See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257246022

The Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale:

Confirming the factor structure with beginning
pre-service teachers

Article in Teaching and Teacher Education · August 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004

CITATIONS READS

39 2,615

3 authors:

Lisa Duffin Brian F. French

Western Kentucky University Washington State University
5 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS 101 PUBLICATIONS 1,253 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Helen Patrick
Purdue University
66 PUBLICATIONS 3,922 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TALIS 2013 View project

Differential Item Functioning: Statistical techniques and effect size measures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa Duffin on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale: Confirming the factor structure

with beginning pre-service teachers
Lisa C. Duffin a, *, Brian F. French b, Helen Patrick c
a
Department of Psychology, Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd. #21030, Bowling Green, KY 42101-1030, USA
b
Washington State University, Department of Educational Leadership & Counseling Psychology, 362 Cleveland Hall, Pullman, WA 99164-2136, USA
c
Purdue University, Department of Educational Studies, College of Education, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examined the factor structure of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran
Received 4 August 2011 & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) using the scores of pre-service teachers at the beginning stage of teacher
Received in revised form development to gather internal structure score validity evidence. Two plausible rival models derived
7 March 2012
from prior research were tested using CFA. Results showed good fit for both models; however, high inter-
Accepted 8 March 2012
factor correlations indicate strong support for the unidimensional model. Findings suggest that pre-
service teachers who lack pedagogical knowledge and teaching experience do not differentiate
Keywords:
between the different aspects of teaching measured by the TSES. Questions for future research are raised.
Teacher efficacy
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Confirmatory factor analysis

1. Introduction Although the importance of teacher efficacy is clear, there have

Teacher education programs all over the world are charged with
the task of preparing pre-service teachers to become highly effec-
tive educators. Along with the necessary pedagogical skills and
content knowledge, educators need to be confident in their abilities
to enact effective instructional practices that result in students’
learning, motivation, and other positive outcomes. That is, they
need efficacy for teaching, defined as a belief in one’s own “capa-
bilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular
context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 233).
Rooted in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1977, 1997), teacher
efficacy has been central to educational research efforts in North
America for many decades (e.g., Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey,
1988; Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011; Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998). It has also become a focus of interest globally (e.g.,
Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010; Ho & Hau, 2004;
Klassen & Usher, 2010; Woodcock, 2011). There is tremendous
consistency among the studies’ findings worldwide; teacher effi-
cacy has been consistently related to a wide range of important
instructional variables and student and teacher outcomes (for
reviews see Pajares, 1996; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk
Hoy & Davis, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, & Pape, 2006).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 270 745 6324; fax: þ1 270 745 6934.
E-mail addresses: lisa.duffin@wku.edu (L.C. Duffin), frenchb@wsu.edu
(B.F. French), hpatrick@purdue.edu (H. Patrick).
long been questions about the psychometric properties of the
various instruments used to measure this construct. In particular,
over the years there have been concerns about the validity of
scores, especially the question of whether teacher efficacy is
a single construct or whether it is comprised of distinct factors
(Deemer & Minke, 1999; Denzine, Cooney, & McKenzie, 2005;
Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Henson, 2002; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-
Haase, 2001; Klassen et al., 2011; Labone, 2004; Pajares, 1996;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998; Wheatley, 2005; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Researchers seem
to have reached some agreement, however, with the development
of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), and it has become the predominant measure
of teacher efficacy throughout the world (e.g., Fives & Buehl, 2010;
Klassen et al., 2009; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Murshidi,
Konting, Elias, & Fooi, 2006; Poulou, 2007; Tsigilis, Koustelios, &
Grammatikopoulos, 2010; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005;
Yilmaz, 2011). There is solid, consistent score validity evidence that
in-service teachers’ TSES scores are comprised of three distinct but
related latent factors: efficacy for managing the classroom, for
engaging students, and for using different instructional strategies
(Fives & Buehl, 2010; Heneman, Kimball, & Milanowski, 2006;
Klassen et al., 2009; Tsigilis et al., 2010).
There is considerable debate, however, about the TSES’s factor
structure when used with pre-service teachers (Fives & Buehl,
2010; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Analyses with
pre-service teachers’ scores have thus far yielded contradictory

