Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
=
6
3
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
d
i
a
n
o
r
A
l
a
s
k
a
N
a
t
i
v
e
A
s
i
a
n
,
A
s
i
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
,
o
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
I
s
l
a
n
d
e
r
B
l
a
c
k
o
r
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
M
e
x
i
c
a
n
o
r
M
e
x
i
c
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
O
t
h
e
r
H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
,
L
a
t
i
n
o
,
o
r
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
W
h
i
t
e
O
t
h
e
r
0
0
4
2
1
6
.
1
5
1
.
9
5
1
.
9
6
2
.
3
1
9
3
7
3
.
9
1
0
3
.
8
2
1
.
1
0
2
3
1
3
.
2
1
6
1
0
5
.
7
1
0
9
5
.
2
2
1
0
5
.
7
5
1
1
6
6
6
.
7
8
7
4
2
.
3
1
0
0
0
1
3
.
2
9
1
4
.
3
8
.
3
1
1
1
7
.
5
1
.
7
5
7
.
9
4
.
1
1
0
1
5
.
9
7
1
.
9
2
2
3
4
.
9
.
8
6
9
.
5
T
a
b
l
e
3
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
b
y
F
i
r
s
t
a
n
d
B
e
s
t
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
F
i
r
s
t
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
O
n
l
y
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
B
e
s
t
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
O
n
l
y
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
0
=
2
6
1
)
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
{
n
=
1
7
4
)
W
e
a
k
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
1
2
1
)
W
e
a
k
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
{
n
=
6
3
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
2
0
6
2
9
2
6
2
3
9
1
3
7
8
.
9
1
1
.
1
1
0
.
0
9
1
.
6
5
.
0
1
3
7
7
8
.
7
2
0
1
7
1
5
3
1
4
1
1
.
5
9
.
8
8
7
.
9
8
.
0
9
2
1
0
1
8
1
0
3
7
6
.
0
8
.
3
1
4
.
9
8
5
.
1
7
.
4
4
0
6
3
.
5
1
3
2
0
.
6
1
0
1
5
.
9
4
6
7
3
.
0
1
1
1
7
.
5
A
n
o
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
3
.
4
4
.
0
7
.
4
9
.
5
T
a
b
l
e
4
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
b
y
P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
N
o
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
p
l
o
m
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
p
l
o
m
a
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
'
s
D
e
g
r
e
e
B
a
c
h
e
l
o
r
'
s
D
e
g
r
e
e
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
D
e
g
r
e
e
P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
<
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
-
6
0
,
0
0
0
>
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
r
o
n
g
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
=
2
6
1
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
2
3
1
1
2
9
1
1
2
5
2
0
5
3
8
4
1
0
4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
8
1
1
.
9
4
.
6
3
4
.
9
4
7
.
9
7
.
7
2
0
.
3
3
2
.
2
3
9
.
8
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
1
7
4
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1
0
3
7
1
5
4
7
6
5
2
8
4
9
4
6
5
1
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
5
.
7
2
1
.
3
8
.
6
2
7
.
0
3
7
.
4
1
6
.
1
2
8
.
2
2
6
.
4
2
9
.
3
W
e
a
k
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
{
n
=
1
2
1
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
2
2
4
1
0
4
1
4
4
1
2
2
7
4
3
3
9
1
.
7
1
9
.
8
8
.
3
3
3
.
9
3
6
.
4
9
.
9
2
2
.
3
3
5
.
5
3
2
.
2
W
e
a
k
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
6
3
)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
8
2
5
2
1
7
1
1
2
4
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
.
7
3
9
.
7
3
.
2
2
7
.
0
1
7
.
5
3
8
.
1
2
7
.
0
1
7
.
5
1
7
.
5
60
Means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores for all measures are
presented for the total sample and the four groups in Tables 5-9. Not surprisingly, the
strong readers/strong writers had the highest mean scores and weak readers/weak
writers had the lowest mean scores on all academic and self-efficacy measures.
Comparisons of means for the two discrepant groups were examined. The stronger
readers/weaker writers had significantly higher SAT Critical Reading (t= 11.33,/? <
.001) and PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading (/ = 4.89,p < .001) scores and
significantly lower SAT Writing scores (t = -10.97, p < .001) than the weaker
reader/stronger writer group. The stronger readers/weaker writers also had
significantly higher Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTask scores (t = 2.44,/? < .05).
61
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for Total Sample (N - 619)
Possible
Variable Mean SD Range Range
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
57.65
59.35
618.90
600.52
91.57
88.99
90.72
83.82
12.12
12.15
133.35
129.39
10.82
11.29
13.56
13.91
20-80
29-80
200-800
220-800
20.91-100.00
33.33-100.00
2.22-100.00
22.19-100.00
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
62
Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 261)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
64.72
66.66
697.09
685.13
95.10
92.07
95.10
87.85
SD
7.01
7.49
52.62
49.95
8.80
7.13
8.80
10.94
Range
37-80
46-80
590-800
590-800
71.82-100.00
62.72-100.00
31.11-100.00
31.25-100.00
Possible Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
63
Table 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers (n = 174)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy
Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
58.51
56.44
660.52
527.07
92.06
90.59
89.82
84.04
SD
10.07
10.51
97.98
94.66
9.70
9.57
13.71
12.83
Range
30-80
33-80
350-800
220-720
44.55-100.00
38.33-100.00
21.11-100.00
23.13-100.00
Possible
Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
64
Table 8
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers (n = 121)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
52.75
58.77
528.93
651.49
90.28
87.58
91.20
82.31
SD
9.77
10.35
98.28
97.43
9.70
10.97
10.55
13.16
Range
25-78
32-80
200-690
310-800
54.55-100.00
53.89-100.00
52.78-100.00
40.63-100.00
Possible
Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
65
Table 9
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
35.41
38.21
352.86
354.92
76.10
74.55
74.11
69.41
SD
5.46
4.13
42.78
37.33
17.07
17.47
20.12
18.64
Range
20-45
29^18
200-440
260-480
20.91-100.00
33.33-98.22
2.22-100.00
22.19-97.69
Possible Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
66
Pearson correlations were computed for all of the continuous variables in the
study, including reading and writing PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, self-efficacy belief scores,
high school English GPA, and parental income for the total group as well as for the
four performance groups in Tables 10-14. Significant positive correlations were
found between all variables for the total group at/? < .01, except for the relationship
between parental income and high school English GPA, and income and Reading
Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks, which were both significant positive relationships at p
< .05. For each of the performance groups, the four measures of self-efficacy were
highly correlated, and income appeared to consistently have the weakest relationship
among the variables. The strength and significance of the correlations were more
variable among the weak readers/weak writers than any of the other performance
groups. The relationship between high school English GPA and the other variables
was among the more inconsistent relationships, with significant positive relationships
among only the reading and writing performance measures for the stronger
readers/weaker writers (p < .01), but significant positive relationships with all
variables for the weaker readers/stronger writers (p < .01 and/? < .05). None of the
correlations with high school English GPA were significant for the weak
readers/weak writers; however, this sample was much smaller than the other
performance groups.
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
N
=
6
1
9
)
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
.
H
S
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
~
2
.
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)
.
0
9
*
3
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
5
0
*
*
4
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
5
0
*
*
5
.
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
8
*
*
6
.
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
.
5
2
*
*
7
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
4
*
*
8
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
2
4
*
*
9
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
2
*
*
1
0
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
2
6
*
*
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
/
?
<
.
0
1
.
.
2
4
*
*
2
4
*
*
8
2
*
*
.
2
0
*
*
.
8
7
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
7
8
*
*
.
2
8
*
*
.
7
5
*
*
.
8
3
*
*
.
7
3
*
*
.
1
4
*
*
.
5
6
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
.
5
7
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
1
0
*
4
9
*
*
4
4
*
*
4
7
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
1
3
*
*
.
4
6
*
*
.
4
9
*
*
.
4
7
*
*
.
5
1
*
*
.
8
1
*
*
.
6
1
*
*
1
2
*
*
4
3
*
*
4
2
*
*
4
2
*
*
4
2
*
*
7
7
*
*
7
4
*
*
.
6
9
*
*
T
a
b
l
e
1
1
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
S
t
r
o
n
g
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
2
6
1
)
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
.
H
S
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
~
2
.
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)
-
.
0
1
3
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
1
0
4
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
1
4
*
5
.
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
1
7
*
6
.
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
.
0
6
7
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
0
8
8
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
0
3
9
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
1
2
1
0
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
0
4
*
/
?
<
.
0
5
*
*
p
<
.
0
1
<
^
.
1
2
*
.
1
0
.
5
3
*
*
.
0
1
.
5
5
*
*
.
4
9
*
*
.
1
6
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
5
6
*
*
.
5
6
*
*
.
0
5
.
2
8
*
*
.
2
5
*
*
.
1
0
.
1
6
*
*
.
1
0
.
2
1
*
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
0
0
.
1
1
.
5
6
*
*
.
0
2
.
1
3
*
.
2
4
*
*
.
0
9
.
2
0
*
*
.
7
2
*
*
.
3
9
*
*
.
0
8
.
1
2
*
.
1
9
*
*
.
0
2
.
1
6
*
*
.
7
1
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
.
5
8
*
*
-
-
T
a
b
l
e
1
2
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
1
7
4
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
.
H
S
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
^
~
2
.
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)
.
0
6
3
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
3
*
*
4
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
7
*
*
5
.
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
2
*
*
6
.
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
.
4
1
*
*
7
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
1
4
8
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
0
5
9
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
1
6
*
1
0
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
1
5
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
/
?
<
.
0
1
.
O
N
N
O
.
1
9
*
.
1
8
*
.
8
0
*
*
.
0
7
.
0
5
.
0
5
.
0
6
*
*
.
1
8
*
.
8
5
*
*
.
8
0
2
2
*
*
8
3
*
*
8
0
*
*
9
5
*
*
3
7
*
*
4
7
*
*
4
7
*
*
4
6
*
*
3
1
*
*
3
2
*
*
3
3
*
*
3
4
*
*
6
6
*
*
*
*
2
9
*
*
4
i
*
*
4
^
*
*
4
0
*
*
7
7
*
*
5
7
.
2
9
*
*
.
3
6
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
7
2
*
*
.
6
6
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
W
e
a
k
e
r
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
1
2
1
)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
.
H
S
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
~
2
.
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)
-
.
2
0
*
3
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
0
*
*
4
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
8
*
*
5
.
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
.
4
3
*
*
6
.
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
.
4
7
*
*
7
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
3
*
*
8
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
2
0
*
9
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
.
3
3
*
*
1
0
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
2
3
*
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.
1
6
.
0
9
.
7
8
*
*
.
1
8
*
.
8
0
*
*
.
7
5
*
*
.
1
5
.
7
9
*
*
.
7
6
*
*
.
9
6
*
*
Q
A
*
*
0
8
4
g
*
*
4
2
*
*
5
2
*
*
5
3
*
*
.
0
4
.
4
2
*
*
.
3
7
*
*
.
4
2
*
*
.
4
4
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
0
9
.
4
6
*
*
.
4
3
*
*
.
4
9
*
*
.
5
3
*
*
8
3
*
*
.
6
8
*
*
.
0
5
.
4
0
*
*
.
3
5
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
3
8
*
*
.
7
6
*
*
.
7
0
*
*
.
7
0
*
*
T
a
b
l
e
1
4
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
m
o
n
g
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
W
e
a
k
R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
(
n
=
6
3
)
1
0
1
.
H
S
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
2
.
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)
3
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
4
.
P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
k
i
l
l
s
5
.
