Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment http://jpa.sagepub.

com/

Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children in Two Samples of American Adolescents
Shannon M. Suldo and Emily J. Shaffer Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2007 25: 341 originally published online 2 August 2007 DOI: 10.1177/0734282907300636 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/25/4/341

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/25/4/341.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 30, 2007 Proof - Aug 2, 2007 What is This?

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children in Two Samples of American Adolescents
Shannon M. Suldo Emily J. Shaffer
University of South Florida, Tampa

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Volume 25 Number 4 December 2007 341-355 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/0734282907300636 http://jpa.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Two studies addressed the psychometric properties of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C) when used in studies with American youths. A sample of 697 middle and high school students completed the SEQ-C along with measures of life satisfaction and psychopathology. Exploratory factor analysis procedures supported the existence of three factors representing emotional, social, and academic self-efficacy. Criterion-related validity was established through correlations, in the expected directions, between the domains of self-efficacy and psychological functioning. The study was repeated with a sample of 318 high school students. Both studies provide support for use of the SEQ-C with early and late American adolescents from the Southeast. Keywords: self-efficacy; life satisfaction; psychopathology; adolescents; validity

elf-efficacy is defined as ones sense of competence and confidence in performing behaviors to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy beliefs are among the most important determinants of behavior, as the incentive to take action is diminished if one does not believe that he or she has the capability to perform and coordinate the actions necessary to produce results. The significance of self-efficacy is underscored by research that identifies strong links between efficacy beliefs and important domains of human functioning, including mental and physical health outcomes (Maddux, 2002). More than the ability to perform an isolated behavior, self-efficacy reflects perceived competence about ones abilities to enact and coordinate related skills under certain conditions, which can be challenging and diverse (Maddux, 2002). Efficacy beliefs are best understood as domain-specific, such that feelings of competence tied to task demands of a given situation have greater predictive utility than a global self-evaluation (Bandura, 1997). Saliency of specific domains to ones total efficacy beliefs varies by life stage (Berry & West, 1993).

Authors Note: Address correspondence to Shannon Suldo, Department of Psychological and Social Foundations, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 162, Tampa, FL, 33620; phone: (813) 974-2223; e-mail: suldo@coedu.usf.edu.
341

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

342 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Regarding domains of competence most salient to youths, academic self-efficacy refers to beliefs regarding academic competence. Social self-efficacy involves beliefs regarding competence in developing and maintaining social relationships. Recent research points to the importance of emotional self-efficacy, that is, beliefs regarding competence in controlling negative emotions. Beliefs in ones ability to cope contribute to experiences of distress and psychopathology (Bandura, 2000). Emotional self-efficacy is posited to be a component of the broader construct of emotion regulation, the ability to regulate affective responses in response to specific environmental demands (Suveg & Zeman, 2004). Extant research supports gender differences in mean levels of self-efficacy during youth. For instance, adolescent boys report higher average levels of emotional self-efficacy than girls (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Findings regarding the role of gender in perceptions of academic abilities are contradictory, with some studies suggesting girls have higher academic self-efficacy (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Saunders, Davis, Williams, & Williams, 2004) and one failing to detect a significant difference between gender groups (Usher & Pajares, 2006). Whereas a study of 10- to 12-year-old children found girls reported higher social self-efficacy than boys (Coleman, 2003), research with adolescents found no differences between gender groups (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003).

Outcomes of Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence

High beliefs of self-efficacy enhance childrens confidence, which in turn enables them to embrace challenging goals; to sustain effort longer; and, consequently, to succeed in school (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Domain-specific self-efficacy during adolescence is related to numerous psychosocial adjustment indicators, including negative indicators of functioning (e.g., psychopathology) and indicators of mental health that assess beyond the pathological or neutral point of functioning, such as subjective well-being. Regarding psychopathology, low social self-efficacy is linked with social phobia and depression (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Muris, 2002). Low academic self-efficacy is associated with school phobia, depression, and delinquent behavior (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Muris, 2002). Emotional self-efficacy is especially predictive of psychopathology (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003), particularly anxiety (e.g., panic, generalized anxiety) (Muris, 2002; Suveg & Zeman, 2004). Fewer studies have examined self-efficacy relative to positive indicators of adaptive functioning in youth. Although some research has found inconsistent associations between total self-efficacy and childrens quality of life by ethnic group (Bradley & Corwyn, 2004), research examining specific domains of self-efficacy relative to childrens life satisfaction has confirmed moderate associations. For example, adolescents social self-efficacy and academic self-concept (i.e., perceptions of academic abilities) have been linked to their life satisfaction (Fogle, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2002; Huebner, Gilman, & Laughlin, 1999). Research is needed to understand if and how life satisfaction relates to perceived emotional competence. Saarni (2000) hypothesized that emotional self-efficacy, conceptualized as viewing ones emotional experiences as justified and worthy, is a key facilitator of subjective well-being in youth.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 343

