Escala de Autoeficacia Docente: análisis estructural e invarianza de medición en docentes peruanos de escuelas públicas
Conteúdo do artigo principal
Resumo
El objetivo fue realizar un análisis estructural y de invarianza de medición respecto al sexo de la Escala de Autoeficacia Docente (EAD) en docentes peruanos de escuelas públicas (n = 347; 64.3% mujeres; Medad = 46.96 años; DEedad = 9.05 años). La estructura interna fue analizada con análisis factorial confirmatorio y exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). El análisis de invarianza de medición fue basado en análisis factorial multigrupo del modelo bifactor, y se estimó la confiabilidad del constructo y de sus puntuaciones. Los resultados muestran que el modelo de tres factores no recibe soporte, mientras que el modelo bifactor es invariante, evidenciando que el constructo es unidimensional en varones (CFI = .983; RMSEA = .051; WRMR = .577) y mujeres (CFI = .986; RMSEA = .041; WRMR = .620). Además, los indicadores de confiabilidad fueron elevados. Se concluye que la EAD cuenta con propiedades psicométricas adecuadas.
Detalhes do artigo
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Commons Attribution License, CCAL). Com esta licença, os autores conservam o direito de propriedade sobre artigos mas permitem que qualquer pessoa façam download e distribuam os artigos publicados na RACC sem necessidade da permissão do autor ou editor. Uma última condição é que sempre, e em todos os casos, o autor e a fonte original de publicação (p.e., RACC) sejam citados. Esta licença foi desenvolvido para facilitar o acesso aberto, gratuito e livre a trabalhos originais do arte e ciência.
Como Citar
Referências
Alessandri, G., Borgogni, L., Schaufeli, W. B., Caprara, G. V., & Consiglio, C. (2015). From positive orientation to job performance:The role of work engagement and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 767–788. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9533-4.
Ato, M., López, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. doi: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chang, M.L. & Engelhard, G. (2016). Examining the teachers´ Sense of Efficacy Scale at the Item Level with Rasch Measurement Model. Journal of Psychoeducational Assesment, Vol. 34(2), 177-191, doi: 10.1177/0734282915593835
Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
DiStefano C, Liu J, Jiang N, Shi D. Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: Evidence for trustworthiness? Struct Equ Modeling. 2018; 25(3): 453-66. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394
Dominguez-Lara, S. & Merino-Soto, C. (2015). ¿Por qué es importante reportar los intervalos de confianza del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach? Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 1326-1328. Recuperado de: http://revistaumanizales.cinde.org.co/rlcsnj/index.php/Revista-Latinoamericana/article/view/2030
Dominguez-Lara, S. & Rodriguez, A. (2017). Índices estadísticos de modelos bifactor. Interacciones, 3(2), 59-65. doi: 10.24016/2017.v3n2.51
Duffin, L., French, B., & Patrick, H. (2012). The Teacher´s Sense of Efficacy Scale: confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 827 – 834. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004
Fernández, M. (2008). Desempeño docente y su relación con orientación a la meta, estrategias de aprendizaje y autoeficacia: un estudio con maestros de Lima, Perú. Universitas Psychologica, 7(2), 385-401. Recuperado desde: https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/revPsycho/article/view/385
Fernández, M., & Merino, C. (2012). Resultados psicométricos preliminares de la Escala de Autoeficacia Percibida en maestros de Lima. Psicogente, 15(28), 314 – 322. Recuperado de: revistas.unisimon.edu.co/index.php/psicogente/article/view/1878
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2010). Examining the factor structure of the Teacher´s Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 118-134. doi: 10.1080/00220970903224461
Fleming, J., & Merino, C. (2005). Medidas de simplicidad y ajuste factorial: Un enfoque para la construcción y revisión de escalas derivadas factorialmente. Revista de Psicología, 23(2), 252-266. Recuperado de: http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/psicologia/article/view/2150
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and essentially tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 930– 944. doi: 10.1177/0013164406288165
Khairani, A.Z. & Razak, N. (2012). An Analysis of the Teacher´s Sense Efficay Scale within the Malasyan Context using the Rasch Measurement Model. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2137-2142. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.178
Mojavezi, A., & Poodineh, M. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Self-efficacy on the students’ Motivation and Achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 483-491. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491
Malgady, R. (2007). How skew are psychological data? A standardized index of effect size. The Journal of General Psychology, 134(3), 355-359. doi: 10.3200/GENP.134.3.355-360
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568 – 592. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568.
Mielniczuk, E., & Laguna, M. (2018). Positive Affect Mediates the Relationship Between Self-efficacy and Innovative Behavior in Interpreneurs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol.0, 1-12, doi: 10.1002/joch.364
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998 – 2015). Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017). Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002
Reise, S.P. Scheines, R., Widaman, K.F., & Haviland, M.G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5 – 26. doi: 10.1177/0013164412449831
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S.P., & Haviland, M.G. (2016a). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137 – 150. doi: 10.1037/met0000045
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
Scholz, H., Gutiérerz, B., & Schwarzer; R. (2002). Is General Self-Efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric Findings from 25 countries. European Journal Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251.doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.18.3.242
Smits, I.A.M., Timmerman, M.E., Barelds, D.P.H., & Meijer, R.R. (2015). The Dutch symptom checklist-90-revised: is the use of the subscales justified? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 263-271. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000233
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 – 805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 2(68), 202-248. doi: 10.3102/00346543068002202
Terwee, C.B., Bot, S.D.M., de Boer, M.R., van der Windt, D.A.W.M., Knol, D.L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L.M., & de Vet, H.C.W. (2007). Quality Criteria Were Proposed for Measurement Properties of Health Status Questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–234). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ?h. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121-144. doi: 10.1177/0146621605278814