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
6
.
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
7
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
8
.
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
9
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s
1
0
.
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s
.
0
2
.
2
3
.
0
9
.
0
6
.
1
7
.
1
0
.
0
1
.
0
8
.
0
3
-
.
1
2
-
.
0
6
-
.
2
4
.
0
2
-
.
1
0
-
.
1
7
-
.
0
2
-
.
0
8
.
1
5
.
3
4
*
*
.
1
7
.
1
8
.
2
3
.
1
8
.
2
7
*
-
.
2
5
*
.
2
7
*
-
.
2
2
-
.
1
7
-
.
1
5
-
.
2
8
*
~
3
5
*
*
.
0
3
.
0
1
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
5
-
.
0
8
.
0
8
.
2
1
.
0
5
.
8
1
*
*
.
7
6
*
*
.
7
8
*
*
-
4
9
*
*
.
7
6
*
*
-
.
5
8
*
*
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
p
<
.
0
1
.
72
Research Questions 1 and 2:
The Mediational Role of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
In order to determine whether reading and writing self-efficacy were partially
mediating the effects of prior achievement and student background variables on
reading and writing performance, paths representing these relationships were tested
using AMOS 5.0/SPSS 14.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) statistical package. As the inclusion of
categorical data is problematic in path analysis, the model was designed to include
only gender (as opposed to minority status or English as a best language) as a
categorical variable due to its clear relationship in the literature with self-efficacy and
with reading and writing performance, and because it was determined to meet the
assumptions of normality required (Byrne, 2001). Prior achievement was represented
by high school English GPA in the models and parental income served as a proxy for
SES. English GPA was chosen as the measure of prior achievement as opposed to
PSAT/NMSQT scores because these scores are so closely related to and largely based
on the SAT. In this study the SAT is a proxy of reading or writing performance, and
not necessarily a particular score that one is always interested in predicting. Little
variance in the SAT performance would be left to explain by other factors if
PSAT/NMSQT scores were included in the model. Also, using English GPA in both
of the models would allow for a better understanding of the relationship of the high
school English GPA to reading and writing self-efficacy and performance. The
average of the self-efficacy tasks and skills measures served as the proxy for reading
or writing self-efficacy beliefs and reading or writing performance were represented
by SAT scores. Both partially and fully mediated models were tested, though based
73
on the literature, one would expect the partially mediated model to more
appropriately fit the data. None of the data were missing and the assumptions of
multivariate normality were met.
The partially mediated models tested are represented in Figures 2 and 3. The
paths from three variables, high school English GPA, SES, and gender, were
examined for their influence on self-efficacy beliefs, as well as their direct influence
on reading or writing performance. The path of primary interest in all models is the
direct influence of self-efficacy beliefs on performance. Self-efficacy would be
shown to be a partial mediator of student background and prior achievement if the
direct paths from self-efficacy beliefs to SAT scores, student background to SAT
scores, and prior achievement to SAT scores were all statistically significant.
Based on the literature reviewed, it was expected that reading or writing
performance, would be partially mediated by reading or writing self-efficacy,
respectively. A partially mediated model of reading performance assumes that there is
a direct effect of student background and prior achievement variables on SAT Critical
Reading performance, as well as an indirect effect of these variables on SAT Critical
Reading performance as mediated by reading self-efficacy beliefs. The model would
provide a good fit to the data if the student background and prior achievement
variables were directly, as well as indirectly, related to SAT performance.
The chi-square fit, as well as three other indices of fit were examined in the
path analysis: the comparative fit index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), and the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square fit index
indicates whether or not a given model's covariance structure differs significantly
74
from the observed covariance matrix. A significant chi-square value indicates lack of
satisfactory model fit. The CFI represents the improvement of the hypothesized
model over a null model which assumes the latent variables in the model are
uncorrected. Values for the CFI range from 0.00 to 1.00. In order to consider a model
well-fitting, Byrne (2001) stated that the generally accepted cutoff for the CFI is .95.
The IFI compares the lack of fit in the hypothesized model with the lack of fit in an
uncorrelated baseline model. This statistic is similar to the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
but is recommended for smaller samples (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). In order to accept
the model, the IFI should be greater than .90, but may exceed 1.00, which may occur
in cases where the model is overspecified with an almost perfect fit (Gushue &
Whitson, 2006). The RMSEA indicates the extent to which the lack of model fit is
due to the misspecification of the model tested, as opposed to the sampling error. It is
expressed per degree of freedom, and is therefore sensitive to the number of
parameters estimated in the model. Byrne noted that RMSEA values under .05
indicate good fit, and values as high as .08 represent reasonable errors of
approximation in the population; values from .08 to .10 indicate mediocre fit, and
values greater than . 10 indicate poor fit.
The fit statistics and standardized partial regression coefficients are reported
for each of these models in Table 15. All of the reading and writing performance
models tested were recursive and identified. The results of the chi-square fit for the
partially mediated reading model, x
2
(1, iV= 619) = .35,p = .56, and writing model, x
2
(1, N = 619) = .35, p = .56, indicated that both models should not be rejected.
Evaluations of the CFI, IFI, and RMSEA for both partially mediated models also
75
indicated that they are a good fit to the data. The fully mediated models have very
different results. The chi-square fit for the fully mediated reading model x
2
(4, N =
619) = 140.72,/? = .00, and writing model, $ (4, N= 619) = 177.52,/? = .00,
indicated that both models should be rejected. The CFI, IFI, and RMSEA confirm that
the fully mediated models do not fit the data well at all.
The results of the mediation analyses from the partially mediated models of
reading and writing performance can be found in Table 16. The Sobel (1982) statistic
was calculated for each path to test for mediation (as cited in Baron & Kenny, 1986).
This statistic is treated as a z-test, so that values larger than 1.96 are significant at the
.05 level. In order to meet the precondition for mediation, a predictor must
significantly affect the criterion and the potential mediator, and the potential mediator
must also significantly affect the criterion when that predictor is accounted for in the
path model. Provided these conditions are satisfied, an examination of the Sobel
statistic can test for the extent that the mediator accounts for the relationship between
the predictor and criterion. The mediational role of reading or writing self-efficacy on
gender in the both models was not examined as the preconditions for mediation were
not met due to non-significant correlations between gender and SAT scores.
The mediation tests indicated that reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly
mediated the effects of high school English GPA on SAT Critical Reading scores (z =
3.02,/? = .002), and also significantly mediated the effect of SES on SAT Critical
Reading scores (z = 3.05,p = .002). Similarly, writing self-efficacy beliefs
significantly mediated the effects of high school English GPA on SAT Writing
76
scores, (z = 6Jl,p< .001), and also significantly mediated the effect of SES on SAT
Writing scores (z = 3.38,p < .001).
T
a
b
l
e
1
5
M
o
d
e
l
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
I
n
d
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
F
u
l
l
y
M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
M
o
d
e
l
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
m
p
l
e
(
N
=
6
1
9
)
M
o
d
e
l
^
d
f
p
C
F
I
I
F
I
R
M
S
E
A
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
F
u
l
l
y
M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
N
o
t
e
.
C
F
I
=
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e
f
i
t
i
n
d
e
x
;
I
F
I
=
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
f
i
t
i
n
d
e
x
;
R
M
S
E
A
=
r
o
o
t
-
m
e
a
n
-
s
q
u
a
r
e
e
r
r
o
r
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
.
3
5
3
5
1
1
.
5
6
.
5
6
1
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
0
.
7
2
1
7
7
.
5
2
4
4
.
0
0
.
0
0
.
6
9
.
6
1
.
6
9
.
6
2
.
2
4
.
2
7
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
M
o
d
e
l
o
f
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
m
p
l
e
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
S
E
S
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
^
.
4
4
G
e
n
d
e
r
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
X
2
(
1
,
N
=
6
1
9
)
=
3
5
,
p
=
.
5
6
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
p
<
.
0
1
.
o
o
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
M
o
d
e
l
o
f
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
m
p
l
e
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
S
E
S
G
e
n
d
e
r
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
X
2
(
1
,
N
=
6
1
9
)
=
.
3
5
,
p
=
.
5
6
.
*
p
<
.
0
5
.
*
*
p
<
.
0
1
.
T
a
b
l
e
1
6
z
a
n
d
p
V
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
P
a
t
h
s
o
f
P
a
t
h
M
o
d
e
l
s
o
f
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
P
a
t
h
z
p
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
>
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
>
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
3
.
0
2
.
0
0
2
S
E
S
-
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
-
>
S
A
T
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
3
.
0
5
.
0
0
2
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
G
P
A
>
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
>
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
6
.
7
1
<
.
0
0
1
S
E
S
-
w
r
i
t
i
n
g
s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
-
*
S
A
T
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
3
.
3
8
<
.
0
0
1
81
Research Questions 3 and 4: The Contribution of Reading and Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Same Domain Performance
A number of regression analyses were performed on the data to answer the
research questions in this study. Prior to running the regression analyses, all
assumptions of regression were checked and determined to be met (Miles & Shevlin,
2001). Hierarchical multiple regressions were run on the total group as well as the
four performance groups to understand the contribution of reading self-efficacy
beliefs to reading performance, after controlling for important background variables.
Each regression was run with two different measures of prior reading achievement,
either PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading or high school English GPA, to compare
results. Tables 17-21 display the results of these analyses.
In all analyses, the model including PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores as
opposed to high school English GPA as a measure of prior reading achievement
explained a greater amount of the variance in SAT Critical Reading scores. For the
total group, the model with PSAT/NMSQT scores significantly predicted reading
performance, R
2
= .78, i?
2
adj
= .78, F(l, 611) = 314.40,/? < .01. The PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading scores also had the highest beta weights in each model, ranging from
P =.83, t(34.78),p < .01 in the model for the total sample and/? =.31, t(2.21),p < .05
in the model for the weak readers/weak writers.
For the total sample, the model with high school English GPA significantly
predicted reading performance, R
2
= .45, #
2
adj
= .45, F(7,611) = 71.99, p < .01. With
the exception of the weak readers/weak writers, the models including high school
82
English GPA showed the largest contribution of reading self-efficacy to the
prediction of SAT Critical Reading scores, with the percent of variance explained by
reading self-efficacy ranging from 17% for the total group to 2% for the strong
readers/strong writers. In all models, Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills rather
than Reading Self-EfficacyTasks had the strongest standardized beta among the
self-efficacy measures.
As expected, among the four performance groups, reading self-efficacy
explained a significant amount of variance for the total group, the stronger readers/
weaker writers, and the weaker readers/stronger writers for both the models including
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores and high school English GPA as measures of
prior reading achievement. For the models including PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading
scores, reading self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in reading
performance in the total group, 3% of the variance in the performance of stronger
readers/weaker writers, and 3% of the variance in the performance of weaker
readers/stronger writers. For the models including high school English GPA, reading
self-efficacy beliefs explained 17% of the variance in reading performance in the total
group, 14% of the variance in the performance of stronger readers/weaker writers,
and 14% of the variance in the performance of weaker readers/stronger writers.
Therefore, if an educator or researcher was unable to obtain access to PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading scores for students, measuring students' reading self-efficacy beliefs
can be quite useful in predicting performance on the SAT Critical Reading test,
particularly for students with discrepant reading and writing performance.
