Military-Madrasa-Mullah

A Global Threat 47
Article Complex 47

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations Global Business Review

15(1) 47–58
among Indian Executives: Examining © 2014 IMI
SAGE Publications
the Psychometric Properties of Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Occupational Self Efficacy Scale (OSES) Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0972150913515603
http://gbr.sagepub.com

Richa Chaudhary

Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of scores from occu-
pational self efficacy scale (OSES) by Pethe et al. (1999). Data were obtained from Indian business
executives, a population previously untested with OSES.Three interpretable factors were extracted as a
result of exploratory factor analysis instead of six-factor structure proposed by the authors of the scale.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results provided support for superiority of three-factor model over
alternative models. All the three factors were found to be internally consistent. Results indicated that
Pethe et al.’s scale, with minor modification, showed promise for self-efficacy research.

Keywords
Occupational self efficacy, factor analysis, reliability, validity, confirmatory factor analysis

In today’s turbulent environment, where companies are busy improving their performance (Dasgupta
and Gupta, 2009), one needs to have confidence in one’s abilities to perform well (Libano et al., 2012).
This belief in one’s capabilities to perform successfully has been referred to as self efficacy (Bandura,
1997). The concept of self efficacy is central to Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory and is defined
as ‘people’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performance (Bandura, 1986). One of the basic assumptions of the social cognitive
theory is that efficacy beliefs are basis of the human agency which influences one’s motivation to engage
in specific positive behaviors related to high performance. Efficacy beliefs influence behaviour through
their influence on the choice of activities one might attend, effort one puts in his/her work, how deeply
one might become involved and how long one might persist in the face of adversity. As a result, workforce
endorsed with high efficacy beliefs is essentially a source of competitive advantage for the firms in the
present uncertain and tumultuous business environment. Thus, in order to predict human behaviour it is
important to understand and measure efficacy beliefs, given its centrality in an individual’s life.
The construct of self efficacy has been conceptualized in three different ways as generalized, domain
specific and task specific variable, differing in their scope or level of generality. General self efficacy (GSE)
refers to ‘individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different situations’
(Judge et al., 1998, p. 170). It is a trait like belief in one’s competence generalized over wide range of

Richa Chaudhary, Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
India. E-mail: richa.chaudhary18@gmail.com India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

48 Richa Chaudhary

domains (Chen et al., 2001; Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995; Sherer et al., 1982). Specific self efficacy
(SSE) represents task and domain specific cognitions (Bandura, 1986). Domain specific self efficacy refers
to the belief in one’s capability to perform successfully in an occupational domain (cf. Schyns and von
Collani, 2002; Pethe et al., 2000, occupational self efficacy). Task specific self efficacy is individual’s per-
ception of their ability to perform a particular task successfully (for example, career self efficacy, Betz and
Hackett, 1981; teaching self efficacy, Bandura (1997), mathematics, self efficacy, etc., Pajares and Miller,
1995). Both GSE and SSE signify an individual’s belief in his/her ability to achieve desired outcomes, but
general self efficacy is a trait like construct not tied to the context/situation while specific self efficacy is a
dynamic state that operates selectively under different situations and tasks (Bandura, 1977). Bandura has
severely criticized the use of general measures of self efficacy based on the argument that items of tests
based on general self efficacy are not relevant enough for domain under study. In contrast, Chen et al.
(2001) advocated that the measures of self efficacy should match the level of generality or specificity of
outcome predicted for better predictability. Furthermore, it has been argued that occupational/domain
specific self efficacy measures which have intermediate level of specificity have higher predictive value
over generalized and task specific self efficacy measures (Abele and Spurk, 2009; Chen et al., 2001).
Given the importance of occupational self efficacy in predicting the performance related outcomes, it
is crucial to measure it precisely with the help of reliable and valid measurement instruments.
A large number of measurement instruments have been developed by researchers to capture general
and task specific efficacy beliefs of individuals. However, given the criticism of general self efficacy
measures and restriction of task specific measures to a particular profession or job it is important to have
occupational self efficacy measures which could cover and enable the comparison of people working
across a wider range of jobs or profession. Although, well established reliable and valid measures
of generalized self efficacy are available (cf. Chen et al., 2001; Sherer et al., 1982; Schwarzer and
Jerusalem, 1995), there is relatively a dearth of valid and reliable measures of occupational self efficacy
beliefs. Addressing to the gap, Schyns and von Collani (2002) developed a 20-item occupational self
efficacy measure (OCCSEFF) borrowing 10 items from The Self Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982),
seven items from The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, 1994), two items from The Hope
Scale (Synder et al., 1991) and one item from The Heuristic Competence Scale (Staudel, 1988). The
items were adapted to represent occupational domain. One item was later dropped resulting in a final
19-item scale. The structural and construct validity of the short version of this scale was later established
across five countries (Germany, Sweden, Belgium, United Kingdom, Spain) by Rigotti et al. (2008).
One of the limitations of this scale is that it measures self efficacy as unidimensional construct as
self efficacy is best conceptualized and measured as a multidimensional construct (Bandura, 1997;
Zimmerman and Cleary, 2006), which lowers the usefulness of the scale for research purposes. In
addition, the scale was developed on and for Western population. There are evidences that self efficacy
develops and operates differently in Western and non-Western countries. People in collectivist societies
and norm-oriented cultures, which is the case with India, were found to be more motivated and
better performers in spite of their low self efficacies than the people in Western cultures where self
efficacy was reported to be higher (Ottingen and Zosuls, 2006). Importantly, cultural values play
a significant role in the formation of self efficacy beliefs by determining the proximal contexts of a
culture (that is, its institutions, such as the family or school) and psychological processes of efficacy
appraisal (that is, which sources are selected and how they are weighted and integrated; Ottingen and
Zosuls, 2006). Furthermore, cultural contexts may influence any or all of the four proposed sources of
efficacy beliefs as proposed by Bandura (1997).