Measurement of Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1997) asserted that measures of self-efficacy should measure peoples beliefs in their abilities to fulfill different levels of task demands within the psychological domain selected for study (p. 44). Thus, self-efficacy in a specific domain, such as academic achievement, must be assessed through multiple items that tap the comprehensive set of skills necessary for academic achievement such as abilities to study, maintain attention, and complete homework. Moreover, items should assess what a person can do versus will do. Assessment of self-efficacy in youths has ranged from adapting scales originally intended for use with adult populations (e.g., Stewart et al., 2004) to developing scales of generalized self-efficacy specific for use with children (e.g., Cowen, Work, & Hightower, 1991). Some researchers have used multidimensional self-concept scales that tap perceived social and academic competence (e.g., Fogle et al., 2002). Bandura and colleagues (1999) noted the importance of assessing ability to regulate affect (i.e., emotional self-efficacy) in the study of childrens depression. The research group later published a study that included a measure of affective self-regulatory efficacy, which tapped childrens perceived ability to manage the expression of positive affect and negative affect.

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C)

In 2001, Muris published the first study of the SEQ-C. The SEQ-C purports to measure adolescents beliefs about their competencies in social, academic, and emotional domains. One of the only self-report instruments appropriate for youths to include a measure of emotional self-efficacy, this subscale contains seven items that pertain to the perceived capability of coping with negative emotions (Muris, 2001, p. 146). Developed in the Netherlands, extant evaluations of the SEQ-C are limited to samples of European youths. The first validity study involved 330 Dutch students ages 14-17 (Muris, 2001). Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with a 21-item version of the SEQ-C supported the existence of three factors that accounted for 56.7% of total variance. Intercorrelations among the three factors ranged from .17 (social and academic self-efficacy) to .41 (emotional and academic self-efficacy). The SEQ-C was also administered to 596 students, ages 12-19, from Belgium (Muris, 2002). The EFA supported a three-factor solution, which accounted for 52.3% of variance. Cronbachs alphas for the 21-item version of the scale were .82 (social self-efficacy), .84 (academic self-efficacy), and .86 (emotional self-efficacy). The purpose of the current study was to assess the utility of the SEQ-C in research with American youths. First, the factor structure of the SEQ-C was explored using two convenience samples of American adolescents. A second purpose was to explore the construct validity of the SEQ-C by assessing the relationships between domain-specific self-efficacy and psychological functioning, including traditional negative indicators such as psychopathology as well as an indicator that measures beyond the neutral point of functioning (i.e., life satisfaction). This study also looked for gender differences in mean SEQ-C scores (anticipating boys would report higher emotional self-efficacy) and in associations between self-efficacy and psychological functioning.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

344 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Study 1
Method
Participants

Participants were 697 students (64% female students) from three middle schools and two high schools in a rural school district in a southeastern state of the United States. The data set analyzed in the current study was collected during a larger study of the development of life satisfaction in adolescents (see Suldo & Huebner, 2006). Only students who provided complete data on the SEQ-C were included in the current study. Participants were in grade levels 7-12, with a mean age of 14.79 (SD = 1.82). The sample was predominately African American (58%) and Caucasian (36%). Fifty-seven percent received free or reduced-cost school lunches (lowsocioeconomic status [SES] group).
Procedure

A parent information letter that described the study and requested consent was distributed to all students in regular education classes (because of the reading ability needed to complete instruments, participation was not sought from students in self-contained special education classes). Incentives such as gift certificates were provided through a raffle eligible to all students who obtained informed consent to participate. Approximately 30% of the student population participated. The demographic characteristics (i.e., race, age, SES) of the students who returned consent forms were comparable with those of the entire school population (information ascertained from the participating school districts Web site). In the fall of 2002, students with parent consent and student assent provided demographic information (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and eligibility for free or reduced-cost lunch) and completed the self-report instruments described below. Instruments were administered in alternating sequence to prevent ordering effects.