83
Table 17
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (TV = 619)
Variable
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-51.69
-19.54
.13
9.07
2.99
1.89
-.30
11.66
-37.26
10.03
82.02
1.22
4.47
1.27
SEB
12.31
5.08
1.88
.26
5.92
.40
.36
19.36
8.08
2.95
7.79
9.43
.62
.57
fi
0o**
-.07**
.00
.83**
.01
.15**
-.03
.02
-.14**
1 ] **
.34**
.00
.36**
.11*
R
J
AR
Z
77**
78** 01**
.28**
45** J7**
*p <.05. **p <. 01.
84
Table 18
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 261,)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-37.96
1.43
-.98
4.64
10.38
.31
-.76
-2.64
-7.29
1.45
28.73
16.64
1.58
-.47
SEB
15.96
5.46
1.98
.41
6.47
.64
.46
18.79
6.63
2.38
9.21
7.83
.76
.55
fi
-. 13*
.01
-.03
.62**
.09
.03
-.10
-.01
-.07
.04
.20**
.14*
.16*
-.06
R*
.33**
33**
.05*
.06*
AR
2
.01
.02
*p<. 05. **p<.01
85
Table 19
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-32.27
-5.78
-.19
7.67
-14.72
2.30
-.46
-1.71
3.36
6.70
59.74
-19.70
3.66
.61
SEB
20.79
7.72
2.73
.41
8.45
.53
.53
33.55
12.51
4.37
10.88
13.68
.86
.86
fi
-.07
-.03
-.00
JQ**
-.07
23**
-.05
-.00
.02
.10
.35**
-.10
.36**
.06
R
2
73**
.76**
23**
.37**
ARf
.03**
.14**
*/><.05. **/?<.01.
86
Table 20
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = 12i;
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-28.18
-22.44
5.53
7.52
17.59
2.20
-.31
37.89
-20.97
15.28
65.09
8.53
2.62
1.43
SEB
21.71
10.78
4.15
.64
12.69
.90
.77
28.95
14.83
5.93
14..42
17.44
1.27
1.07
fi
-.08
- . 11*
.08
.75**
.08
.22*
-.03
.10
-.10
.21*
.36**
.04
.26*
.16
R
2
.66**
.69**
.28**
.42**
AR
J
03**
.14**
*P<.05. **p<m.
87
Table 21
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
8.87
-10.09
-5.12
2.38
13.98
.27
-.31
30.10
-8.68
-6.11
7.15
17.35
.28
-.22
SEB
20.70
11.13
4.24
1.08
12.74
.53
.53
19.52
11.65
4.40
9.00
13.10
.55
.56
P
.06
-.12
-.17
.31*
.16
.12
-.13
.21
-.10
-.21
.10
.20
.11
-.09
R
2
.19*
.20*
.13
.14
AR
J
.01
.00
*p<. 05. **p<. 01.
88
Hierarchical multiple regressions were also run on the total sample and four
performance groups to understand the contribution of writing self-efficacy beliefs to
writing performance, after controlling for important background variables. Each
regression was run with two different measures of prior writing achievement, either
PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills or high school English GPA, to compare results.
Tables 22-26 display the results of these analyses.
Similar to the reading analyses, the model that included PSAT/NMSQT
Writing scores as opposed to high school English GPA as a measure of prior writing
achievement explained a greater amount of the variance in SAT Writing scores. For
the total group, the model with PSAT/NMSQT scores significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .72, R
2
adi
= .72, F(7,611) = 223.23,;? < .01. The PSAT/NMSQT
Writing scores also had the highest beta weights in each model that included this
measure of prior achievement, ranging from/? =.75, t(29A8),p < .01 in the model for
the total group and/? =.29, t(2.23),p < .05 in the model for the weak readers/weak
writers. With the exception of the weak readers/weak writers, the models including
high school English GPA showed the largest contribution of writing self-efficacy to
the prediction of SAT Writing scores, with the percent of variance explained by
writing self-efficacy ranging from 13% for the weaker readers/stronger writers to 5%
for the strong readers/strong writers and weak readers/weak writers. For the total
group, the model with high school English GPA significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .45, R
2
ad
j = .44, F(7,611) = 71.06,/? < .01. In all models, Writing
Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills rather than Writing Self-EfficacyTasks had the
strongest standardized beta among the self-efficacy measures, and only in the model
89
including high school English GPA for the total group, was the Writing Self-Efficacy
BeliefsTasks measure a significant contributor to the model /? =.09, ^(2.08), p < .05.
Writing self-efficacy explained a significant amount of variance for the total
group, the stronger readers/weaker writers, and the weaker readers/stronger writers
for both the models including PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores and high school English
GPA. Unlike the reading performance models, writing self-efficacy beliefs also
significantly contributed to the model including high school English GPA for the
strong readers/strong writers. For the models that included PSAT/NMSQT Writing
scores, writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in writing
performance in the total group, 3% of the variance in the performance of stronger
readers/weaker writers, and 5% of the variance in the performance of weaker
readers/stronger writers. For the models including high school English GPA, writing
self-efficacy beliefs explained 11% of the variance in writing performance in the total
group, 5% of the variance in writing performance of strong readers/strong writers,
14% of the variance in the performance of stronger readers/weaker writers, and 13%
of the variance in the performance of weaker readers/stronger writers.
Based on these analyses, reading self-efficacy beliefs contribute to reading
performance in very similar ways to the contribution of writing self-efficacy to
writing performance. Among the four reading and writing performance groups, the
contribution of self-efficacy is greatest for the two discrepant groups. The largest
difference between the reading and writing analyses was in the model including
English GPA for the total group. Reading self-efficacy explains 17% of the variance
90
in reading performance for the total group, whereas writing self-efficacy explains
11% of the variance in writing performance.
91
Table 22
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (N =6X9)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
-Skills
-Tasks
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-39.80
.47
7.38
8.00
-9.96
1.25
.04
-14.19
-8.42
16.86
90.26
-10.16
2.88
.81
SEB
13.38
5.62
2.08
.27
6.53
.30
.28
18.71
7.90
2.87
7.53
9.18
.40
.39
ft
_ Q7**
.00
.08**
.75**
-.04
13**
.01
-.02
-.03
.19**
39**
-.04
30**
.09*
Bf AR
2
7] **
72** 01**
.34**
45** \ \**
*/7 < .05. **/?<.01.
92
Table 23
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from
Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 26 \)
Variable B SEB R Rf ARf
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.34 **
-12.13
-8.01
4.71
3.60
9.12
.43
.15
14.65
5.14
1.89
.35
6.18
.37
.29
-.04
-.08
.13*
54**
.08
.08
.03
.35 ** .01
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.04
-4.83
-7.68
6.41
9.55
10.57
.96
.34
17.46
6.18
2.23
8.68
7.38
.43
.43
-.02
-.08
.18
.07
.09
.17*
.07
.08
s 1
.05 **
*p< .05. **/?<.01.
93
Table 24
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable B SEB
fi
R< AR
Z
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.65 * *
.65
5.62
3.27
6.69
17.41
.26
.50
22.75
8.78
3.10
.45
9.58
.43
.46
.00
.03
.05
74**
-.09
.04
.07
.66 * * .01
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA) 55.28
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.24 * *
24.99
9.36
9.49
55.28
-16.38
1.48
1.09
32.03
12.45
4.33
10.80
13.55
.60
.64
.05
.05
.15*
33**
-.08
.21*
.15
.34 * * .10 * *
*;?<.05. **p<.Ql.
94
Table 25
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance
from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers (n-\2\)
Variable B SEB
fi
Rf ARf
St epl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.59 * *
21.49
24.64
4.98
6.18
-.56
2.51
-.08
22.71
11.63
4.39
.61
13.52
.77
.59
-.06
-.12*
.07
.66**
-.00
.27**
-.01
.65 * * .05 * *
St epl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA) 67.48
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.27 **
24.04
-26.98
11.46
67.48
.54
3.43
.34
28.16
14.70
5.77
14.00
17.21
.97
.75
.07
-.13
.16*
.38**
.00
37**
.05
.40 * * .13 * *
*/?<.05. **/?<.01.
95
Table 26
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
-Skills
-Tasks
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-13.56
6.95
2.53
2.65
5.73
.51
-.06
-8.67
6.98
2.26
6.77
9.51
.52
-.24
SEB
16.44
10.09
3.67
1.19
11.47
.29
.33
17.11
10.62
3.82
7.97
11.75
.30
.33
P
-.11
.09
.10
.29*
.07
.28
-.03
-.07
.09
.09
.11
.12
.28
-.11
R
J
AR
J
.10
.16 .06
.05
.10 .05
*p<.05. **p<. 01.
Research Questions 5 and 6: Contribution of Reading and Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Opposite Domain Performance
Hierarchical multiple regressions were run on the total sample as well as the
four performance groups to understand the contribution of writing self-efficacy
beliefs to reading performance, after controlling for important background variables.
Each regression was run with two different measures of prior reading achievement,
either PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading or high school English GPA, to compare
results. The purpose of these analyses was to understand the interchangeability of
reading and writing self-efficacy measures to predict reading and writing performance
for the different performance groups. Tables 27-31 display the results of these
analyses.
For the total sample, stronger readers/weaker writers, and weaker
readers/stronger writers, writing self-efficacy beliefs significantly contributed to
models of reading performance, when controlling for either PSAT/NMSQT Critical
Reading scores or high school English GPA as well as other background variables.
The model controlling for PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores significantly
predicted reading performance, R
z
= .78, i?
2
ad
j= .78, F(7,611) = 305.63,p < .01. In
this model, writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in reading
performance. This is the same amount of variance explained in reading performance
by reading self-efficacy beliefs. The model controlling for high school English GPA
also significantly predicted reading performance, R = .39, R
ad
j = .39, F(7,611) =
56.67,/? <. 01. Writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 11% of the variance in reading
97
performance, which is less than the variance explained in reading performance by
reading self-efficacy beliefs (17%).
In addition to the models for the total group, the contribution of writing self-
efficacy beliefs to reading performance was significant for the stronger readers/
weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers in analyses including both
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores and high school English GPA. In each of
these models, only Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills, and not Tasks, significantly
contributed to the prediction of reading performance. The strongest predictor of
reading performance in each of these models was the measure of prior reading
achievement included, however the second strongest predictor was Writing Self-
Efficacy BeliefsSkills. The beta weight for Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
was P=.\l, ^(3.26),p < .01 for the stronger readers/weaker writers, and/? =. 17,
t(2.\l),p < .05 for the weaker readers/stronger writers in the models with
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores. In the models with high school English GPA,
the beta weight for Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills was fi =.26, /(2.98), p < .01
for the stronger readers/weaker writers, and/? =.30, t(2.79),p < .01 for the weaker
readers/stronger writers.
98
Table 27
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (N =6\9)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1= female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement
(Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-50.72
-15.79
-.11
9.34
1.64
.84
.18
28.03
-39.12
9.72
89.30
-3.78
2.21
1.61
SEB
12.41
5.17
1.90
.25
5.99
.27
.26
20.22
8.54
3.10
8.14
9.92
.44
.42
P
-.08**
-.06**
-.00
.85**
.01
09**
.02
.05
-.15**
j j * *
37**
-.01
.23**
1 - 7 * *
R
J
AR'
77**
7
8
**
01
**
.28**
39** 11**
V<. 05. **;?<.01.
99
Table 28
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers
(n = 26\)
Variable
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1= female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-42.79
.47
-.99
4.55
11.07
.53
-.31
-1.27
-6.18
1.40
28.16
15.79
.63
-.08
SEB
15.96
5.42
1.99
.40
6.50
.38
.31
18.66
6.60
2.39
9.27
7.89
.46
.37
fi
-.15**
.00
-.03
.61**
.09
.09
-.06
-.00
-.06
.04
19**
.13*
.11
-.02
R
2
.34**
.35**
.05*
.06*
AR
2
.01
.01
*/?< .05. **p<.0l.