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations among Indian Executives 49

Recognizing the need for multidimensional occupational self efficacy scale (OSES) for use in India,
a developing economy, Pethe et al. (1999) developed a 19-item OSES with six dimensions on a sample
of management students that is, future managers. The six underlying dimensions of this scale are:
(i) confidence (dependence on one’s own abilities) (ii) command (sense of control over the situation)
(iii) adaptability (the ability to adjust) (iv) personal effectiveness (inclination towards continuous
development) (v) positive attitude (ability to evaluate optimistically) and (vi) individuality (Independence
in making decisions and setting standards of performance). The item distribution under each of the six
factors as proposed by Pethe et al. (1999) is shown in the Table 1.
To date, there has been no study reporting the structure and validity of scores derived from OSES.
Since the OSES (The OSES) by Pethe et al. (1999) is most widely used scale to study the occupational
self efficacy beliefs of the employees in India, hence it was important to assess the psychometric properties
of this particular scale for the further development in the field. Consequently, the aim of the present study
was to determine whether the factor structure of the OSES as suggested by Pethe et al. (2000), could be
cross-validated in an independent sample of subjects using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 1. Six Factors Under OSES as Proposed by Pethe et al. (1999)

Item No. Item distribution under six factors

Confidence
10 I am able to make contributions to significant decisions.
11 I am able to make an impact on others.
12 I am able to do my work independently.
13 I am able to work effectively even under the pressure of deadline.
Command
4 I am able to handle unforeseen situations at my workplace.
6 I am able to develop my resources to achieve my task goals.
17 I can develop skill required for task as and when needed.
Adaptability
2 When I fail in a task I revaluate my strategies.
5 I adjust quickly to challenges that come in my work.
9 No matter what comes my way in my work, I am able to handle it.
Personal Effectiveness
1 When confronted with a difficult task, I am willing to spend whatever it takes to accomplish it.
14 I am aware of my strengths and I continuously develop them to suit the task at hand.
18 I believe in continuous improvement in my performance.
19 I take up tasks that utilize my skills.
Positive Attitude
3 I always set the targets higher than those set by my organization.
7 I am able to resolve conflicts at my work place.
8 I am able to perform well in any situation that may come up at my work place.
Individuality
15 I continue to put in my best in an unsupportive environment.
16 I am able to perform well even in the absence of encouragement from my superiors and support
from my colleagues.
Source: Primary Data.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

