for this in-
formation multiple times. The post survey also contained additional questions related feedback for the course the participant
had completed. This would make it possible able to compare and benchmark different types of courses across Europe, in line
with the original aims of CAL4INO.
4.1. Validating the survey tool
Data was gathered from entrepreneurial programmes in Europe as part of the CAL4INO project and a subset of this will be
used for this paper. Data was gathered using the online survey tool, Qualtrics. Surveys were disseminated through course
convenors and supervisors and the survey completion was optional. Our sample for this paper is made up of 1086 data points
from28 enterprise and entrepreneurship programmes delivered to postgraduate students. The majority of these programmes
equated to roughly 40 h of contact time, directed at would be entrepreneurs and included creative learning activities. A good
benchmark example of the programmes measured is the Enterprisers Programme at the University of Cambridge, an
entrepreneurial programme that aims to build self-condence and self-belief.
1
Geographically the majority of these pro-
grammes were held in the United Kingdom, 21 in total. A further 2 programmes from Greece, 4 programmes from Finland, 1
programme from Ireland and 1 programme from Portugal are also included in the dataset. A breakdown of the programmes
measured including target group, duration and a brief description of aimof the programme and teaching methods is provided
in the appendix to this paper. However all groups had a multinational makeup in terms of the participants. 54.6% of our
sample group was male and 45.4% female. Individuals had a wide variety of educational backgrounds (see Fig. 1) with the
most coming from a maths and sciences background but still a large number from the social sciences and engineering. Just
under a half (42.7%) of the sample had takenprevious enterprise module or course. Age of the sample group ranged from18 to
74 with an average age of 30.35.
The tool was validated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and conrmatory factor analysis (CFA). Principle axes
factoring was used, with rotation to simplify and produce cleaner analyses. However we recognise that behaviours are not
neatly portioned into separate boxes but function dependently on each other. In addition, the use of orthogonal methods on
factors that are correlated leads to the loss of information regarding the factors. For this reason the results of direct oblim
rotation are presented here and factor scores were calculated using the Bartlett method (Bartlett, 1937).
To test if factor analysis is appropriate for the data set Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy (KMO)
(Kaiser, 1970) and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) were run. The Bartlett test of sphericity was highly
signicant (approx. chi-sq. 62806.792; df. 2701, sig.000) indicating that there is a high probability that the relationship
between variables is signicant and that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. The KMO measure (0.970)
expresses the proportion of common variance among variables. Nine factors were extracted (explaining 63% of
Fig. 1. Major area of study
1
For more information see http://www.cfel.jbs.cam.ac.uk/programmes/enterprisers/.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
the variance, all with Cronbach alpha values above or close to 0.8 indicating a healthy level of reliability. Please see
Table 1).
The model provided by EFA was further analysed using conrmatory factor analysis (maximum likelihood in AMOS 21).
Experimentation showed that all factor loadings extracted from EFA under 0.40 were of a poor model t and therefore were
discarded in the CFA Model. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) compares the hypothesized model with a null model, the CFI of
0.916 indicated an acceptable t of the data to the model (Bentler, 1992). CMIN/DF (minimum discrepancy/degrees of
freedom) of 3.283 also indicated a good model t. Avalue of under 5 for CMIN/DF is considered indicative of a good model t.
AGFI (which again compared the hypothesized model to a null model) of 0.828 indicated an acceptable t (Wu & Wang,
2006). RMSEA (the root mean square error of approximation) of 0.046 also indicated the model was a good t for the
data, since it is under 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and even under 0.05 (Steiger, 1990). These measures indicate that the
model is a good t, conrming the 9 factors identied during EFA. Seven ESE dimensions and two entrepreneurial attitude
dimensions were identied as shown in Table 2.