100
Table 29
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = MA)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1= female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-28.37
-5.02
-.51
7.73
-18.06
1.21
.29
23.32
4.87
6.13
57.77
-25.81
1.84
.89
SEB
20.12
7.73
2.72
.40
8.43
.37
.40
33.12
12.87
4.48
11.17
14.01
.62
.67
B
-.06
-.03
-.01
.80**
-.09*
.17**
.04
.05
.02
.09
33**
-.13
.26**
.12
B
2
AR
J
.73**
76** 03**
.23**
34** j ] * *
*;?<.05. **p<.01.
101
Table 30
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = 12i;
Variable B SEB
P
R' AST
Step 1 .66 * *
English is best language
Gender (1= female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
-25.78
-25.74
5.14
7.60
15.13
1.58
.01
40.55
-26.67
13.04
63.44
4.58
2.82
.70
21.88
11.04
4.17
.64
12.94
.73
.56
29.35
15.32
6.02
14.59
17.93
1.01
.78
-.07
-. 13*
.07
.76**
.07
.17*
.00
.11
-.13
.18*
.35**
.02
.30**
.09
.69** .02*
.28**
40** 12**
*/><.05. **/?<.01.
Table 31
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1= female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
6.57
-8.18
-5.00
2.58
12.40
-.01
-.24
29.56
-7.74
-6.10
7.70
16.66
.03
-.09
SEB
20.39
11.30
4.12
1.10
12.83
.32
.36
19.24
11.94
4.30
8.96
13.21
.33
.37
P
.05
-.10
-.17
.33*
.14
-.00
-.10
.20
-.09
-.21
.11
.19
.01
-.04
R
J
.19*
.20*
.13
.13
AR
J
.01
.00
*p<.05. **/><.01.
103
Hierarchical multiple regressions were also conducted on the total sample as
well as the four performance groups to understand the contribution of reading self-
efficacy beliefs to writing performance, after controlling for important background
variables. Each regression was run with two different measures of prior writing
achievement, either PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills or high school English GPA, to
compare results. Tables 32-36 display the results of these analyses.
For the total group and weaker readers/stronger writers, reading self-efficacy
beliefs significantly contributed to models of writing performance, when controlling
for either PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores or high school English GPA in addition to
other background variables. Reading self-efficacy beliefs also significantly
contributed to the model with high school English GPA for the strong readers/strong
writers and the stronger readers/weaker writers. For the total group, the model
controlling for PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .72, i?
2
a
dj= .71, F(7,611) = 221.12, p < .01. In this model, reading
self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in writing performance. This is the
same amount of variance explained in writing performance by writing self-efficacy
beliefs. The model controlling for high school English GPA also significantly
predicted writing performance, R
2
= .46, i?
2
adj
= .45, F(7,611) = 73.31,/? < .01.
Reading self-efficacy beliefs explained 12% of the variance in writing performance,
which is slightly more than the variance explained in writing performance by writing
self-efficacy beliefs (11%).
In each of these models, only Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills, and not
Tasks, significantly contributed to the prediction of writing performance. Aside from
104
the total group, the only significant beta weight for Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Skills among the models with PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores was /? =.25,
t(2.64), p < .01 for the weaker readers/stronger writers. In the models with high
school English GPA, the beta weight for Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills was /?
=. 18, ^(2.32),p < .05 for the strong readers/strong writers, and /? -.32, r(3.80),p < .01
for the stronger readers/weaker writers.
Table 32
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Total Group (N =619)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (En
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
-Skills
-Tasks
g. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-41.93
1.07
7.59
7.97
-8.75
1.58
-.02
-23.67
-6.14
17.45
88.65
-6.79
3.88
.83
SEB
13.49
5.61
2.09
.28
6.55
.44
.40
18.71
7.81
2.85
7.53
9.12
.60
.55
B
-.07**
.00
09**
.75**
-.03
.13**
-.00
-.04
-.02
.20**
3g**
-.03
.33**
.07
R
2
AR
2
7j **
72** 01**
.34**
45** 12**
*/7<.05. **/?<.01.
106
Table 33
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers
(n = 261)
Variable B SEB
P
R
z
ABf
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing achievement
(PSATVNMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
34=M
-11.23 14.84 -.04
-7.85 5.20 -.08
4.71 1.89 .13*
3.67 .35 .55**
8.49 6.18 .08
.66 .61 .07
-.16 .44 -.02
.34** .00
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.04
-6.60
-8.08
6.38
10.80
10.57
1.67
.12
17.80
6.27
2.25
8.72
7.41
.72
.52
-.02
-.08
.18**
.08
.09
.18*
.02
.07" .03*
*p< .05. **p< .01.
107
Table 34
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 - female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
B
-6.90
6.73
3.52
6.66
-16.59
.52
.64
-.86
8.78
10.06
57.33
-11.20
3.14
.96
SEB
23.50
8.72
3.10
.46
9.57
.63
.60
32.42
12.08
4.23
10.51
13.22
.83
.83
fi
-.01
.04
.05
74**
-.08
.05
.07
-.00
.05
.15*
.34**
-.06
32**
.10
R
2
AR
2
.66**
.67** .01
.24**
37** ] 3**
*p< .05. **p< .01.
108
Table 35
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = \2\)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (En
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Skills
-Tasks
ig. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-24.43
-20.33
6.18
6.21
3.63
2.48
.25
23.16
-21.21
14.75
72.39
6.14
2.16
1.90
SEB
22.65
11.40
4.38
.60
13.34
.94
.81
28.01
14.35
5.74
13.95
16.87
1.23
1.03
fi
-.07
-.10
.09
.66**
.02
.25**
.03
.06
-.11
.21*
40**
.03
.22
.21
R
J
.59**
.65**
.30**
.45**
AR
2
.06**
.15**
*/?<.05. **/><.01.
Table 36
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 61)
Variable
Stepl
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior Writing achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior English achievement (En
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Skills
-Tasks
ig. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-16.37
6.28
2.83
2.71
3.40
.15
.22
-12.23
4.96
2.59
8.03
7.36
-.06
.29
SEB
17.09
10.07
3.85
1.19
11.68
.48
.49
17.79
10.62
4.01
8.20
11.94
.50
.51
P
-.13
.08
.11
.30*
.04
.07
.10
-.10
.07
.10
.13
.10
-.03
.14
R
2
.10
12.
.05
.06
AR
2
.02
.01
*/?<.05. **/?<.01.
110
Research Question 7: Chi-Square Analyses and /-Tests
of Discrepant Group Differences
Chi-square tests of association and /-tests were conducted to determine
whether there were significant differences between the stronger readers/weaker
writers and weaker readers/stronger writers on a number of important variables,
including language and racial/ethnic background, gender, parental income, help
desired in Reading and Writing, region of the country they are from, and different
measures of academic achievement and self-efficacy. The results of these analyses
can be found in Tables 37 and 38. There were a few statistically significant
differences between the two groups of students.
Differences were found in the English as a Second Language (ESL)
experience of the stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger
writers, with significantly more students reporting to have had ESL experience in the
weaker reader/stronger writer group (X
2
(1, n = 295) = 4.38,p < .05). There was also a
significant difference in the proportion of males and females between the two
performance groups, with more females than males in the weaker reader/stronger
writer group and more males than females in the stronger reader/weaker writer group
(X (1, n - 295) = 12.96, p < .01). The weaker readers/stronger writers were more
likely than the stronger readers/weaker writers to report that they desired help in both
reading (x
2
(1, n = 295) = 14.31, p < .01) and writing { (1, n = 295) = 4.70,/? < .05).
To test for differences in continuous variables between the stronger
readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers, a number of/-tests were
analyzed. Performance group membership was created based on students' SAT
Critical Reading and Writing scores, so it was expected that there would be
I l l
statistically significant differences between the two groups based on these scores.
Group differences were also found in PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores, but not
PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores. The stronger readers/weaker writers had significantly
higher PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores than the weaker readers/stronger
writers (t - 4.89,/? < .01). The stronger readers/weaker writers also had significantly
higher Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores (t = 2.44, p < .05), however,
there were no other statistically significant differences found on the self-efficacy
measures.
As the students' self-efficacy beliefs were at the higher end of their scales, it
is possible that the means are not necessarily distinguishing students well enough in
order to predict the discrepant groups based on these meanssimilar to a ceiling
effect (McDonald, 1999). Therefore, new variables were created based on the
subtraction of students' scores on the Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills and
Tasks measures from the Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills and Tasks measures
to arrive at the Writing minus ReadingSkills and Writing minus ReadingTasks
values. The results of Mests comparing these variables for the two discrepant groups
showed that there were significant mean differences found between students' Writing
minus Reading -Skills scores (t = -3.69, p < .01), with students in the weaker
readers/stronger writers group, for example, indicating significantly higher self-
efficacy on the Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measure than they did on the
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measure.
112
Table 37
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Best Language
English Only
English and
Another
Language
All
(n = 295)
86.8%
7.8%
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(= 174)
87.9%
8.0%
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(=121)
85.1%
39.1%
Test of Significance
X*(2, = 295)=1.63
Another Language 5.4%
English as a Second
Language (ESL)
Experience
No 95.3%
4.0% 56.3%
X
2
(l, = 295) = 4.38*
97.7% 91.7%
Yes
Ethnicity/Race
Asian
4.7% 2.3% 8.3%
X
2
(4, = 295) = 5.15
13.2% 13.2% 13.2%
Black or African-
American
6.8% 5.7% 8.3%
Hispanic
White
Other
8.8% 10.9%
68.8%
2.4%
66.7%
3.4%
5.8%
71.9%
.8%
*p<.05. **/><.01.
113
Table 37 (continued)
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Stronger Weaker
Readers/ Readers/
Weaker Stronger
All Writers Writers
(ft = 295) (ft =174) (n =121) Test of Significance
Help Desired in
Reading
X
z
(l, ft = 295) =14.31**
No 83.1% 90.2% 72.7%
Yes 16.9% 9.8% 27.3%
Help Desired in
Writing
X
2
(l,ft = 295) = 4.70*
No 76.3% 81.0% 69.4%
Yes 23.7% 19.0% 30.6%
Gender X
2
(l, ft = 295) =12.96 * *
Females
Males
Parental Income
Level (combined)
<$20,000
$20,000-35,000
$35,000-60,000
>$ 100,000
49.8%
50.2%
13.6%
25.8%
30.2%
30.5%
40.8% 62.8%
59.2% 37.2%
16.1% 9.9%
28.2% 22.3%
26.4% 35.5%
29.3% 32.2%
^ ( 3 , ft = 295) = 5.11
*p<.05. **p<.01.
114
Table 37 (continued)
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Stronger Weaker
Readers/ Readers/
Weaker Stronger
All Writers Writers
Q? = 295) (ft =174) (rc=121)
Test of Significance
egionof the U.S.
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
New England
South
Southwest
West
18.2%
12.6%
11.2%
28.0%
11.2%
18.9%
18.5%
14.9%
7.1%
29.8%
10.1%
19.6%
17.8%
9.3%
16.9%
25.4%
12.7%
17.8%
t (5, n = 286) = 8.68
*p<.05. **p<. 01.