50 Richa Chaudhary

Methodology

Participants
The sample of the study included 403 employees from both public and private sector manufacturing and
service organizations in India. 82.3 per cent participants were males and 17.6 per cent were females.
The mean age was 33.69 years. Based on the organizational structure, there were 272 junior-level
(67.49 per cent), 100 middle-level (25.55 per cent) and 33 (8.18 per cent) senior-level employees. The
education levels of the participants were varied: 189 undergraduates (46.89.86 per cent) and 180
postgraduates (45.16 per cent) and diploma holders (7.44 per cent). The work experience profile of the
sample was: less than five years (41.68 per cent), between five years and 10 years (22.33 per cent) and
above 10 years (34.49 per cent). 78 per cent of the respondents belonged to the private sector while only
22 per cent were from the public sector. The percentages may not aggregate to 100 per cent due to
missing responses. The sample was drawn through personal contacts based on the convenience and
readiness of the employees to respond to the questionnaire.

Instrument
OSES is a self report instrument developed by Pethe et al. (1999). The scale consists of 19 items and uses
a five-point Likert-scale with the response range varying from one for ‘strongly disagree’ and five for
‘strongly agree.’ Some sample items for this measure are ‘When confronted with a difficult task, I am will-
ing to spend whatever it takes to accomplish it,’ and ‘I adjust quickly to challenges that come in my work.’

Data Analysis
Firstly, the scores on OSES were subject to principal component analysis to determine if the factor
structure as defined by Pethe et al. (1999) exists. An item analysis was used to estimate internal
consistency reliability for item subsets. Additionally, internal consistency reliability estimates of the
OSES dimensions and total scale were computed. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis was used to
confirm the factor structure and compare the alternative models.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

In order to test the factor structure of the scores obtained from present study sample principal component
analysis was used. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.922, above the
recommended value of 0.6 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 (171) = 1915, p < .001)
which justifies the use of factor analysis. Principal component analysis using varimax and oblimin
rotations was conducted on 19 items of the scale. Three factors were extracted as a result of principal
component factor analysis with an eigen value of greater than 1 accounting for 31.71 per cent,

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations among Indian Executives 51

6.40 per cent and 5.73 per cent of the variance initially, thereby explaining together 43.84 per cent of
the total variance in the sample. Both the rotation criterion resulted in same clustering of the items
under three factors. The factor loadings for the scale items are shown in the Table 2. Based on the nature
of items, these three factors were named as Effectiveness (EFF, items 1,2,5,6,7,10,11,14,17,18),
Perseverance (PERS, items, 3,12,15,16,19) and Adaptability (ADAP, items, 4,8,9,13).

Internal Consistency and Item Analysis

The internal consistency of the scale and each of the factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The
Cronbach’s alpha value for the 19-item OSES scale was found to be 0.879. The alpha values for
the factors were moderate—0.818 for EFF (10 items), 0.701 for PERS (five items) and 0.641 for ADAP
(four items). The item analyzes of the responses revealed that removing any of the items did not result in
improvement in Cronbach’s alpha value as can be seen from the Table 3.

Table 2. Factor Loadings Based on a Principle Components Analysis with Oblimin Rotation for 19 Items (N = 403)

No. Item 1 2 3
EFF1 When I fail in a task I revaluate my strategies. 0.658
EFF2 I am aware of my strengths and I continuously develop them to suit the 0.637
task at hand.
EFF3 I believe in continuous improvement in my performance. 0.632
EFF4 I am able to make contributions to significant decisions. 0.614
EFF5 I am able to develop my resources to achieve my task goals. 0.602
EFF6 I am able to make an impact on others. 0.528
EFF7 When confronted with a difficult task, I am willing to spend whatever it 0.507
takes to accomplish it.
EFF8 I adjust quickly to challenges that come in my work. 0.475
EFF9 I am able to resolve conflicts at my work place. 0.443
EFF10 I can develop skill required for task as and when needed 0.405
PERS1 I always set the targets higher than those set by my organization. 0.596
PERS2 I am able to do my work independently. 0.413 0.516
PERS3 I continue to put in my best in an unsupportive environment 0.545
PERS4 I am able to perform well even in the absence of encouragement from 0.749
my superiors and support from my colleagues.
PERS5 I take up tasks that utilize my skills. 0.524
ADAP1 I am able to handle unforeseen situations at my workplace 0.406
ADAP2 I am able to perform well in any situation that may come up at my 0.42 0.603
work place.
ADAP3 No matter what comes my way in my work, I am able to handle it. 0.76
ADAP4 I am able to work effectively even under the pressure of deadline. 0.602
Eigen Value 3.645 2.511 2.175
Total Variance explained 19.19 13.22 11.45
Source: Primary Data.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