The survey based self-efcacy tool has been validated using both EFA and CFA giving strong support for the 9 underlying
factors (7 entrepreneurial self-efcacy items and 2 attitude scales). Within this, creativity dimension of ESE items are those
linked to the generation of novel and original ideas both individually and within a team (for example, generating ideas
revolutionary, demonstrating originality). In comparison items that load on to the innovation ESE factor are about the
application of new ideas (for example new ways of applying technologies, achieving objectives, solving problems that have
caused other problems) Startup processes ESE factor was also extracted, in comparison to the innovation and creativity ESE
factors which loaded on more specic skills and abilities, this factor loaded on more generalized skills and abilities (for
example, understanding what it takes to start your own business, start a successful social enterprise). It is no surprise that
these three factors strongly correlate, as seen in table 3, there is a strong crossover. Creativity ESE and innovation ESE
correlate at 0.730, start up processes ESE and creativity ESE at 0.644 and innovation and start up processes at 0.619. It can
be argued that there is a circularity to ESE, that raising an individual's self-efcacy related to creativity will also impact their
condence in their skills and abilities in innovation or start up processes and vice versa. These different factors of ESE
cannot be considered as separate entities but are entwined in a complex structure, which clearly requires future work to
understand. It is also important to not focus just on the creativity and innovation, but on other factors that validated in the
tool (nance, teamwork, product development, leadership and the two entrepreneurial attitude measures: appetite and
risk). For example one of the most interesting correlations is possibly the very high correlation between startup processes
and nance of 0.739.
Table 1
Exploratory Factor Analysis statistics including Cronbach's alpha.
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cronbach's a 0.935 0.942 0.818 0.788 0.909 0.909 0.752 0.927 0.802
% of variance 36.020 6.448 5.274 4.633 2.945 2.138 1.192 1.696 1.622
Eigenvalue 27.015 4.836 3.955 3.475 2.209 1.603 1.437 1.272 1.216
Table 2
Questionnaire items and factors (ESE and attitude dimensions).
Factor Example items
Innovation: applying new ideas and new ways of doing,
including problem solving. (ESE)
Apply new and practical ideas.
Apply a fresh approach to problems.
Financial Value: valuation, pricing, and negotiating
terms. (ESE)
Know how much to place the proper nancial value on a start-up company.
Estimate the number of people who are likely to buy a new product or service.
Attitude to Risk. (Attitude) It would kill my career if I helped form a new business that failed.
Starting a company is too much like betting against the odds.
Teamwork; ability to work in and with teams/other
people. (ESE)
I nd it easy to balance different ideas within a team.
I nd it easy to solve problems within a team
Product development: understanding and translating
customer needs into a product. (ESE)
Lead a technical team developing a new product to a successful result.
Hear a product concept based on a technology and have a rough idea if it is practical.
Startup processes. (ESE) Understand what it takes to start your own enterprise.
Understand the language of new venture creation.
Leadership: motivating, negotiating and recruiting
a team. (ESE)
Find an approach that resolves a group conict and gets your own team moving
forward on a task
Motivate others to work long hours and to meet a deadline.
Creativity: generating novel ideas individually and
within a team. (ESE)
Generate ideas revolutionary to the eld you are in.
Generate novel but operable work-related ideas.
Appetite for starting up. (Attitude) At least once I will have to take a chance and start my own company.
If I see an opportunity to start a company, Ill take it.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
5. Results
The examples used in this section are mainly for illustrative purposes, to show what the tool is capable of. To demonstrate
the tool in practice, three Cambridge Entrepreneurial programmes are compared (Figs. 2 and 3). All three programmes have
roughly an equal number of contact time (about 5 days). Programmes b and d were residential. Programme b and c are
directed at individuals who are interested in entrepreneurship but may not have a concrete business idea yet. Both pro-
grammes b and c were directed at mainly postgraduates though programme c was for women only. Programme d is at in-
dividuals who are already putting together business plans and their own ideas towards setting up a business who come from
across europe. Comparing the marginalized means of different factors show how the aims of the different courses are rep-
resented in the ESE scores.