Instruments
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C; Muris, 2001). The SEQ-C is composed of 21 items designed to measure childrens perceptions of their social self-efficacy (ability to relate and get along with other peers), emotional self-efficacy (ability to regulate unpleasant emotions), and academic self-efficacy (ability to succeed in school and display appropriate learning behaviors). The three subscales each contain seven items in which participants rate their competence level on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very well). Scores are summed to yield a measure of self-efficacy for each domain. Validity of the SEQ-C is reviewed earlier in this article. The SEQ-C was administered with slight modifications. Following informal consultation with multiple members of the first authors university-based research team, consensus was reached regarding minor wording changes to several items to maintain consistency with colloquial American speech and to increase readability of these items. Specifically, the phrases can you and are you able to were substituted for the phrase do you succeed in. A phrase in the item how well can you prevent to become nervous was changed to

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 345

. . . prevent becoming. . . . In the item that asked how well do you succeed in passing all subjects?, the word school was included before subjects. The words hold back were substituted for suppressing in the item how well do you succeed in suppressing unpleasant thoughts? Students Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS; Huebner, 1991). The SLSS is a seven-item scale designed to assess the level of satisfaction children and adolescents have with their life overall. Responses to each item are given on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Two items are reversescored and responses are averaged. Higher mean scores indicate more global life satisfaction. Convergent validity for the SLSS is supported by positive correlations with similar measures of self-reported and parent-reported life satisfaction (Dew & Huebner, 1994). Discriminant validity for the SLSS has been established through weak or nonsignificant relationships with academic performance and social desirability (Huebner, 1991). In the current study, coefficient alpha was .88. The Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). The YSR is composed of 118 items designed to measure eight dimensions of psychopathology. Responses are given on a 3-point Likert-type scale in which respondents indicate the degree to which a feeling or behavior is true within the past 6 months. Only five of the eight subscales (61 items) pertaining to the focus of the study were included. These subscales assessed internalizing (Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, and Anxious/Depressed subscales) and externalizing (Delinquent Behavior and Aggressive Behavior subscales) behaviors. Regarding construct validity, the YSR is commonly used in clinical practice to identify youths at risk for psychopathology (Achenbach, 1991). The YSR yields significant correlations with both parent and teacher reports of adolescents problem behavior (Achenbach, 1991). In the current study, alpha coefficients for the Internalizing and Externalizing Scales were .91 and .88, respectively.

Results
Factor Structure

After detection of univariate outliers (respondents whose mean score on a SEQ-C scale was more than three standard deviations from group means), 687 respondents were retained for further analyses of factor structure. An EFA (principal components with oblique rotation) was conducted with SAS 9.1. The scree plot suggested either a one- or three-factor solution; two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the eigenvalue for a third factor was close (.91). One-, two-, and three-factor solutions were considered and accounted for 74.5%, 90.8%, and 100% of the variance, respectively. Examination of the rotated factor pattern revealed that the three-factor solution provided the most interpretable results; the content of factors is consistent with that reported by Muris (2001, 2002). Correlations between subscales were significant, positive, and moderate in magnitude (range = .46 to .49). Factor loadings for all factors are shown in Table 1. All items loaded adequately (i.e., .30) on their intended factor. However, Items 3 and 10 also yielded loadings at or