115
Table 38
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(ft =174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(n =121)
Test of
Significance
Average Grade in English r(293) = -1.28
Mean 3.49 3.58
SD 0.57 0.54
Cumulative High School GPA r(284) = -1.90
Mean 3.58 3.70
SD 0.53 0.47
Years of English
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Mean
SD
7.75
1.06
7.90
0.71
f(293) = -1.49
r(293) = 4.89*
]
Mean 58.51 52.75
SD 10.07 9.77
Writing
Mean
SD
56.44
10.51
58.77
10.35
r(293) = -1.89
*p<.05. **/?<.01.
116
Table 38 (continued)
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(/i =174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(ft =121)
Test of
Significance
SAT
Critical Reading /(293)= 11.33*"
Mean 660.52 528.93
SD 97.98 98.28
Writing ^(293) =-10.97**
Mean 527.07 651.49
SD 94.65 97.43
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
ReadingSkills
Reading Tasks
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
92.06
9.70
90.59
9.57
90.28
9.70
87.58
10.97
/(293)= 1.55
f(293) = 2.44
*p<.05. **/?<.01.
117
Table 38 (continued)
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
in = 174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
p? = 121)
Test of
Significance
Writing Skills f(293) = -0.93
Mean 89.82 91.20
SD 13.71 10.55
Writing Tasks /(293)= 1.13
Writing minus Reading
Skills
Mean
SD
84.04
12.83
Mean -2.24
82.31
13.16
.92
^(293) = -3.69**
SD 8.8 5.93
Writing minus Reading
Tasks
Mean
SD
-6.55
9.64
-5.26
9.63
f(293) = -1.13
*/7<.05. **p<.01.
118
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to examine the role of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing performance of high school students,
particularly those students who appeared to be much stronger readers than writers,
and much stronger writers than readers. Students were identified as exhibiting
discrepant reading and writing performance based on their 2006 SAT Critical
Reading and Writing scores. Their self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with the
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument and the Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Instrument, both developed by Shell et al. (1995; Shell et al., 1989).
Summary and Review of Findings
The first two research questions were designed to examine whether reading
self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and experiences in
reading (including prior English achievement, gender, and parental income) on
reading performance, as well as whether writing self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role
of students' background and experiences in writing (including prior English
achievement, gender, and parental income) on writing performance. These questions
were tested with partially and fully mediated path models that included the 619
students in the total sample.
119
As expected, the partially-mediated model, as opposed to the fully mediated
model, provided a better fit to the reading and writing performance data. The
partially-mediated reading and writing performance models both provided good fits to
the data based on chi-square and other fit indices. In the reading performance model,
reading self-efficacy significantly mediated the effects of high school English GPA
and parental income, but not gender, on reading performance. In other words, using
Sobel's formula to test for significance of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), reading
self-efficacy beliefs partially account for the influence of prior achievement in
English and parental income on reading performance. The standardized path
coefficient from reading self-efficacy beliefs to reading performance was positive and
significant at .44, which was the strongest path in that model.
In the writing performance model, writing self-efficacy significantly mediated
the effects of high school English GPA and parental income, but not gender, on
writing performance, with the strongest effect of mediation in the path from high
school English GPA to writing self-efficacy to writing performance (z = 6.71,/? <
.001). The standardized path coefficient from writing self-efficacy beliefs to writing
performance was positive and significant at .36, however, the strongest path in the
model was the direct path from high school English GPA to writing performance at
.40. Although Shell et al. (1995) found there was equivalent reading and writing
prediction from reading and writing self-efficacy and outcome expectancy measures,
the finding from the current study is consistent with Shell et al.'s (1989) finding that
student beliefs were less strongly related to writing performance than reading
performance.
120
There are a few differences between the reading and writing path models that
are worth noting. Based on the standardized path coefficients, the path from gender
(being female) to writing self-efficacy beliefs is significant, while the path from
gender to reading self-efficacy beliefs is not. Other research has shown similar
relationships between gender and writing self-efficacy (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares &
Valiante, 1997; Pajares & Valiante, 2001). Interestingly, gender is only significantly
related to SAT Critical Reading scores and not SAT Writing scores, with males
scoring higher on SAT Critical Reading than females. This relationship does not
appear to be mediated by self-efficacy beliefs, however the finding is consistent with
previous subgroup differences research on the SAT noting that for the past 20 years,
males have scored higher than females on the SAT Critical Reading test (Kobrin,
Sathy, & Shaw, 2006).
Another difference is that although high school English GPA appears to have
a similar relationship with reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs, there is a slightly
greater direct relationship between high school English GPA and SAT Writing, rather
than SAT Reading. Although further research is likely needed to better understand
why this may be so, potential reasons may be because high school English curricula
incorporate more writing activities as they are more easily and concretely assessed in
the school environment than reading comprehension or skills. Shell et al. (1995)
commented that in high school there is little direct emphasis on teaching or assessing
reading skills. Another reason may be because there is an increased emphasis on
writing in high schools with the introduction of the writing section on the SAT (Noeth
& Kobrin, 2007).
121
The following two research questions examined the amount of variance in
reading and writing performance that can be explained by reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs, after controlling for prior reading and writing achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and parental income. Of particular interest was whether
or not the role of self-efficacy beliefs was greater for the students exhibiting
discrepant performance. Each of these analyses were run in two different ways, with
PSAT/NMSQT scores as a measure of prior reading or writing achievement, as well
as with high school English GPA as a measure of prior achievement.
Of the four performance groups, reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly
contributed to the amount of variance explained in reading performance, when
controlling for both PSAT/NMSQT scores and high school English GPA, only for the
two discrepant groups. The amount of variance explained by self-efficacy beliefs was
higher for all groups when high school English GPA was in the model rather than
PSAT/NMSQT scores, except for the weak readers/weak writers. This is not
surprising given the close relationship between the PSAT/NMSQT and the SAT, and
the little variance left to be explained when PSAT/NMSQT is entered into a
regression analysis to explain SAT scores. Prior reading achievement was a
significant predictor of reading performance in all models except for the weak
readers/weak writers model with high school English GPA. The weak readers/weak
writers appeared to have weaker and different relationships among essentially all
variables in this study. This may be due to the lower motivation among this group as
they answered the measures, or the smaller sample size than the other groups. It is
possible that this group did not take the measures as seriously as the other three
groups. Any findings related to the weak readers/weak writers must be interpreted
with caution.
The patterns for predicting writing performance from writing self-efficacy
beliefs were slightly different from the patterns of reading self-efficacy predicting
reading performance. Of the four performance groups, all analyses including high
school English GPA resulted in a significant contribution of writing self-efficacy
beliefs to writing performance, except for the weak readers/weak writers. In the
analyses including PSAT/NMSQT Writing, writing self-efficacy beliefs contributed
significantly to the variance explained in writing performance only for the weaker
readers/stronger writers. This was also the largest amount of variance explained by
self-efficacy beliefs across the reading and writing models that included
PSAT/NMSQT scores (5%). It appears that for this group, as compared to the other
groups, writing self-efficacy beliefs played a larger role in predicting writing
performance. This is not necessarily surprising given that these students tend to be
stronger in their writing than their reading performance.
An additional two research questions addressed the role that reading self-
efficacy beliefs may play in writing performance and the role that writing self-
efficacy beliefs may play in reading performance in order to gain a better
understanding of the interchangeability of the reading and writing self-efficacy belief
measures. This was examined by controlling for prior reading achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and parental income, and determining whether writing
self-efficacy beliefs predicted reading performance. It was also examined by
controlling for prior writing achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
123
parental income, and determining whether reading self-efficacy beliefs predicted
writing performance. Each of these analyses were run in two different ways, with
PSAT/NMSQT scores as prior measures of reading or writing achievement as well as
with high school English GPA as a measure of prior achievement. Of particular
interest was whether the discrepant groups showed that the measures of reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs were less interchangeable than the strong readers/strong
writers and the weak readers/weak writers. If this was to be the case, then merely
providing a measure of reading self-efficacy to assess students' reading or writing
self-efficacy could be misleading for those with discrepant reading and writing beliefs
and performanceEnglish educators could be missing out on noticing this particular
issue for the discrepant students in order to target interventions.
The results of these analyses revealed that for the total group, reading self-
efficacy did a slightly better job of predicting reading performance than writing self-
efficacy beliefs, however, writing and reading self-efficacy beliefs seem to similarly
predict writing performance. This may be related to Shanahan and Lomax's (1986)
finding that, although the most accurate theoretical model of the reading-writing
relationship was the interactive model where reading and writing influence the
development of each other, the reading-to- writing model fit their data better than the
writing-to-reading model. They hypothesized that this may be due to students being
given a greater opportunity to use their reading skills to enhance their writing
knowledge in schools and less of an opportunity to use their writing skills to enhance
their reading knowledge and skills. Another hypothesis to explain this finding may be
that any test of writing is usually inherently also a test of reading, as the test-taker
124
must read and interpret the question or prompt before responding in an essay format
or multiple choice format (Powers & Fowles, 1999). For the stronger readers/weaker
writers as well as the weaker readers/stronger writers, reading self-efficacy beliefs
better predicted reading performance than writing self-efficacy beliefs, and reading
self-efficacy also better predicted writing performance than writing self-efficacy
beliefs. For the strong readers/strong writers, reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs
seemed to similarly predict reading performance, and writing self-efficacy beliefs
better predicted writing performance than reading self-efficacy beliefs. For the weak
readers/weak writers, neither reading nor writing self-efficacy beliefs predict reading
or writing performancealthough the standardized betas for the self-efficacy
measures are stronger in both cases when the self-efficacy beliefs matched the
performance domain (e.g. writing self-efficacy beliefs more strongly related to
writing performance than reading performance).
Though a preliminary look at these findings may result in the thinking that the
reading and writing self-efficacy measures may be somewhat interchangeable, a
closer look may suggest otherwise. When a Mest was conducted on the variables that
represented the differences in students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Tasks and Skills, there were significant mean differences found in the differences
between students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills scores for the
stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers. This analysis
showed that simply by subtracting the reading and writing self-efficacy measures for
individual students, educators may be able to reveal the same reading and writing
performance discrepancies that exist and help these students build and improve their
weaker area.
Finally, this study examined whether there were significant differences in
writing self-efficacy, reading self-efficacy, prior English achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, socioeconomic status, and other background variables
between the two discrepant groups. These chi-square tests of association and /-tests
showed that the weaker reader/stronger writer group had significantly more students
reporting to have had ESL experience. There was also a significant difference in the
proportion of males and females between the two performance groups, with more
females than males in the weaker reader/stronger writer group. Interestingly, the
weaker readers/stronger writers were significantly more likely than the stronger
readers/weaker writers to report that they desired help in both reading, as well as and
writing.
As performance group membership was created based on students' SAT
Critical Reading and Writing scores, it was expected that there would be statistically
significant differences between the two groups based on these scores. However,
group differences were also found in PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores, but not
PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores. The stronger readers/weaker writers had significantly
higher PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores than the weaker readers/stronger
writers. It is possible that a great deal of writing instruction and practice in the form
of college essays or SAT preparation takes place in between when these students take
the PSAT/NMSQT and the SAT, and is thus responsible for the larger writing
performance differences between the two groups on the SAT as opposed to the
PSAT/NMSQT. The stronger readers/weaker writers also had significantly higher
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores, however there were no other
statistically significant difference in the means of the individual self-efficacy
measures. There were, however, significant differences in the means of the subtracted
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measures for the two discrepant
groups.