The time points refer to the different surveys: 1 (pre-programme), 2 (post-programme) and 3 (6 month post). For
example for innovation we see how with programme d we see higher ESE among participants at the start compared to
participants on b and c then a steady rise to the post programme results which are then followed by a further increase in
ESE as can be seen at the 6 months post results. If we look at creativity we see a slightly different pattern, with the pro-
grammes directed earlier in the entrepreneurial journey (b and c) we see sharper growth with ESE levelling off towards the
6 month point. Programme d on the other hand shows less dramatic increase but ESE raises both at the post and 6 month
post stage indicating a more subtle and yet potentially a more fundamental course impact. Programme d is quite different to
programme b and c, so the impact change is not surprising. For course d, individuals have already quite well formed
business plans and therefore, it is unsurprising that they have higher ESE and increases both post and 6 m month post. For
course b and c there is more dramatic increase, arguably as they are exploring new ideas but once back in the real world 6
months later there is a drop in condence. The womens only group appear to have had a more extreme reaction, with a
much sharper increase and then a drop off at 6 months after the course, arguably, this is in some way gender linked. This
would suggest that educators could perhaps consider follow on initiatives for those earlier in there entrepreneurial journey
to facilitate increase ESE. Figs. 2 and 3 also suggest that gender is a moderating variable of ESE and worthy of future
research.
Table 3
Pearsons correlations between constructs (all values signicant at p < 0.01).
Finance <> StartUp Proc 0.739
Finance <> Productdev 0.705
Finance <> Leadership 0.571
Finance <> Creativity 0.557
Finance <> Innovation 0.517
Finance <> Appetite 0.472
Finance <> Risk 0.274
Finance <> Teamwork 0.197
Risk <> Appetite 0.701
Risk <> Innovation 0.354
Risk <> StartUp Proc 0.347
Risk <> Creativity 0.340
Risk <> Productdev 0.241
Risk <> Leadership 0.228
Risk <> Teamwork 0.200
Creativity <> Innovation 0.816
Creativity <> StartUp Proc 0.644
Creativity <> Productdev 0.583
Creativity <> Leadership 0.558
Creativity <> Appetite 0.468
Creativity <> Teamwork 0.233
Teamwork <> Leadership 0.466
Teamwork <> Innovation 0.269
Teamwork <> Appetite 0.234
Teamwork <> StartUp Proc 0.209
Teamwork <> Productdev 0.158
Productdev <> Innovation 0.614
Productdev <> StartUp Proc 0.592
Productdev <> Leadership 0.584
Productdev <> Appetite 0.349
Leadership <> Innovation 0.545
Leadership <> StartUp Proc 0.544
Leadership <> Appetite 0.342
Appetite <> StartUp Proc 0.483
Appetite <> Innovation 0.437
Innovation <> StartUp Proc 0.619
j.ijme.2014.05.007
Alternatively it is also possible to look at differences in the entire dataset. For example if we look at appetite for start up
betweenpeople who have a parent who has their own business and those who do not, there is a marked difference in appetite
for start up (Fig. 4).
These results offer evidence as to why people who have a parent who has their own business tend to be more likely to
start their own business (Krueger Jr. 1993) Having that parental inuence results in a higher tolerance of risk and operating
under uncertainty in participants even before they undergo a course. It is particularly interesting to see the results of
education and training where the parent-inuenced course appear to be impacted more acutely by their chosen inter-
vention, but even more signicantly appear even more secure in the longer term whereas the other group appear to lose
much of their enhanced attitude to risk beyond the course(s). These results indicate that frame of mind of participants as
well as their contexts (and the interplay between them) may well inuence the impact of education more than we have be
accounting for in either design or evaluation of programmes. This is a very complex area with on-going debate and mixed
reports (see Athayde, 2009; Kim, Aldrich, & Keister, 2006; Mungai & Velamuri, 2011) and therefore needs further unpacking
in terms of understanding the moderating impact of background on ESE and the possible ramications this has for
entrepreneurial education: for example, comparing the above to the impact of longer programmes of immersion.
Fig. 2. Changes in Innovation ESE item of three Cambridge entrepreneurship programmes
Fig. 3. Change in Creativity ESE Item of three Cambridge entrepreneurship programmes
j.ijme.2014.05.007
The two examples in this section have aimed at highlighting possible applications of measuring ESE and attitudes using
the survey instrument. Comparisons can be made between courses to understand how different courses impact different
people. Using the entire database it is possible to add new insights (that clearly need much more research) into the
moderating variables and the nature of their inuence on ESE and entrepreneurial attitudes.