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

346 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Table 1 Factor Structure of the SEQ-C Obtained via Exploratory Factor Analysis
Study 1 Item 1. 2. How well can you express your opinions when other classmates disagree with you? How well do you succeed in cheering yourself up when an unpleasant event has happened? How well can you study when there are other interesting things to do? How well do you succeed in becoming calm again when you are very scared? How well can you become friends with other young people? How well can you study a chapter for a test? How well can you have a chat with an unfamiliar person? How well can you prevent yourself from becoming nervous? How well do you succeed in finishing all your homework every day? How well can you get along with your classmates while working together? How well can you control your feelings? How well can you pay attention during every class? How well can you tell other young people that they are doing something you dont like? How well can you give yourself a pep talk when you feel low? How well do you succeed in passing all school subjects? How well can you tell a funny story to a group of young people? How well do you succeed in satisfying your parents with your schoolwork? How well are you able to remain friends with other young people? How well do you succeed in holding back unpleasant thoughts? How well do you succeed in passing a test? How well do you succeed in not worrying about things that might happen? Eigenvalue Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children. 1 .08 .01 2 .11 .45 3 .61 .26 1 .08 .01 Study 2 2 .14 .70 3 .39 .03 .04 .03 .70 .00 .55 .13 .04 .39 .04 .10 .24 .01 .10 .45 .07 .65 .05 .01 .03 1.02

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

.32 -.05 .06 .48 .09 .12 .62 .31 .12 .55 .03

.32 .53 .04 .16 .04 .50 .05 .13 .60 .25 .05

.02 .01 .56 .04 .54 .26 .06 .30 .11 .11 .45

.46 .01 .05 .67 .05 .07 .68 .30 .14 .61 .02

.24 .56 .01 .03 .10 .60 .01 .09 .46 .17 .18

.04 .75 .02 .66 .24 .11 .65 .04 5.38

.41 .16 .03 .06 .03 .60 .01 .61 1.18

.23 .04 .47 .09 .33 .15 .05 .08 .91

.03 .78 .07 .65 .10 .07 .71 .05 5.50

.66 .12 .19 .01 .04 .42 .02 .56 1.56

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 347

Table 2 Intercorrelations Between SEQ-C, YSR, and SLSS Subscales for Study 1 (N = 685)
Academic Self-Efficacy (M = 23.65, SD = 4.17) .24* .38* .46* Emotional Self-Efficacy (M = 24.84, SD = 5.17) .44* .34* .43* Social Self-Efficacy (M = 23.51, SD = 4.08) .25* .05 .35*

Variable Internalizing symptoms Externalizing symptoms Global life satisfaction

M 11.15 11.86 4.38

SD 8.92 7.49 1.09

Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children; YSR = Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist; SLSS = Students Life Satisfaction Scale. *p < .006.

above .30 on other scales, suggesting these items were not pure indicators of a factor. In sum, the EFA suggested a three-factor solution in which 19 items were relatively pure indicators of the constructs. This 19-item solution was retained for the remaining analyses. Internal consistencies for each subscale were as follows: Academic =.82, Emotional = .79, and Social = .73.
Criterion-Related Validity

With an alpha of .001 cutoff, 12 participants in the original sample produced Mahalanobis distance scores that identified them as multivariate outliers; these cases were deleted from correlational analyses. Values for skew and kurtosis for all instruments were within normal limits (i.e., x < 1.00) with the exception of internalizing behavior (skew = 1.18; kurtosis = 1.36). Descriptive statistics for all instruments, and correlations between them, are presented in Table 2. Mean scores for boys (n = 244) and girls (n = 441) were similar for academic and social self-efficacy; boys reported significantly higher emotional self-efficacy (M = 25.92, SD = 5.25) than girls (M = 24.24, SD = 5.03), t(683) = 4.11, p < .01. Participant age was unrelated to emotional and academic self-efficacy but had a small, positive association with social self-efficacy (r = .10, p < .01). Guidelines for small, medium, and large effect sizes described in Cohen (1992) were used to interpret the magnitude of all correlations. Alpha was set at .006 to control for nine comparisons. As shown in Table 2, global life satisfaction was moderately, positively correlated with all domains of self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy was not associated with externalizing behavior but yielded a small, significant inverse relationship with internalizing behavior. Emotional self-efficacy was moderately, negatively correlated with both forms of psychopathology. Academic self-efficacy was significantly associated with both forms of psychopathology, but the larger correlation was with externalizing behavior. In sum, adolescents who report more delinquent and aggressive behavior were more likely to perceive lower academic and emotional self-efficacy. Anxiety, depression, withdrawal, and somatic complaints were associated with reduced academic and social self-efficacy, and particularly low emotional self-efficacy.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

348 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Z-tests conducted to test the significance of the difference between correlation coefficients for gender groups revealed that the magnitude and direction of the associations between self-efficacy domains and psychopathology were similar for boys and girls for seven of nine correlations (z < 1.96). Correlations between social self-efficacy and two indicators of mental health, internalizing problems and global life satisfaction, were stronger among boys (r = .38, p < .01 and r = .45, p < .01, respectively) than girls (r = .18, p < .01 and r = .29, p < .01, respectively), z = 2.65 and z = 2.27, respectively.