These findings paint a very interesting picture of the weaker readers/stronger
writers group. Particularly because this group has never been studied, there are clear
avenues for future research to better understand these students. It is not necessarily
surprising that the group that is stronger in writing is more likely to be female. There
has been a great deal of research on writing performance with gender differences
favoring females (see Burton, Lewis, & Robertson, 1988; Hyde & Linn, 1988;
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Wilder & Powell, 1989). In an examination of the
influence of gender on different writing tasks, Engelhard, Gordon, Siddle Walker, and
Gabrielson (1994), found that adolescent females tended to use more precise and
exact grammar, and were also more likely than males to have mastered the language
of the schools as reflected in statewide writing assessments.
The greater ESL experience in the weaker reader/stronger writer group, may
be related to issues of biliteracy or the transfer of literacy processing skills from
students' first language to English. For example, Holm and Dodd (1996) found that
students from nonalphabetic written language backgrounds will likely have
difficulties with new or unfamiliar words when attending universities where English
is the medium of instruction. There are likely a great deal of unfamiliar words to
127
students on the SAT Critical Reading section, whereas the Writing multiple choice
section is more rule-based and related to grammar. Also, the SAT essay is student-
produced as opposed to based on the constraints placed on a reader by the author of
an existing text. This explanation may be partially responsible for the performance
discrepancy for these students. Escamilla (2006) points out that there is a great need
for research on biliteracy in the United States, as there are many language-specific
issues in the acquisition of literacy and biliteracy and different orthographic systems,
for example, may warrant different reading or writing strategies for students.
Another interesting finding related to the weaker readers/stronger writers is
that there was a significant negative correlation between combined parental income
and high school GPA (r = -.20, p < .05). Perhaps this is related to their greater ESL
experience, having parents who possibly immigrated to the United States and finding
lower-paying jobs, yet instilling the importance of education in their children. This
also may be tied into the finding that these students desire help in reading and writing
significantly more than the stronger readers/weaker writers. It is possible that after
having ESL experience, it is hard for students to distinguish when they no longer
require help or assistance in Englishin both reading and writing. It is also possible
that these students may simply be help-seekers, highly resourceful, and utilize a great
deal of self-regulatory strategies in both reading and more so writing. This may
influence their performance in high schoolwhich this study showed is more closely
tied to writing performance. Though the findings are not significant, the weaker
readers/stronger writers did have higher overall high school and English GPAs than
the stronger readers/weaker writers. Future research on these students may be used to
128
inform instructional and motivational interventions to boost their lagging reading
performance.
Implications for Researchers and Literacy Educators
The results of this study have showed that both directly and indirectly, reading
and writing self-efficacy play a prominent role in reading and writing performance,
respectively. Partially mediated models tested by path analysis clearly showed these
strong relationships. This highlights the need for educators to recognize the important
role of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs on reading and writing performance
and the value in implementing reading and writing self-efficacy interventions in the
classroom to improve students' motivation and performance (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2003; Schunk, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Though reading and writing
performance do depend in part on students' verbal abilities, research has shown that
cognitive and motivational variables play a significant role (Schunk & Zimmerman;
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). In an in-depth, qualitative study of how one
Michigan elementary school produced high reading and writing achievement
compared with schools serving similar student populations, Pressley, Mohan,
Raphael, and Fingeret (2007) found that almost every page of field notes contained an
observation of teachers utilizing motivating strategies with students.
By assessing students reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs using the
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measures, for example, educators
can better understand how closely related students' reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs are to each other. Subtracting the two averages on these measures for each
student can show whether there is a large gap between students' reading and writing
129
self-efficacy beliefsand in what direction this gap may present itself. This
information can be useful in targeting the students' weaker areas and building on the
shared aspects of reading and/or writing to enhance self-efficacy beliefs and
performance in the weaker area.
Recommended methods for raising reading and writing self-efficacy are not
necessarily in short supply in the research, though potentially they are in limited use
in the classroom. Schunk and his colleagues have written extensively on the influence
of modeling, goal setting, and progress feedback on reading and writing self-efficacy
(Schunk, 2003: Schunk & Lilly, 1984; Schunk & Pajares, 2003; Schunk & Rice,
1993; Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Students acquire a
great deal of self-efficacy information vicariously, or through exposure to models.
Observing similar others succeed at a task can raise the observer's self-efficacy.
Models can raise self-efficacy for observers who may believe that he/she can also be
successful at a task if they follow the same behavioral sequence. This is somewhat
related to Vygotsky's (1962) sociocultural theory that states socially-mediated
activity is an important influence on thought (as cited in Schunk & Zimmerman,
2007).
Goal setting entails beginning a learning activity with goals related to
acquiring skills and knowledge, finishing work and attaining good grades (Schunk,
2003). When students evaluate their progress in relation to the goals they have set,
self-efficacy is usually increased and motivation is sustained. Similarly, when there is
a discrepancy between the student's performance and their goal, they are more likely
to increase their effort to achieve that goal.
130
Feedback by others and by oneself is also crucial to raising students' self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). This is
related to setting goals and understanding when they have been reached and when
more work needs to be done. Accurate self-evaluation of one's capabilities and
progress are particularly important in high school when teachers may have 150
students as opposed to 25 in elementary school and may not be able to provide
detailed feedback for each student on their reading and writing skills. Schunk (2003)
recommends teaching students self-evaluative strategies, such as completing a self-
report scale where students rate their progress in meeting certain goals and then
discuss these ratings with the teacher or similar others who provide feedback.
It would be difficult to argue that any of these interventions or strategies
would not be useful for all of the students in this study. However, the potential
effectiveness of these interventions for students with discrepant reading and writing
performance lies in the notion that students must be able to first differentiate between
their reading and writing performance in high schooland not just on the SAT or
other tests of reading and writing performance. In schools, reading and writing are
often lumped together, and perhaps taught and tested in a class called English
Language Arts, or simply English. In high school, in order for students to hold
accurate self-efficacy beliefs in reading and writing, they must given opportunities to
understand and differentiate these beliefs in reading and writing separately. This is
not to undermine the educational utility in connecting reading with writing and
writing with reading, but to allow for students to understand the most accurate and
complete picture of their literacy skills and abilities. This differentiation would seem
131
to have benefited the weaker readers/stronger writer group, many of whom reported
they desire help in both reading and writing, despite doing well in writing. They also
had lower Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores than the stronger
readers/weaker writers. It is possible that because a person can quickly assess whether
he/she understands something they are reading, as opposed to needing feedback from
others on their writing, that reading self-efficacy is more often generalized to serve as
English self-efficacy for high school students.
Another finding of import to educators is the existence of students who are
weaker readers/stronger writers and their unique characteristics worthy of future
research. Though researchers examining patients with brain injuries recognized long
ago that there could be students who could read well and write poorly or vice versa
(Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000), there has been almost no research on the students
who can write well but read at lower levels than expected. This study provides a
useful first glimpse for researchers and educators interested in better serving these
students. It appears that these students are more likely to be female, have ESL
experience, and are more likely to report desiring help in both reading and writing. A
great deal of future research must be done to better understand why these students
might be performing differently in the similar domains of reading and writing.
Limitations
There were a few inevitable limitations of this study that deserve mention.
First, the low response rate to the online measures and the higher academic ability of
the students that did respond to the measures brings to question the generalizability of
the results of this study. Low response rates are commonly found in online surveys
132
(Carini, Hayek, Kuh, Kennedy, & Ouimet, 2003; Sax, Gilmartin, Lee, & Hagedorn,
2003), and therefore many more students were e-mailed the measures (N= 18,182)
than were expected to respond. The students that did respond (N= 619) were more
academically able than the nonresponders, suggesting that the results should be
interpreted with some caution. It is not surprising to find that students with higher
SAT scores were more likely to participate in a study related to the College Board
these students probably had more positive feelings toward the testing experience.
Despite the low response rate and the more academically able sample, it is important
to note the robustness of the two structural equation models predicting reading and
writing performance, as well as the large amount of variance explained in the
regression models. Up to 78% of the variance in reading performance was predicted
and up to 72% of the variance in writing performance was predicted in the models
tested. It is likely that these models would also be significantly predictive for a less
academically able sample.
Second, in order to target the students considered to have discrepant reading
and writing abilities, it was necessary to first know their SAT scores. It is possible
that because these students have received and processed their Critical Reading and
Writing SAT scores that their reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs may be
affected by this information (e.g., a personally satisfying Critical Reading score might
positively impact the student's reading self-efficacy beliefs).
This is also related to the notion that self-efficacy instruments are most useful
when administered in close temporal proximity to the prediction target, such as the
SAT (Bandura, 1997). However, this is not necessarily a limitation to this study.
133
Bong (2002) tested this notion by comparing the utility of adolescents' self-efficacy
for predicting various performance outcomes assessed after increasingly longer time
periods from the self-efficacy instrument. This research found that students' self-
efficacy beliefs at the beginning of a semester predicted end-of-semester exam
performance just as accurately as they predicted performance on exams given earlier
in the semester and closer in time to the administration of the self-efficacy instrument.
Bong (2006) commented that researchers are urged to assess adolescents' self-
efficacy beliefs and performance in reasonable temporal proximity. The current study
was certainly within the realm of reasonable temporal proximity.
An additional limitation is that reading and writing performance in this study
was defined only by scores on the Critical Reading and Writing sections of the SAT,
respectively. In particular, the SAT Writing test has received criticism because it is a
short, timed test that includes multiple choice questions that "emphasize editing
skills" and an essay scoring system that focuses on " a few relatively narrow features
of a text" (National Council of Teachers of English Task Force on SAT and ACT
Writing Tests, 2005, p. 7). Although the SAT Critical Reading and Writing sections
are neither complete nor perfect measures of these domains, research has
demonstrated a strong link between the skills measured by the SAT introduced in
March 2005 and high school and college curricula and instructional practice in
reading and writing (Milewski, Johnsen, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005). Another limitation
includes that the sample only consisted of students who turned 18-years-old prior to
taking the SAT, in order to be able to contact students to administer the self-efficacy
instruments online without parental permission. While many students who take the
SAT are 18-years-old or older, most of the students are younger.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research on this topic should likely focus on three main issues: (a)
replicating this study with different measures of reading and writing performance; (b)
the ways that students' school experiences influence the development of their reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs and the relationship of the beliefs to performance;
and (c) a more in depth examination of the weaker readers/stronger writers.
First, it would be interesting to conduct similar research with other measures
of reading and writing performance serving as the dependent variables to ensure that
the findings from this study are not unique to the SAT. For the same reason, it may
also be worthwhile to pursue other measures of reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and their relationship to the SAT and other reading and writing performance
measures. Also, research using state reading and writing assessments taken in
different academic grades at the same time, along with measures of reading and
writing self-efficacy, would allow for the study of the developmental aspects of
reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs and performance. It could provide an
informative snapshot of the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and reading and writing performance at different developmental stages.
A second avenue of research resulting from this study is the relationship of
high school English instruction to the development of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs and their relation to reading and writing performance. It may useful to
conduct a study of the discrepant students using multilevel modeling techniques to
understand if there something varying in English instruction at the school level for
these particular students. Research in this area may also include studying whether
different self-efficacy interventions (e.g. goal setting, feedback, self-evaluation) may
be more effective for reading versus writing self-efficacy, or for stronger
readers/weaker writers versus weaker readers/stronger writers. It would also be useful
to examine the effectiveness of targeting a discrepant student's area of weaker self-
efficacy to improve self-efficacy and performance in that area using methods that
build on their stronger domain.