6. Conclusions
This paper has discussed the design and validation of a tool based on entrepreneurial self-efcacy. The validation of the
tool is a step forward empirically developing and rening our understanding of ESE. As noted earlier in this paper, there is
a lack of understanding of the multi-dimensionality of ESE (McGee et al. 2009). Within the tool discussed in this paper,
ESE is broken down into seven factors, with a further two attitude measures. Looking at the correlations between these
different factors enriches our understanding of the multi-dimensionality and may also feed into education based on ESE.
For example innovation SE highly correlates with creativity SE. Another high correlation is between nance SE and startup
processes SE, something which would merit study. If we look at Innovation ESE more closely we see that it highly cor-
relates with product dev ESE and Leadership ESE but correlates a lot less with Teamwork ESE. Further work will aim to
look more closely at these correlations through structural equation modelling and more specically second order
conrmatory factor analysis.
Early analysis also indicated the value of the tool in both understanding the impact of different entrepreneurial pro-
grammes. These impact measures are not designed to produce right and wrong results but to better understand the impact of
a programme and allow these to be compared to the aims of the programme. Therefore this tool provides a newand valuable
tool for entrepreneurship educators in designing and evaluating different learning activities. By understanding the impact of
different learning activities can also be used by entrepreneurial educations to guide future students towards specic
educational progammes.
Thirdly this tool has broader use for both educators and policy makers in understanding area where education may be
particularly effective or on the contrary failing certain groups. Similarly, this methodology and tool can be used to
identify how policy and resources for education can be better directed. Increased transparency and understanding
around impact would allow resources to be allocated in line with policy objectives. For example, for increased innovation
in a certain region, funding could be channelled towards initiatives that have measured increases in innovation self-
efcacy. Or, if a particular group is of political interest, the policies and funds can be channelled towards initiatives
that have been shown to have the highest impact on the target group e.g. women, specic ethnic minorities, scientists,
social scientists etc. This is in area which will require further research and a more nuanced image will only emerge with
further data collection.
It is important to remember that this method is not a measure of student satisfaction which is becoming increasingly
important as students are perceived and treated more like customers instead of the more traditional product or even co-
creators of knowledge. With increasing reliance on student paying premium fees, this is not surprising and though we
would not advocate using feedback as a measure of impact, it is important not to discount it and to note that high impact may
well come with a signicant proportion of negative feedback fromstudents that are uncomfortable within exercises. This may
Fig. 4. Change in Risk Attitude Item for parents who run their own businesses.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
occur during exercises they perceive as uncool and refrain from engaging fully or where they fail to perform a task that they
imagined they were naturally talented at. Creativity activities where students struggle to generate quality ideas are a typical
example of this phenomenon. As are team-working activities where students struggle with addressing tensions in team
dynamics e especially with students who are the source of the problem(s). Considering the relationship between Impact and
student satisfaction may provide interesting insights, particularly in light of programme and institutional objectives and
performance measures.
In the same vein, measuring the impact of a course or programme on ESE offers an indication of the probability of future
activity. ESE offers a tool that can be used in the short-term and requires a lot less resources (particularly man-power).
However, it does not offer an exact metric of the number of ventures that will be founded in the future, nor does it offer a
timeline for this. Measuring changes in ESE is particularly powerful when the educational objective is to increase entre-
preneurial activity in all sectors and time is of less signicance. If the aimof a programme is specically to increase the rate of
startup as soon as possible, then additional metrics need to be taken into account. Measuring changes in ESE and especially
the start-up dimension will give a good indication of whether the education or training being measured is having the desired
impact on individuals but then a closer monitoring of actual activity beyond the programme needs to take place. This is of
particular importance if the course or programme is being supported and resourced based on the number of ventures created.