Discussion
A 19-item version was supported for use with American youths. Additional research is needed to confirm which items should be retained in the SEQ-C and appropriate wording of items consistent with colloquial American speech. This study supported links between psychopathology and self-efficacy as measured by the SEQ-C. The current study was limited by the global measurement of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. To more fully study the associations between domains of self-efficacy and specific manifestations of mental health problems, future studies should isolate types of internalizing (e.g., depression vs. anxiety) and externalizing (e.g., noncompliance vs. rule-breaking behavior) symptoms. This study found a general association between global life satisfaction and self-efficacy; additional research with a domain-specific measure of life satisfaction would help elucidate the relationships between self-efficacy and satisfaction specific to theoretically important domains of life. Research that includes academic achievementa construct shown to mediate the link between academic self-efficacy and psychological adjustment (Bandura et al., 2003)is needed.

Study 2
Method
Participants

Participants included 318 students from one high school in a rural public school district in a different southeastern state in the United States. This database is part of an ongoing longitudinal investigation of the mental health of students in various high school curricula (see Shaunessy, Suldo, Hardesty, & Shaffer, 2006). Participants were ages 1419, with a mean age of 16.13 (SD = 1.18). The sample was 70% Caucasian, 9% African American, 8% Asian American, 8% Hispanic, and 5% other ethnicities. Gender distribution was 68% female. Only 20% of participants reported receiving school lunch at a free or reduced cost (low SES). Forty-five percent of the sample participated in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program (a university preparatory course of study containing advanced coursework throughout high school); 55% were enrolled in the general education curriculum.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 349

Procedure

Procedures were similar to that described for Study 1. All students served in the general education and IB curricula at the high school were recruited for participation through a letter distributed to parents. Approximately 25% of the student population participated. Comparisons to the demographic characteristics of the entire school population (according to information listed on the states Web site) indicated that students who were male, African American, and/or from low-SES backgrounds were underrepresented in the study (48.6%, 23.6%, and 32% of the student body, respectively). Self-report data were collected in the fall of 2004. Participants grade point averages (GPAs) were ascertained from school records. Typically, GPA ranges from 0 (F) to 4 (A); however, students in the current study received additional points for grades in advanced courses, so actual GPAs ranged from 1.28 to 4.73 (M = 3.52, SD = .78).
Instruments

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C; Muris, 2001). The SEQ-C was administered with the slight wording revisions detailed in Study 1. In addition, the term young people was substituted for children in all items in line with the older adolescent age-group to which the scale was administered. Item 10, which did not load satisfactorily on a single scale in Study 1, was changed from How well can you work in harmony with your classmates? to How well can you get along with your classmates while working together? in an effort to clarify meaning. This version of the SEQ-C items administered in Study 2 is reproduced in Table 1 with the permission of Peter Muris. The Flesch-Kincaid formula used to calculate readability indicated the directions and items of this version of the SEQ-C were at a reading level of 5.2. Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; Huebner, 1994). The MSLSS is a 40-item scale designed to measure childrens and adolescents degree of satisfaction with five specific domains of life: school, self, family, friends, and living environment. The MSLSS provides a more comprehensive picture of life satisfaction than the global assessment yielded by the SLSS. Students indicate level of agreement with items on a 6-item Likert-type scale, with 10 items reverse-scored. Items are then summed and averaged to yield a mean score of life satisfaction for each domain. The five-factor hierarchical structure of the MSLSS has been supported in factor analytic studies (Huebner, 1994). Construct validity is supported through high relationships with other measures of life satisfaction (see Huebner, Nagle, & Suldo, 2003 for a review). In the current study, coefficient alpha values were as follows: school = .85, self = .78, family = .89, friends = .87, and living environment = .84. The Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001). The 2001 version of the YSR is a 112-item questionnaire with slight revisions to the eight syndrome scales included in the 1991 version administered in Study 1. Specifically, the Withdrawn subscale was modified to include withdrawn/depressed symptoms. The same five subscales comprise internalizing behavior and externalizing behavior. An additional