Also, because the weaker readers/stronger writers were identified as more
likely to be female, have ESL experience, and to desire help in both reading and
writing, it would be important to examine the role of gender in discrepant reading and
writing performanceas well as the potential mediational role of self-efficacy on
gender for the discrepant groups. In addition, an examination of the role of ESL
instruction and experience on the development of discrepant reading and writing
performance would be usefuland it would be important to study this experience
based on differences in students' first languages. Research on the students' desiring
help in writing when they appear to be exhibiting successful writing performance is
also essential. It is possible these students are not able to differentiate their weaker
reading performance from their stronger writing performance and are generalizing
their views of themselves as weak readers to writing and other domains. It is also
possible that these help-seeking behaviors are what have launched them to become so
successful in writing. There is a great deal to learn about this group of students, as
they have never been studied before and such research may shed light on how
discrepant reading and writing performance develops.
Conclusions
The results of this study have showed that both directly and indirectly, reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs play a prominent role in reading and writing
performance, respectively. As expected, reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs did
indeed play a larger role in reading and writing performance for students with
discrepant rather than consistent reading and writing performance. The contribution
of writing self-efficacy beliefs to writing performance was larger for weaker
readers/stronger writers than for the stronger readers/weaker writers. Also the
contribution of reading self-efficacy beliefs was stronger for the stronger
readers/weaker writers than for the weaker readers/stronger writers. In an analysis of
the interchangeability of reading and writing self-efficacy measures on reading and
writing performance, this research showed that for most groups reading self-efficacy
beliefs may do a better job at predicting both reading as well as writing performance.
However, this finding should be interpreted with caution as an examination of the
difference between students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
scores revealed significant mean differences. This suggests that using the two
measures together by subtracting one from the other, instead of one or the other, may
help educators to determine whether a student is exhibiting discrepant reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs. This can be a great opportunity to improve the student's
weaker area.
137
A number of reading and writing self-efficacy interventions, including
modeling, goal setting, and progress feedback were recommended for all students;
however, it was highlighted that an understanding of implementing these
interventions in both reading and writing domainswith an awareness that they
sometimes utilize different skillscan be particularly useful. Students with
discrepant performance would likely benefit from understanding how their self-
efficacy beliefs and performance may differ in these two related but different
domains.
As this was the first study of students who are stronger writers than readers,
future research should be directed at better understanding these students and the
potential roles that gender, ESL experience and help-seeking may play in the
performance discrepancy. It would also be useful to examine how students' school
experiences influence the development of their reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and the relationship of their beliefs to performance. Of import would be to
determine if different self-efficacy interventions are more effective for stronger
readers/weaker writers in improving their writing self-efficacy and performance or for
weaker readers/stronger writers in improving their reading self-efficacy and
performance.
138
REFERENCES
139
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of
Literacy Research, 34, 189-208.
Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., & Waff, D. R.
(Eds.) (1998). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing
societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 51(2), 269-290.
Bandura, A. (2006a). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-44).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-338). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
140
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O'Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt
practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and
performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269-290.
Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-
efficacy judgments for immediate and delayed academic performances.
Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 133-162.
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could
successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287-306). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Brandt, D. (1986). Social foundations of reading and writing. In B. T. Peterson (Ed.),
Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 115-126). Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Burton, N. W., Lewis, C, & Robertson, N. (1988). Sex differences in SAT scores.
(College Board Research Report No. 1988-9). New York: The College Board.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C, Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003).
College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter?
Research in Higher Education, 44, 1-19.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-
perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 19, 5-24.
Clifford, G. J. (1989). A Sisyphean task: Historical perspectives on writing and
reading instruction. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.), Collaboration through reading and
writing (pp. 25-83). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
141
College Board. (2006). Understanding 2006 PSAT/NMSQTscores. Retrieved
November 28, 2006, from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/psat/coordinate/downloads
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in motivational beliefs of Asian
American and non-Asian American students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 433^140.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C, Wigfield, A., Buchanan, D. R., Flanagan, C, & Mac Iver,
D. (1993). The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents'
experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Engelhard, G., Gordon, B., Siddle Walker, E., Gabrielson, S. (1994). The influence of
writing tasks and gender on quality of writing for Black and White students.
Journal of Educational Research, 87, 197-209.
Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-
speaking emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers
College Record, 11, 2329-2353.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their
development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Graham, S'., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63-
84). New York: Macmillan.
Graves, D., & Hansen, J. (1983). The author's chair. Language Arts, 60(2), 176-183.
Gushue, G. V., & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship of ethnic identity and
gender role attitudes to the development of career choice goals among Black
and Latina girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 379-385.
Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition
of English literacy. Cognition, 59, 119147.
Honeycutt, R. L. (2002). Good readers/poor writers: An investigation of the
strategies, understanding, and meaning that good readers who are poor
writers ascribe to writing narrative text on-demand. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
142
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.
H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling; Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes
in children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences
across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509-527.
Jetton, T. L., & Dole, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). Adolescent literacy research and practice.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Jinks, J., & Lorsbach, A. (2003). Introduction: Motivation and self-efficacy belief.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 113-118.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children's perceived academic self-efficacy: An
inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72, 224-230.
Jordan, E. C. (1986). The comprehending and composing processes of good writers
who are good readers and poor writers who are good readers. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 47 (08), 2972A. (UMI No. 8627468)
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (1999). Research methodology: Taming the cyber
frontier-techniques for improving online surveys. Social Science Computer
Review, 77,323-337.
Klassen, R. M. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-
efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14,173-203.
Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-
cultural perspective. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 39, 205-230.
Klassen, R. M. (2006). Too much confidence: The self-efficacy of adolescents with
learning disabilities. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (pp. 181-200). Greewich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kobrin, J. L., Sathy, V., & Shaw, E. J. (2006). An historical view of subgroup
performance differences on the SAT Reasoning Test (College Board Research
Report No. 2006-5). New York: The College Board.
143
Kucer, S. B. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel
processes. Written Communication, 2, 317-336.
Kucer, S. B. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J. Squire (Ed.), The
dynamics of language learning: Research in the language arts (pp. 27-51).
Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Kucer, S. B. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading
and writing in school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Langer, J. A. (1986a). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Langer, J. A. (1986b). Reading, writing, and understanding: An analysis of the
construction of meaning. Written Communication, 5(2), 219-267.
Langer, J. A., & Allington, R. (1992). Curriculum research in reading and writing. In
P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 687-725).
New York: Macmillan.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive
tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research,
theory, and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in
student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression & correlation: A guide for
students and researchers. London: Sage.
144
Milewski, G. B., Johnsen, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M.. (2005). A survey to evaluate
the alignment of the new SAT writing and critical reading sections to
curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No.
2005-1). New York: The College Board.
Mosenthal, P. (1983). [Review of the book Relating reading and writing: Developing
a transactional theory of the writing process]. Journal of Reading Behavior,
15, 75-77.
National Council of Teachers of English Task Force on SAT and ACT Writing Tests.
(2005). The impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing tests. Retrieved
October 15,2007, from
http://www.ncte.org/library/files/About_NCTE/Press_Center/SAT/SAT-ACT-
tf-report.pdf
Nelson, N. (1998). Reading and writing contextualized. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), The reading-writing connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the
national society for the study of education. Chicago: National Society for the
Study of Education.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading-writing connection viewed
historically. InN. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing
connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of
education (pp. 1-52). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Nicaise, M., & Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering reading comprehension in college
students. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 16, 283-337.
Noeth, R. J., & Kobrin, J. K. (2007). Writing changes in the nation's K-12 education
system (RN-34). New York: The College Board.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oettingen, G., & Zosuls, K. M. (2006). Culture and self-efficacy in adolescents. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 245-266).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the
writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230-240.
145
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response formats in writing self-
efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high
school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163-175.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 193-203.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42, 190-198.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing
self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91,50-61.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-beliefs in psychology and
education: A historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic
achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 3-21). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). The influence of self-efficacy on elementary
students' writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing
self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24, 390-405.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and
achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation?
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 366-381.
146
Palmer, W. S. (1986, March). Good readers/poor writers: Some implications for
classroom practices. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of
English Spring Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children's reading strategies, metacognition, and
motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.
Petersen, B. T. (1986). Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Pike, K., Compain, R., & Mumper, J. (1994). New connections: An integrated
approach to literacy. New York: Harper Collins.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Pressley, M. (2004). The need for research on secondary literacy education. In T. L.
Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp.
415-432). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Raphael, L. M., & Fingeret, L. (2007). How does Bennett
Woods Elementary School produce such high reading and writing
achievement?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 221-240.
Powers, D.E., & Fowles, M.E. (1999). Testtakers' judgments of essay prompts:
Perceptions and performance. Educational Assessment, 6, 3-22.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In M. R.
Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th
ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential
investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and
attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2003). Using web surveys
to reach community college students: An analysis of response rates and
response bias. Association of Institutional Research. Miami, FL.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling,
goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159
172.
147
Schunk, D. H., & Lilly, M. W. (1984). Sex differences in self-efficacy and
attributions: Influence of performance feedback. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 4, 205-213.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In
F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical
and applied evidence. In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories
revisited(pp. 115-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical
and applied evidence. In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories
revisited (pp. 115-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects
on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial
reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-
efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18,
337-354.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and
self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 23, 7-25.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory
multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
Shanahan, T. (1987). The shared knowledge of reading and writing. Reading
Psychology: An International Quarterly, 8, 93-102.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical
models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 116-123.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C, & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and
outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-
level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 386-398.
148
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C, & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
360-407.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and
suggested directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thacker, P. R. (1990). Effects of text organization on reading in ninth-grade good and
poor readers and writers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (06),
1971A. (UMI No. 9032467)
Thacker, P. R. (1991). Text organization in reading: What ninth grade good and poor
readers and writers know. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003).
The neglected "R ": The need for a writing revolution. New York: College
Board.
Tierney, R. J. (1983, December). Analyzing composing behavior: Planning, aligning,
revising. Paper presented at the 33rd annual National Reading Conference,
Austin, TX.
Tierney, R. J., & Leys, M. (1986). What is the value of connecting reading and
writing? In B. T. Peterson (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and
writing (pp. 15-29). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship:
Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 246-280). New York:
Longman.
Valiante, G. (2001). Writing self-efficacy and gender orientation: A developmental
perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta,
GA.
149
Vogt, P. V. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for
the social sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, B. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 173-187.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent
and long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16,
390^106.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of
11 and 25. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 148-185). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children's
motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The
Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.
Wilder, G., & Powell, K. (1989). Sex differences in test performance: A survey of the
literature (College Board Research Report No. 1989-3). New York: The
College Board.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4),
845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents' development of personal
agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares
& T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45-70).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
150
APPENDIX A
Instruments
151
Items used from the 2006 SAT Questionnaire
1. Indicate the total number of years of high school courses (in grades 9 through 12)
you have taken or plan to take in each of the subjects listed below. If you have not
taken any course in a subject and do not plan to take one in high school, fill in the
oval in the "None" column. If you repeat a course, count it only once. If one (or
more) of the courses is an advanced placement, accelerated, or honors course, fill in
the oval in the "AP/Honors" column.
Subject of interest for this item: English (for example, composition, grammar, or
literature)
2. Enter the average grade for all courses you have already taken in each subject.
A or excellent (usually 90-100)
B or good (usually 80-89)
C or fair (usually 70-79)
D or passing (usually 60-69)
E or F or failing (usually 59 or below)
Subject of interest for this item: English
3. Indicate your cumulative grade point average for all academic subjects in high
school.