We would argue that focussing on measuring the start-up dimension of ESE as well as its interactions with the other di-
mensions is sufcient to drawmeaningful conclusions about future start-up activity and that the temporal dimension is not as
important as the likelihood of success of the entrepreneur and their venture but we do not discount the importance of the
number of ventures founded since it is currently a very important measure for many different groups and bodies at all levels
from programme directors to policy makers.
To address some of the limitations as well as develop this knowledge area, future research would do well to consider
mixed methods that start to offer more answers to the how and why questions of the impact of entrepreneurship edu-
cation. At the broad level, future research needs to start clearly considering the different needs and outcomes of under-
graduate, postgraduate and professional education. Why are their differences? What are the implication of this for education
and training design? What are the implications for the practice of entrepreneurship? Looking at the links between educa-
tional stage, intervention design and deliver, impact on ESE and resulting activities/action would be very interesting and may
start to offer the sorts of answers that ESE skeptics might appreciate. Moving beyond the idea that entrepreneurship is for all
and that education is of equal benet to all. As per the work of McLellan et al. (in preparation) and the earlier version of the
results in Barakat, McLellan, & Wineld (2011), there are strong indications that entrepreneurship education impacts
different student groups differently and both the education and policy communities would benet from understanding
further the differences in impact as well as howand why they take place. This will be invaluable for recruitment, resourcing,
designing and assessing/evaluating entrepreneurship and enterprise education.
This paper has also contributed to the under-theorised multi-dimensionality of ESE by advancing a tool that measures the
impact of programmes on different dimensions of ESE. Prelimanary theoretical ndings have been unpacked to understand
how these different dimensions may relate to each other, however, as noted earlier, much more work needs to be done to
understand how these different dimensions relate to each other and how different learning activities impact different di-
mensions of ESE.
Finally, measuring ESE changes as an impact indication and other complementary methods to explore the impact of
enterprise and entrepreneurship education by research full cohorts of students, made up of students engaged in different
types of enterprise and entrepreneurship education, extra-curricular activities or none at all would start to offer the
evidence that many enterprise educators take for granted e that we do have an impact and that this impact comes
through our education whether curricular or extra-curricular. There is now sufcient evidence that there are difference
and that the interaction between student type and type of intervention is signicant and therefore more clarity and
analysis of this would benet all involved: students, educators, education providers (organisations) and policy/resource
decision makers.
Funding source
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission (Project Number: 512448-LLP-1-2010-1-LV-
KA1-KA1SCR, Grant Agreement: 2010-5014/001-001). This publication reects the views only of the author, and the
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge and are deeply grateful for the training session organised by EEUK (then UKSEC)
and delivered by the EGHI group where their questionnaire instrument was disseminated. We are particularly grateful for the
help and support of Prof. WilliamLucas of the EGHI group, his insights and contributions at the early stages of using the EGHI
questionnaire were invaluable.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
Appendix
Table 4
Programmes measured.
Programme
identier
Target group Duration Country Brief description (aim of programme and teaching methods)
A Postgraduate and postDoc 4 days (FT) UK Professional development for STEM women and increase
entrepreneurial condence, mixture of interactive exercises and
motivational speakers.
B Postgraduate and Postdoc 4 days (FT) UK Raise entrepreneurial intentions and develop a general business
know-how, convergent and divergent thinking exercises,
mentoring, peer learning
C Postgraduate and Postdoc 4 days (FT) UK Women only course, raise entrepreneurial intentions, lectures by
female role models, interactive practice sessions in groups,
facilitator led training.
D Any with own venture 1 week (FT) UK Help build business plan though working in small groups, mentoring,
one to one workshops, lectures, prepare and present business pitch
E Graduate early stage
entrepreneurs
1 year (PT) UK Provide students with knowledge, skills and condences required
to be a successful entrepreneur. Use of lecture, mentor, company
visits, virtual learning environment, pitching.
F Graduate early stage
entrepreneurs
1 year (PT) UK Provide students with knowledge, skills and condences required
to be a successful entrepreneur. Use of lecture, mentor, company
visits, virtual learning environment, pitching.