52 Richa Chaudhary

Table 3. Item Wise Analysis of the Responses on 19 items

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance Item-Total Cronbach’s Alpha if

No. Deleted if Item Deleted Correlation Item Deleted
EFF1 73.5661 70.571 0.575 0.87
EFF2 73.586 71.608 0.522 0.872
EFF3 73.3865 71.268 0.505 0.872
EFF4 73.6933 70.328 0.532 0.871
EFF5 73.6234 71.565 0.488 0.873
EFF6 73.7182 70.088 0.546 0.871
EFF7 73.3915 71.604 0.484 0.873
EFF8 73.5985 71.041 0.538 0.871
EFF9 73.6559 72.516 0.431 0.875
EFF10 73.7382 72.549 0.42 0.875
PERS1 73.8778 71.093 0.445 0.875
PERS2 73.6858 68.861 0.578 0.87
PERS3 73.7556 70.515 0.501 0.872
PERS4 73.8429 71.083 0.434 0.875
PERS5 73.7157 71.129 0.492 0.873
ADAP1 73.783 71.915 0.423 0.875
ADAP2 73.6883 71.12 0.504 0.872
ADAP3 73.7456 72.295 0.443 0.874
ADAP4 73.7282 70.963 0.49 0.873
Source: Primary Data.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to confirm the factor structure obtained as a result of exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory
factor analysis with maximum likelihood procedure was conducted using AMOS 4 statistical package
(Arbuckle, 1997).
A non-significant χ2 value indicates the model fits the data; though, large sample sizes often lead to
the rejection of the hypothesized model (Kline, 2005). As a result, the ratio of χ2 to its degree of freedom
(χ2/df) was used. The ratio of less than 3 is an indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypothetical
model and the sample data (Carmines and McIver, 1981). In addition, different fit indices were used to
test the model fit. The Normed-fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI)
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used in the present study. RMSEA, a
parsimony-adjusted index, values < 0.05 indicate approximate fit and values < 0.08 indicate reasonable
error of approximation (Browne and Cudeck, 1992). NFI and CFI values > 0.90 indicate reasonably
good fit (Hoyle, 1995). The results revealed an acceptable fit for the three factor research model as
shown in Figure 1 (χ2 = 229.404; χ2/df = 1.539; NFI = 0.991; TLI = 0.996; CFI = 0.997; RMSEA =
0.037 [0.027, 0.046]). As can be seen from Figure 1 factor loadings of items on respective factors were
all greater than 0.40 ranging between 0.45 and 0.68.
In addition, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test different conceptualizations of the factor
structure. Five different factor structures were tested for the model fit. First, a one-factor model which

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations among Indian Executives 53

e1 OSE1 .28

e2 OSE2 .42
.53
e6 OSE6 .30
.65
e7 OSE7 .22 .55
.47
e10 OSE10 .36 .60
.59 EFF
e11 OSE11 .35 .59
.45
e14 OSE14 .35 .58
.58
e17 OSE17 .20
.84
e18 OSE18 .33

e5 OSE5 .34

e3 OSE3 .27
e12 .52 .78
OSE12 .43
.65
.58
e15 OSE15 .33 PERS
.51
e16 OSE16 .26 .56

e19 OSE19 .31

.82
e9 OSE9 .31
.56
e4 OSE4 .23 .48
.62 ADAP
e8 OSE8 .39
.59
e13 OSE13 .34

Figure 1. Three Factor Correlated Model of OSES

Source: Primary Data.

does not differentiate between the factors and assumes occupational self efficacy as a unidimensional
construct was tested. Second, a three-factor model with uncorrelated factors which assumes that rather
than being correlated factors were independent was tested. Third, the three-factor model as shown in
Figure1 that tested whether the three factors were correlated. Fourth, a higher order model which tested
the notion that the relationship between the three factors was accounted for by a second order factor. It
defined three primary factors and a secondary factor as shown in Figure 2. Finally, a six-factor model as
suggested by Pethe et al. (1999) was also tested.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