A+(97-100) C+(77-79)
A (93-96) C (73-76)
A-(90-92) C-(70-72)
B+(87-89) D+(67-69)
B (83-86) D (60-66)
B-(80-82) E or F (59 or below)
4. What is your most recent high school class rank? (For example, if you are 15
th
in a
class of 100, you are in the second tenth.) If you do not know your rank, check with
your high school counselor. If rank is not used in your school, give your best
estimate.
a. Highest tenth 1
I n t h e
b. Second tenth J r-
ft
,
c. Second fifth
d. Middle fifth
e. Fourth fifth
f. Lowest fifth
152
5. Provide information about the content of some of the high school courses that you
have taken or plan to take, and related activities. (You may mark more than one in
each subject area.)
Subject of interest: English course work or experience
a. American Literature
b. British Literature
c. Composition
d. Grammar
e. Literature of a country other than the United States or Britain
f. Literature of different historical periods
g. Speaking and listening skills
h. English as a second language
6. What is the highest level of education you plan to complete beyond high school?
(Mark only one.)
a. Specialized training or certificate program
b. Two-year associate of arts or sciences degree (such as AA, AAS, or
AS)
c. Bachelor's degree (such as BA or BS)
d. Master's degree (such as MA, MBA, or MS)
e. Doctoral or related degree (such as PhD, JD, MD, DVM)
f. Other
g. Undecided
7. How do you describe yourself? (Mark only one.)
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native
b. Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander
c. Black or African American
d. Mexican or Mexican American
e. Puerto Rican
f. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American
g. White
h. Other
8. Answer both questions below about your language background.
a. What language did you learn to speak first?
1. English only
2. English and another language about the same
3. Another language
b. What language do you know best?
1. English only
2. English and another language about the same
3. Another language
153
9. How do you think you compare with other people your own age in the following
three areas of ability? For each area, fill in the appropriate response.
Subject of interest for this item: Writing ability
Among the highest 10 percent in this area of ability
Above average in this area
Average in this area
Below average in this area
10. Indicate the highest level of education completed by your father (or male
guardian) and your mother (or female guardian) by filling in the appropriate oval in
each column. (Mark only one.)
a. Grade school
b. Some high school
c. High school diploma or equivalent
d. Business or trade school
e. Some college
f. Associate or two-year degree
g. Bachelor's or four-year degree
h. Some graduate or professional school
i. Graduate or professional degree
11. What was the approximate combined income of your parents before taxes last
year? Include taxable and nontaxable income from all sources.
a. Less than $10,000
b. About $10,000 to $15,000
c. About $15,000 to $20,000
d. About $20,000 to $25,000
e. About $25,000 to $30,000
f. About $30,000 to $35,000
g. About $35,000 to $40,000
h. About $40,000 to $50,000
i. About $50,000 to $60,000
j . About $60,000 to $70,000
k. About $70,000 to $80,000
1. About $80,000 to $100,000
m. More than $100,000
n. I don't know
o. I prefer not to answer
154
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (Adapted from Shell, Murphy, &
Bruning, 1989)
Directions: On a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident), how
confident are you that you can successfully read each of the following items?
You may select any number between 0 and 100.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all confident Completely
Confident
1. A letter from a friend or family member
2. A recipe for cooking a meal
3. A rental contract for leasing an apartment
4. An automobile insurance contract
5. An employment application
6. An instruction manual for operating a computer
7. An employee manual describing job duties and company procedures
8. The questions on a multiple choice test in a high school class
9. A high school textbook in your best subject
10. A college level textbook in your best subject
11. A technical article in a publication related to your best subject
12. The daily newspaper
13. An article in Time or Newsweek
14. A short fiction story
15. A 400 page novel
16. A play by Shakespeare
17. A book of poetry
18. A philosophical essay
Directions: On a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident), how
confident are you that you can read and apply the following skills? You may
select any number between 0 and 100.
1. Recognize letters
2. Pronounce individual words
3. Recognize parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)
4. Recognize grammatically correct sentence structure
5. Understand the meaning of plurals, verb tenses, prefixes, and suffixes
6. Underst and short and long sentences
7. Phonetically "sound out" new words
8. Recognize the "main points" or themes in a passage or short story
9. Use previous knowledge to help understand new material
10. Compare and contrast ideas in a passage
11. Make inferences about the author's views
155
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (Adapted from Shell, Murphy, & Bruning,
1989)
Directions: On a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident), how
confident are you that you can successfully communicate, in writing, what you
want to say in each of the following writing tasks? You may select any number
between 0 and 100.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all confident Completely
Confident
1. Write a letter to a friend or family member
2. List instructions to play a card game
3. Write an instruction manual for operating a computer
4. Prepare a resume describing your employment history and skills
5. Write a one or two sentence answer to a specific test question
6. Compose a one or two page essay in answer to a test question
7. Write a term paper of 15 to 20 pages
8. State your opinion on a topic using strong examples to support your
point
9. Author a technical article related to your best subject for publication
10. Write a letter to the editor of a daily newspaper
11. Compose an article for a popular magazine such as Newsweek
12. Author a short fiction story
13. Author a 100 page novel
14. Compose a poem on the topic of your choice
15. Write useful class notes
16. Write a critical analysis of another author's work
Directions: On a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident), how
confident are you that you can write and apply each of the following writing
skills? You may select any number between 0 and 100.
1. Correctly spell all words in a one page passage
2. Correctly punctuate a one page passage
3. Correctly use parts of speech (i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)
4. Write a simple sentence with proper punctuation and grammatical
structure
5. Correctly use plurals, verb t enses, prefixes, and suffixes
6. Write compound and complex sentences with proper punctuation and
grammatical structure
7. Organize sentences into a paragraph so as to clearly express a theme
8. Write a paper with good overall organization (e.g. ideas in order,
effective transitions, etc.)
9. Use clear examples to support your point(s)
156
APPENDIX B
Correspondence with Participants
157
College Board E-mail
Dear Student,
In the next few days you will be contacted by a College Board researcher, Emily
Shaw, who is examining the relationship between reading and writing for her doctoral
dissertation. Please understand that participation in this study, which entails
answering two surveys about your reading and writing knowledge and skills, is
entirely voluntary. Choosing not to participate in the study will not harm your
relationship with the College Board in any way. The College Board is not sponsoring
or funding this research. We are only sending this letter on Emily's behalf in case you
find her project of interest.
Thank you,
The College Board
158
Researcher's E-mail with Link to Instruments
Dear Student,
My name is Emily Shaw and I am currently a doctoral student in the Educational
Psychology Program at Fordham University in New York. I am also a researcher at
the College Board. Currently, I am doing research for my dissertation on the
relationship between reading and writing. In order to investigate this reading-writing
relationship, I am contacting students like yourself who have taken the SAT and
requesting that you fill out a survey on your reading and writing skills and
knowledge. It should take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Here is the link to the
online survey: INSERT LINK HERE. All of the information you provide will be
treated confidentially. Results of the study will be reported in group terms, never as
single responses from any individual.
There are no feasible risks involved in participating in this study. Though I would
greatly appreciate your participation, please be aware that you have the right not to
participate and/or the right to discontinue you participation at any time. As a reward
for your participation in the study, you will be automatically entered in a drawing to
win one of two iPod nanos for taking the time to participate in the study.
If you have any further questions about participating in the study, please feel free to
contact me at emshaw@fordham.edu or (212) 713-8172, my sponsoring faculty
member, Dr. Akane Zusho at (212) 636-6460, or Dr. Lee Badger, Chair of the
Institutional Review Board at Fordham University at (212) 636-7946. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Emily J. Shaw, MSEd
PhD Candidate, Fordham University
159
Informed Consent Letter
[Note: this will be the first piece of information on the online survey after clicking on
the link.]
I have been invited to participate in a research project investigating the relationship
between reading and writing. If I choose to participate in the project, I will be asked
to complete two questionnaires that will take a total of 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
I understand that the questionnaires will ask for information about my confidence in
completing tasks or possessing skills in reading and writing.
I understand that my answers to the questions asked will be entered into a summary.
My own personal answers will be kept completely confidential. My name will be
removed from the materials I submit and I will thereafter be referred to by a code
number assigned by the researcher. The summary results will be included in Emily
Shaw's doctoral dissertation. Emily Shaw will have access to the data which will be
maintained at the College Board for the next three years. There are no foreseeable
risks involved in participating in the study. The benefits of participating in this
research include that it will assist literacy educators and researchers in better
understanding the relationship between reading and writing and the role played by
reading and writing self beliefs in this relationship.
I realize that my participation is completely voluntary and that I may withdraw from
participation at any point. I also realize that I have the right not to answer any
questions. If I agree to participate I "check off the box below that indicates my
agreement to the study coordinator. Finally, I understand that I will be automatically
entered in a drawing that will award two iPod nanos, one to each student, as a "thank
you" for my participation upon the researcher's receipt of my completed online
questionnaires.
I am aware that this project was reviewed and approved by Fordham's Institutional
Review Board (IRB), and that if I have concerns or questions about my rights as a
participant, I can contact Dr. Lee Badger, Chairperson of Fordham's IRB at
irb@fordham.edu. Should I have questions about the particulars of the research, I can
contact Emily Shaw at emshaw@fordham.edu or Dr. Akane Zusho at
zusho@fordham.edu .
D I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE in this study and have read the above Informed
Consent letter.
I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE in this study.
160
ABSTRACT
161
THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS
WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING
PERFORMANCE
Emily Jennifer Shaw, PhD
Fordham University, New York, 2007
Mentor: Akane Zusho, PhD
The goal of this study was to examine the role of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing performance of high school students. Of
particular interest was whether self-efficacy beliefs represented greater contributions
to the prediction of performance for students with discrepant reading and writing
performance on the SAT. Furthermore, recognizing the conditions under which
reading self-efficacy beliefs generalize to writing activities and writing self-efficacy
beliefs generalize to reading activities, informs the self-efficacy literature as to the
interchangeability of writing and reading self-efficacy. A practical goal of this study
was to describe the differences between students identified as stronger at reading than
writing, and stronger at writing than reading.
Participants included 619 students identified as strong readers/strong writers,
stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger writers, and weak
readers/weak writers based on their standardized scores on the SAT Critical Reading
and Writing tests. Correlation, multiple regression, path analysis, t-test and chi-
162
square procedures were used to analyze responses to the Reading Self-Efficacy
Beliefs Instrument and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs, PSAT/NMSQT and SAT
scores, and selected items from the SAT Questionnaire.
Results indicated that reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly mediated the
effects of high school English GPA and parental income, but not gender, on reading
performance. The same results held true for writing self-efficacy beliefs and
performance. Regression analyses showed that reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs did indeed play a larger role in reading and writing performance for students
with discrepant, rather than consistent, reading and writing performance. An analysis
of the interchangeability of reading and writing self-efficacy measures showed that by
subtracting students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills scores from
each other, significant mean differences in the subtracted values were found. This
suggests that using the two measures together, and not interchangeably, can help
educators determine whether students hold discrepant reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs. A comparison of the two discrepant groups showed that weaker
readers/stronger writers had significantly more females, more ESL experience, and
were more likely to desire help in both reading and writing than stronger
readers/weaker writers.
163
VITA
VITA
EMILY JENNIFER SHAW
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
High School
Bachelor of Science
Human Development
Master of Science in Education
Counseling & Personnel Services
Current Position
June 12, 1979
Bethpage, New York
East Meadow High School
East Meadow, New York
Graduated June 1997
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Conferred May 2001
Fordham University
New York, New York
Conferred May 2003
Project Manager /
Assistant Research Scientist
Higher Education Outcomes Services
The College Board
New York, New York
August 2006 - present