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

350 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

improvement of the YSR 2001 is the inclusion of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)oriented indices. These indices are driven by expert clinicians judgment, rather than factor analysis, regarding which symptoms align with mental disorders according to criteria advanced in the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The DSM-oriented indices analyzed in the current study include affective problems (i.e., symptoms of dysthymia and major depressive disorder), anxiety problems (i.e., symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, and specific phobia), somatic problems (i.e., symptoms of somatization disorder and somatoform disorder), oppositional defiant problems (e.g., stubborn, argues, disobedient), and conduct problems (e.g., breaks rules, lacks guilt, sets fire, steals). In the current study, alpha coefficients were as follows: affective problems = .79, anxiety problems = .64, somatic problems = .74, oppositional defiant problems = .68, and conduct problems = .80.

Results
Factor Structure

One participant was identified as a univariate outlier on the SEQ-C; 317 respondents were retained for further analyses of factor structure. The scree plot and eigenvalues suggested a three-factor solution that accounted for 99.31% of the variance; all eigenvalues exceeded 1.0. The rotated factor pattern yielded a pattern of item loadings consistent with that reported in original SEQ-C validation studies. Interfactor correlations were significant (r = .41 to .44). As shown in Table 1, the majority of items (19 of 21) loaded adequately (i.e., .30) on only the factor for which they were intended. Item 10 loaded on two factors, again suggesting this item was not a pure indicator of a factor. Item 13 did not load substantially on any of the factors. A 19-item solution was retained for the remaining analyses. Internal consistencies for each subscale were as follows: Academic (.86), Emotional (.80), and Social (.74).
Criterion-Related Validity

With an alpha of .001 cutoff level, 11 participants in the original sample were identified as multivariate outliers and deleted from correlational analysis. For all instruments, skew and kurtosis values were within acceptable limits. Descriptive statistics for all instruments, and correlations between them, are presented in Table 3. Mean scores for boys (n = 100) and girls (n = 207) were similar for academic and social self-efficacy; boys reported significantly higher emotional self-efficacy (M = 23.72, SD = 5.27) than girls (M = 21.44, SD = 4.49), t(305) = 3.93, p < .01. Participant age was unrelated to emotional and social self-efficacy, and inversely related to academic self-efficacy (r = .27, p < .01). Alpha was set at .002 to control for 33 comparisons. All domains of self-efficacy were significantly associated with all domains of life satisfaction. Regarding the magnitude of these associations, academic self-efficacy had a large correlation with school satisfaction; correlations with family and living environment were moderate. Moderate correlations were found between emotional self-efficacy and satisfaction with self, school, and family. Moderate correlations were found between social self-efficacy and satisfaction with self and friends.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 351

Table 3 Intercorrelations Between SEQ-C, YSR DSMOriented, and MSLSS Subscales for Study 2 (N = 307)
Academic Self-Efficacy (M = 25.22, SD = 5.04) .34* .07 .23* .46* .29* .24* .23* .38* .41* .52* .50* Emotional Self-Efficacy (M = 22.19, SD = 4.87) .53* .53* .35* .25* .23* .44* .21* .32* .28* .41* .12 Social Self-Efficacy (M = 18.86, SD = 3.38) .23* .21* .11 .17 .04 .45* .33* .18* .27* .24* .09

Variable Affective problems Anxiety problems Somatic problems Conduct problems Oppositional defiant problems Self-satisfaction Friend satisfaction Family satisfaction Living environment satisfaction School satisfaction Grade point average

M 6.39 2.90 2.64 3.42 3.57 4.76 5.11 4.32 3.99 3.86 3.56

SD 3.97 2.12 2.27 2.94 2.01 .65 .62 .99 .98 .92 .76

Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children; YSR = Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; MSLSS = Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale. *p < .002.