54 Richa Chaudhary

e1 OSE1 .28

e2 OSE2 .42
.53
e6 OSE6 .30 e20
.65
e7 OSE7 .22 .55
.47 .80
e10 OSE10 .36 .60
.59 EFF
e11 OSE11 .35 .59
.45
e14 OSE14 .35 .58
.58
e17 OSE17 .20 .90
e18 OSE18 .33

e5 OSE5 .34

e3 e21
OSE3 .27
e12 .52
OSE12 .43 .88
.65
.58 .94
e15 OSE15 .33 PERS OSE
.51
e16 OSE16 .26 .56

e19 OSE19 .31

e22
.87
e9 OSE9 .31
.56
.48 .76
e4 OSE4 .23
.62 ADAP
e8 OSE8 .39 .59
e13 OSE13 .34

Figure 2. Second Order Model of OSES

Source: Primary Data.

Table 4 shows the fit indices for each of the five models. As can be seen from the table the correlated
three-factor model and second order model best fit the data with no differences in their fit indices. In
addition, it can also be noticed that one-factor model and six-factor models also show acceptable data fit.
However, the uncorrelated three-factor model did not show the acceptable model fit with RMSEA value
greater than 0.08. As a result, the three factor correlated model and second order model adequately
represent the dimensions of occupational self efficacy of Indian business executives.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations among Indian Executives 55

Table 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Alternative Models

Model c2 df c2/df NFI TLI CFI RMSEA

1. One-factor 297.633 152 1.91 0.989 0.993 0.995 0.048
2. Three-factor uncorrelated 636.771 152 4.189 0.976 0.977 0.982 0.089
3. Three factor correlated 229.404 149 1.539 0.991 0.996 0.997 0.037
4. Second-order model 229.404 149 1.539 0.991 0.996 0.997 0.037
5. Six-factor model 242.507 137 1.77 0.991 0.994 0.996 0.044
Source: Primary Data.
Note: *p < 0.001.

Discussion
No study in the literature had made an attempt to test and corroborate the six dimensional structure of
OSES by Pethe et al. (1999) for use over Indian population. In order for this instrument to continue to be
used for research purpose in India, it was important to test and establish the dimensionality and validity
of the scores from OSES. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the factor
structure of the OSES as suggested by Pethe et al. (1999), could be cross-validated in an independent
sample of subjects. For this purpose data were collected from a sample of 403 Indian business executives
and scores obtained were subject to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. As opposed to six-
factor structure proposed by Pethe et al. (1999), three factors were extracted as a result of exploratory
factor analysis. Later, using confirmatory factor analysis we found strong support for three distinct but
correlated dimensions of occupational self efficacy. This indicates that though the participants had
discriminated between the three factors but they were correlated. Also, all three dimensions that is,
effectiveness, perseverance and adaptability had moderate reliability in terms of Cronbach’s alpha. The
effectiveness dimension of the scale represents the inclination of an individual towards continuous
development, perseverance represented continuous effort even in the absence of support and en-
couragement and adaptability represents ability of an individual to adjust to different situations. Further,
exactly same fit indices were obtained for a second order self efficacy factor with three underlying
dimensions, providing strong support to it. Since higher order model showed equally good fit to the data,
occupational self efficacy can used as latent construct with three underlying factors for research purposes.
Interestingly, the one factor and six factors model as proposed by authors of the scale were found to have
acceptable fit. However, since the factor named ‘individuality’ by the authors of six dimensional
scale (see Table 1) has only two items; it raises a question on its reliability. Hence, the superiority of
three factor structure is corroborated. Though, the present study provided support for the multi-
dimensionality of the scale any conclusion regarding the dimensionality of the scale should be avoided
without further research. This clearly demonstrates the need for more rigorous and intensive research
studies to establish the dimensionality of the scale.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