G Students or recent graduates 3 days (FT) UK Provide students with skills and knowledge to turn good ideas into
business venture. Equip with personal skills. Use of interactive
sessions, group work, case studies and practicals.
H Postgraduate 1 term (6 weeks)
(PT)
UK Course focussing on creativity and innovation at theoretical level.
Lectures and case studies.
I Postgraduate 3 months (PT) Greece Help students to creatively design and implement learning
programmes Lecturing, creativity design studios, group project.
J Postgraduate 3 months (PT) Greece Learning and problem solving around the design of interactive
computational systems, creative design and innovation. Lecturing,
creativity design studios, group project.
K Undergraduate 3 years (Only
pre data) (FT)
Finland Bachelor's degree in Business management, including competencies
around management and entrepreneurship. Teamworking,
mentoring, guidance, real life projects.
L Undergraduate and postgraduate 3 weeks (PT) Finland Aim to generate international growth entrepreneurship, tools to
develop and grow business ideas and start-ups. Lectures,
workshops, peer to peer learning, mentoring.
M Senior Management 1 year (PT) Finland Leadership training to be more creative and innovative.
Role playing, reective learning.
N Professional 2 months (PT) Finland Professional development for teachers, utilising technology,
creative approaches to service culture, identify needs and
resources. Mixture lectures, role playing, peer to peer learning.
O Postgraduate and early stage
entrepreneurs
1 year (PT) UK Enhance entrepreneurial effectiveness of young entrepreneurs.
Internship with leading entrepreneur, interactive workshops,
group work and practical exercises.
P Postgraduate and early stage
entrepreneurs
1 year (PT) UK Enhance entrepreneurial effectiveness of young entrepreneurs.
Internship with leading entrepreneur, interactive workshops,
group work and practical exercises.
Q Postgraduate, postdocs and
researchers
5 days (FT) Portugal Introduce students to the concepts and practices of entrepreneurial
thinking. Lectures, guest speakers, team exercises and presentation,
workshop.
R Postgraduate and Postdoc 1 day (FT) UK Develop emotional intelligence and personal skills to deal with
difcult situations and risk management. Role playing, group
discussion and practical case studies.
S Undergraduates and graduates 3 days (FT) UK Aim to fast track business idea and build action plan to move
business forward. Interactive group work, peer review,
case studies and networking
T Undergraduates and graduates 3 days (FT) UK Aim to fast track business idea and build action plan to move
business forward. Interactive group work, peer review,
case studies and networking
U Undergraduates and graduates 1 day (FT) UK Finding innovative and creative solution to set problem.
Design thinking, problem solving, group work.
V Undergraduates and graduates 1 day (FT) UK Finding innovative and creative solution to set problem.
Design thinking, problem solving, group work.
W Undergraduates, postgraduates
and graduates
1 day (FT) UK Opportunity recognition around business models, get ready for
launch. Group work based around business model canvas,
peer to peer learning, facilitator led.
X Undergraduate 1 day (FT) UK Aim to get students to think about setting up their own business.
Facilitated panel sessions, interactive group work.
(continued on next page)
j.ijme.2014.05.007
References
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39e58.
Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 481e500.
Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 80e83.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barakat, S., McIellan, R., & Wineld, S. (August 2010). Examing the impact of programmes for entrepreneurship using self-efcacy. In Working paper,
presented at the Academy of Management Conference. Montreal: Canada.
Barakat, S., McLellan, R., & Wineld, S. (2011). The impact of programmes for entrepreneurship: lessons from examining self-efcacy. In Institute of Small
Business and Enterprise (ISBE) Annual Conference, London, UK.
Barbosa, S., Gerhardt, M., & Kickul, J. (2007). The role of cognitive style and risk preference on entrepreneurial self-efcacy and entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4), 86e104.
Bartlett, M. S. (1937). The statistical conception of mental factors. British Journal of Psychology, 28, 97e104.
Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Test of signicance in factor analysis. The British Journal of Psychology, 3, 77e85.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the t of models to covariances and methodology to the bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400e404.