With respect to psychopathology outcomes, emotional self-efficacy had large correlations with internalizing problems, specifically affective and anxiety problems; a moderate relationship with somatic problems; and small but significant correlations with conduct and oppositional defiant problems. Social self-efficacy was significantly related to two of five psychopathology syndromes: affective and anxiety problems; the magnitude of these associations was small. Academic self-efficacy was most strongly related to a specific form of externalizing psychopathology-conduct problems; the correlation with affective problems was also moderate, whereas correlations with oppositional defiant and somatic problems were small but significant. Finally, academic achievement was strongly associated with academic self-efficacy and unrelated to social and emotional self-efficacy. The magnitude and direction of the associations between self-efficacy domains and psychopathology were similar for boys and girls for 32 of 33 correlations (z < 1.96). The correlation between academic self-efficacy and family satisfaction was moderate among girls (r = .31, p < .01) and large among boys (r = .52, p < .01), z = 2.10.

Discussion
Both studies supported use of slightly modified versions of the SEQ-C with American adolescents in two southeastern states. The SEQ-C measured three domains of functioning particularly salient during the adolescent yearsacademic, emotional, and social self-efficacy.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

352 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

To the best of our knowledge, the SEQ-C is the first published measure to simultaneously assess adolescents perceived competence in all three of these important domains. Although results of the factor analyses supported the presence of three factors identified in original validation studies (Muris, 2001, 2002), in the current study academic self-efficacy clearly emerged as the strongest factor, suggesting the SEQ-C may be most appropriately used as a measure of academic self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy was a weak factor in the current study and yielded only small to moderate associations with indicators of psychological functioning with which it should theoretically relate, namely, domains of life satisfaction that involve interpersonal functioning (satisfaction with friends and family). Differences in factor structure also arose at the item level. In both samples of American youths, Item 10, intended to assess social self-efficacy, also loaded highly on academic self-efficacy; efforts to retain this item through rewording with colloquial American speech were not successful. It is therefore suggested that this item be omitted from the SEQ-C in future use with American adolescents. Researchers who use the SEQ-C should consider conducting an EFA on the remaining 20-item scale and only use those items with acceptable factor loadings. In the current studies, indicators of academic self-efficacy (Item 3) and social selfefficacy (Item 13) did not always load satisfactorily on a single factor. Following additional exploratory studies to clarify the utility of all items in more diverse and representative samples of American youths, confirmatory analyses would be appropriate. The relationships between self-efficacy and dimensions of psychopathology yielded in the current study are consistent with several previous studies that used different measures of domain-specific self-efficacy. For instance, the strong, negative relationship between emotional self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety is consistent with research that measured emotional self-efficacy through an individual interview (Suveg & Zeman, 2004). A different self-report measure of self-efficacy also found internalizing disorders to be more strongly associated with emotional than social self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 2003). Although the current research confirmed links between social self-efficacy and anxiety and depression, symptoms of psychopathology were least associated with perceptions of social competence. The current study and Bandura et al.s (2003) research demonstrated that academic self-efficacy has a large relationship with academic achievement, as well as sizable associations with dimensions of disruptive behavior in addition to symptoms of depression. The current study did not support a link between academic self-efficacy and anxiety, in contrast to previous research that found associations between academic self-efficacy and a specific fear- school phobia (Muris, 2002). Recent empirical research with adults has illustrated a strong connection between selfefficacy and a positive indicator of psychological wellnesssubjective well-being (Caprara & Steca, 2005a, 2005b). In a study of 512 adults, emotional self-efficacy exerted direct and indirect effects (via social self-efficacy and pro-social behavior) on life satisfaction (Caprara & Steca, 2005b). The current study is the first to demonstrate a similar relationship among youths; emotional self-efficacy as measured by the SEQ-C yielded significant relationships with each dimension of life satisfaction. Earlier research with youths suggested links between global life satisfaction and academic self-concept (Huebner et al., 1999) and social self-efficacy (Fogle et al., 2002). The current study confirms these relationships and also identifies emotional self-efficacy as an additional cognitive correlate