56 Richa Chaudhary

Practical Implications of the Study

The study holds a great significance for human resource professionals who are continuously looked upon
by the management to bring out the best from the work force. Since the human resource professionals
are responsible for selection of high performing individuals, self efficacy as a predictor performance
could play an important role. The availability of well established valid and reliable measures of
occupational self efficacy could aide them in assessing the self efficacy of interviewees with great
accuracy and reliability. It could aid them selecting the right candidate and screening out the individuals
with low self efficacy beliefs which is likely to result in poor subsequent performance. Such an in-
strument could help them in periodic assessment of efficacy perceptions of employees on a variety of
tasks relevant for career advancement and in case of vacancy individuals with high self efficacy for
relevant skills might then be considered (Gist, 1987). In addition, the availability of good quality
measurement instrument for self efficacy could help in regular assessment of self efficacy and could help
in identifying the training needs of the individuals. Different training methods for building and enhancing
self efficacy beliefs could be used for the individuals who score low on OSES. For instance Bandura has
suggested four different ways for developing self efficacy beliefs; mastery experiences (personal
attainments), vicarious learning, (modeling), social persuasion and psychological and emotional states
(for example, anxiety). Appropriate training interventions based on above four sources of self efficacy
could help build a highly efficacious work force and subsequently high performance workforce and
organization.

Conclusion and Limitations

To conclude, the study failed to obtain the six dimensional factor structure of OSES as proposed by the
authors of the scale. Instead, the three factor structure was validated and was found to be superior over
any other alternative model. Though, the six-factor model had acceptable fit but was inferior to the three
factor and second order self efficacy model. Consequently, three-factor model and higher order model
are adequate representations of occupational self efficacy beliefs of Indian business executives. Thus, by
providing the empirical evidence on dimensionality and validity of the scores on OSES the study makes
a significant contribution to the self efficacy literature in India. This is because occupational self efficacy
research in India can flourish only if well established and reliable research instrument are available.
Also, since the there is dearth of global measures of occupational self efficacy, this study makes an
important contribution in this direction. This instrument should also be tested in different countries to see
if it could meet the need for global occupational self efficacy measure.
This study carries certain limitations, which will be addressed while extending this study in future.
First, as the data are based on self report measures; common method variance could be a problem. As
Storm and Rothmann (2003) rightly cited from (Schaufeli et al., 2003) ‘in validation studies at least part
of the common variance of the measures has to be attributed to method variance’ (p. 69). Further,
intensive psychometric studies should be carried out with larger sample and for different occupational
groups to generalize the findings of the present study and to confirm the dimensionality of the OSES
in India.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

Occupational Self Efficacy Expectations among Indian Executives 57

References
Abele, A.E., & Spurk, D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjec-
tive career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 53–62.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos users’ guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of though and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
———. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
———. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, New York.
Betz, N.E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career
options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(5), 399–410.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research,
21(2), 230–258.
Carmines, E.G., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance
structures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research
Methods, 4(1), 62–68.
Dasgupta, M., & Gupta, R.K. (2009). Innovation in organizations: A review of the role of organizational learning
and knowledge management. Global Business Review, 10(2), 203–224.
Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., & Bono, J.A. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept
and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 167–187.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Libano, M.D., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). About the dark and bright sides of self-efficacy:
Workaholism and work engagement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 688–701.
Ottingen, G., & Zosuls, K.M. (2006). Culture and self efficacy in aldolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds), Self
efficacy beliefs of aldolescents (pp. 245–265). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics performances: The need for
specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 190–198.
Pethe, S., Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. (1999). Occupational self-efficacy scale and manual. Agra: National
Psychological Corporation.
———. (2000). Occupational self-efficacy: Constituent Factors, Management and Labour Studies, 25(2), 92–98.
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A Short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and
construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 238–255.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimistische kompetenzerwartung: Zur Erfassung einer personellen Bewältigungsressource
[Optimistic expectation of competence: The assessment of a personnel coping resource], Diagnostica, 40(2),
105–123.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston
(Eds), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor:
NFER-Nelson.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). The self-efficacy
scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671.
Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J.,
Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-
differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585.
Staudel, T. (1988). Der Kompetenzfragebogen—Überprüfung eines Verfahrens der Selbsteinschätzung der
heuristischen Kompetenz, belastender Emotionen und Verhaltenstendenzen beim Lösen komplexer Probleme
[The competence questionnaire: A test of the method of self-evaluation of heuristic competence, stressful
emotions, and behavior tendencies when solving complex problems]. Diagnostica, 34(2), 136–148.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016

58 Richa Chaudhary

Storm, K., & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South
African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality con-
structs and organisational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219–41.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Cleary, T.J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency. The role of self-efficacy
beliefs and self-regulatory skills. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–69).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Global Business Review, 15, 1 (2014): 47–58

Downloaded from gbr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016