Berg, H. (2011). Theoretical framework CAL4INO.
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The inuence of self-efcacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18(4), 63e77.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136e162). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching creativity at the college level: a synthesis of curricular components perceived as important by
instructors. Creatvity Research Journal (Vol 8), 83e89.
Cave, F. D., Cooper, S. Y., Good, D., & Ward, A. E. (June 2006). Developing self-efcacy and entrepreneurial intent for technology entrepreneurship: the
inuence of role models. In Paper presented at the Babson College entrepreneurship research conference. Bloomington, USA: (BCERC) held at Indiana
University.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efcacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13,
295e316.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal,
46(5), 618e630.
Fisher, C. M., & Amabile, T. M. (2009). Creativity, improvisation and organizatons. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge companion to
creativity (pp. 13e24). London: Routledge.
Forbes, D. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self-efcacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 599e626.
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112e1142.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(3), 513e524.
Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. In SSE/EFI working paper series in business administration, No
2008, 4.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 2010(61), 569e598.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2002). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280e293.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401e415.
Kaufmann, G. (2003). What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3).
Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., & Keister, L. A. (2006). Access (not) denied: the impact of nancial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the
United States. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 5e22.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866e885.
Krueger, N. F., Jr. (1993). Growing up entrepreneurial?: developmental consequences of Earlt exposure to entrepreneurship. In Academy of management
best papers proceedings 1993 (pp. 80e84).
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2002). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: a social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationships quality
and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090e1109.
Lucas, W. A., & Cooper, S. Y. (2005). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efcacy. In Paper presented at the EDGE conference "bridging the gap: Entrepreneurship in
theory and practice".
McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. P., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efcacy: rening the measure. Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, 33(4),
965e988.
McLellan, R., Barakat, S., & Wineld, S. (2009). The impact of entrepreneurial programmes: the case for examining self-efcacy. In The Institute of Small
Business and Enterprise (ISBE) Annual Conference, Liverpool, UK.
McLellan, R., Barakat, S., & Wineld, S. (2014). The differential effects of enterprise education programmes. Intended for submission to the Academy of
Management Learning and Education (in preparation).
Table 4 (continued)
Programme
identier
Target group Duration Country Brief description (aim of programme and teaching methods)
Y Postgraduate 1 day (FT) UK To make students think more broadly, creativity and innovatively.
Working in groups around movie theme with some post course
mentoring
Z Postgraduate and Postdoc 3 weeks PT Ireland Develop condence in creative thinking and communication,
evolve innovative ideas in teams. Team based ideas, design
thinking challenges, guest speakers.
AA Postgraduate 6 months (PT) UK Focus on writing business plans and industry awareness,
ability to sell. Lecture, tutorials, role playing, team work,
create marketing adverts and other practical exercises.
AB Postgraduate and Postdoc 4 days FT UK Women only course, raise entrepreneurial intentions,
lectures by female role models, interactive practice sessions
in groups, facilitator led training.
j.ijme.2014.05.007
Mungai, E., & Velamuri, S. R. (2011). Parental entrepreneurial role model inuence on male offspring: is it always positive and when does it occur?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 337e357.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 235e257.
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48e73).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated.
Smith, K. (2005). Measuring innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbooks of innovation (pp. 148e177). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modication: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173e180.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum e A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. Essays in cognitive
psychology. Psychology Press.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2),
315e330.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efcacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,
45(6), 1137e1148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Green, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 591e620.
Timmons, J. (1994). New venture creation. Chicago: Irwin.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn and Company.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York, Holt: Rinehart and
Winston.
Wiesberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, W. H: Freeman and Company.
Wu, J.-H., & Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: a respecication of the DeLone and McLean's model. Information & Management, 43, 728e739.
Zhao, H., Siebert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efcacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90(6), 1265e1272.
j.ijme.2014.05.007

Measuring Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy To Understand The Impact of Creative Activities For Learning Inn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy To Understand The Impact of Creative Activities For Learning Inn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring entrepreneurial self-efcacy to understand the

impact of creative activities for learning innovation

You might also like