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 353

of life satisfaction during adolescence, a relationship that had been discussed in theory (cf. Saarni, 2000) but not been examined empirically. Taken together, youths with high life satisfaction are more likely to hold positive beliefs about their ability to perform well socially, to achieve in school, and to manage negative emotions. Psychologists interested in studying self-efficacy during adolescence need valid and practical (i.e., brief, highly readable) measures that tap perceived competence in important domains of functioning. The current study provides preliminary support for the SEQ-C as a potentially useful option for assessing multidimensional self-efficacy in American youths. In addition to using the SEQ-C for research, psychologists might consider using the SEQ-C in clinical assessment for such purposes as understanding the maintenance of psychopathology and monitoring changes in perceived capability as a result of mastery experiences. Selfefficacy is a critical component of readiness for change; clinicians are encouraged to support and monitor clients self-efficacy during attempts to change behavior (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Clinicians should expect adolescent boys to report slightly higher emotional self-efficacy on the SEQ-C relative to adolescent girls, consistent with prior research (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy were not supported by this study or in previous research with 12-year-olds (Usher & Pajares, 2006), nor were gender differences in social self-efficacy found in this study or previous research with 13- to 19- year-olds (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Pending research with clinical samples of youths, clinicians should use the SEQ-C with caution as the current study explored the relationship between self-efficacy and psychological functioning in a nonclinical sample; it is unknown if self-efficacy relates to symptomatology in the same manner in clinical samples of youths. Future investigations of the SEQ-C should aim to expand external validity through increasing the populations with which this measure has been used successfully. Further study of the SEQ-C with representative samples of adolescents from different race and ethnic groups, geographic areas, and age groups are needed, as the current study primarily supports its use with African American and Caucasian adolescents in middle and high school in the southeastern United States. Limitations inherent to the convenience samples employed in the current studies may also have had unanticipated effects on the results. As noted earlier, the active consent procedures contributed to a relatively low response rate (25% to 30%) in which some demographic groups were underrepresented. Some research suggests that the extent to which domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., academic selfefficacy) contribute to important outcomes such as grades earned in high school varies by demographic group (specifically, gender) (Saunders et al., 2004). It is unknown if the relationships between self-efficacy domains and psychological functioning variables vary among diverse populations. Additional research in which the factor structure of the SEQ-C and pattern of relationships between self-efficacy and psychological functioning variables are examined in representative gender, ethnic, and SES groups would help determine if the current findings are generalizable to the larger population of American adolescents. Finally, studies that include methods other than student self-report (e.g., parent or teacher report of adolescent mental health) and that purposefully include constructs not hypothesized to relate to self-efficacy are needed to control for method bias and establish discriminant validity of the SEQ-C.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

354 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 337-350. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 212 -213). New York: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective selfregulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769-782. Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269. Berry, J. M., & West, R. L. (1993). Cognitive self-efficacy in relation to personal mastery and goal setting across the life span. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 351-379. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2004). Life satisfaction among European American, African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 385-400. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005a). Affective and social self-regulatory beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 10, 275-286. Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005b). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191-217. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351-368. Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Hightower, A. D. (1991). Toward the development of a measure of perceived selfefficacy in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 169-178. Dew, T., & Huebner, E. S. (1994). Adolescents perceived quality of life: An exploratory investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 185-199. Fogle, L., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). The relationship between temperament and life satisfaction in early adolescence: Cognitive and behavioral mediation models. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 373-392. Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Students Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology International, 12, 231-240. Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158. Huebner, E. S., Gilman, R., & Laughlin, J. E. (1999). A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of childrens well-being reports: Discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 46, 1-22. Huebner, E. S., Nagle, R. J., & Suldo, S. (2003). Quality of life assessment in child and adolescent health care: The Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS). In J. Sirgy, D. Rahtz, & A. C. Samli (Eds.), Advances in quality-of-life theory and research (pp. 179-190). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 277-287). London: Oxford University Press. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011

Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 355

Muris, P. (2001). A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youths. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 145-149. Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337-348. Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (pp. 239-265). Westport, CT: Ablex. Saarni, C. (2000). Emotional competence: A developmental perspective. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the workplace (pp. 68-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2004). Gender differences in self-perceptions and academic outcomes: A study of African-American high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 81-90. Shaunessy, E., Suldo, S. M., Hardesty, R. B., & Shaffer, E. J. (2006). School functioning and psychological well-being of International Baccalaureate and general education students: A preliminary examination. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 76-89. Stewart, S. M, Kennard, B. D., Lee, P. W. H., Hughes, C. W., Mayes, T. L., Emslie, G. J., et al. (2004). A crosscultural investigation of cognitions and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 248-257. Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous? Social Indicators Research, 78, 179-203. Suveg, C., & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 750-759. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 125-141.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Shiraz University on December 1, 2011