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004
828 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
results (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Poulou, 2007; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Because the TSES is being used with pre-
service teachers worldwide, despite a lack of agreement about
how to conceptualize the scores, the field of teacher efficacy
research would benefit from a study that uses a theory-testing
approach such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). This
approach would provide further score validity evidence, much-
needed to help resolve the contradictory findings to date. There-
fore, in the present study we conduct a CFA on the TSES scores of
two different samples of pre-service teachers.
1.1. Teacher efficacy
A search of the ERIC database using “teacher efficacy” as a search
criterion and a limit on articles published between 1999 and 2009
resulted in 179 hits, indicating that teacher efficacy continues to be
a much-researched construct in educational research. Although
most research has been conducted in North America (Klassen &
Usher, 2010), teacher efficacy has been investigated in Europe
(e.g., England, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Turkey: Betoret, 2006;
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Gencer & Cakiroglu,
2007; Gibbs & Powell, in press; Poulou, 2007; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2010; de la Torre Cruz & Casanova Arias, 2007; ), the Middle East
(e.g., Israel, Lebanon: Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Somech & Drach-
Zahavy, 2000; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002), Southeast Asia (e.g.,
China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore: Chong et al., 2010; Ho & Hau,
2004; Klassen et al., 2008; Murshidi et al., 2006), Africa (e.g.,
Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa: Onderi & Croll, 2009; Rangraje, van
der Merwe, Urbani, & van der Walt, 2005; Salami, 2007), Austral-
asia (e.g., Australia, New Zealand: Ho & Hau, 2004; Timperley &
Phillips, 2003), and South America (e.g., Venezuela: Chacón, 2005).
The reason for this attention is that teacher efficacy, although
measured and defined in a variety of ways, has consistently been
related to a wide range of important outcomes. Teacher efficacy is
believed, theoretically, to influence teachers’ performance (e.g.,
instructional practices, motivating styles, pedagogical beliefs,
effort), which in turn affects student outcomes such as motivation
and achievement. Research findings support these propositions.
When efficacy for teaching is high, teachers tend to utilize a variety
of instructional strategies that are autonomy-supportive and posi-
tive for student engagement and achievement outcomes, even
when faced with challenging situations (e.g., Fives & Alexander,
2004; Heneman et al., 2006; Lin, Gorrell, & Taylor, 2002; Skaalvik
& Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk & Hoy,
1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Also as posited theoretically,
teacher efficacy is related positively to students’ achievement
(Caprara et al., 2006; Guo, Piasta, Justice, & Kaderavek, 2010; Muijs
& Reynolds, 2002) and motivation (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles,
1989). Not surprisingly, given those outcomes, efficacious
teachers tend to be satisfied with their job (Caprara et al., 2006;
Klassen et al., 2009; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010), committed to
teaching (Coladarci, 1992), and experience low levels of burnout
(Betoret, 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).
Although the benefits of teacher efficacy are not contentious,
researchers have questioned the measures used. Issues can be
traced historically to this construct having two conceptual strands.
Teacher efficacy’s earliest strand is rooted in Rotter’s (1966) locus of
control theoretical perspective (e.g., Berman, McLaughlin, Bass,
Pauly, & Zellman, 1977), where teacher efficacy is defined as
a teacher’s competence beliefs based on whether or not he/she
perceives control over the learning situation. The second concep-
tual strand is based on Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory,
where teacher’s self-efficacy for teaching refers to the belief
a teacher holds regarding his/her capability to carry out
instructional practices in the educational context that result in
positive student outcomes such as motivation and achievement.
Based on the abundance of research showcasing the strong
influence self-efficacy has on human behavior (Bandura, 1997),
critics agree that the concept of teacher efficacy should be aligned
with Bandura’s theoretical perspective (Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998). However, there have been discrepancies in the interpreta-
tion of Bandura’s theory in the process of creating teacher efficacy
measures, which has led to researchers questioning the psycho-
metric properties of the different measures used. In particular,
should teacher efficacy measures be constructed to capture teacher
efficacy as a teacher’s belief in his/her capabilities to carry out
specific teaching practices to affect desired student outcomes (i.e.,
efficacy expectations; Bandura, 1997)? Or should the measures
assess teaching efficacy as a judgment of capabilities based on
teachers’ personal competence beliefs (i.e., efficacy expectations)
plus their expectation of the outcome when facing potential envi-
ronmental obstacles (i.e., outcome expectations; Bandura, 1997)?
Prominent self-efficacy researchers have agreed that teacher
efficacy measures should represent an individual’s judgment of his
or her teaching capabilities; but those competency judgments
should take into consideration the individual’s critical evaluation of
the teaching task and context including, but not limited to, the
effects of external determinants (i.e., competence plus contin-
gency). They also agree that teaching is complex and teacher effi-
cacy measures should capture this multi-faceted construct
(Bandura, 1997; Klassen et al., 2008, 2011; Pajares, 1996;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al.,
1998; Wheatly, 2005; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006). Therefore, the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale developed by Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) is the most promising measure of
teacher efficacy to date that aligns with Bandura’s (1997) theory
and critics’ recommendations (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Klassen et al.,
2011).
1.2. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) is a measure of people’s evaluations of their
own likely success in teaching. In this measure, teaching is
conceptualized as a complex activity and represents teacher effi-
cacy as a multi-faceted construct. More specifically, teacher efficacy
as measured by the TSES long (24-item) and short (12-item) forms
has consistently been shown to represent three distinct, but related
latent factors associated with three areas of teaching: Efficacy for
Classroom Management (CM), Efficacy to promote Student
Engagement (SE), and Efficacy in using Instructional Strategies (IS).
CFAs conducted on practicing teachers’ TSES scores with both the
long and short forms in the United States, Canada, Singapore,
Greece, Cyprus, and Korea provide strong score validity evidence to
support this factor structure (Heneman et al., 2006; Klassen et al.,
2009, 2008; Tsigilis et al., 2010).
The TSES also is becoming the predominant measure of teacher
efficacy with pre-service teachers e those individuals who are
studying to become teachers (Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005;
Fives & Alexander, 2004; Fives & Buehl, 2010; Knoblauch, 2006;
Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Larson & Goebel, 2008; Martinez,
2003; Poulou, 2007). There is evidence of a developmental trajec-
tory that occurs during enrollment in a teacher education program,
with pre-service teachers reporting increasing levels of teacher
efficacy from the beginning of the program to the end (Gordon &
Debus, 2002; Lin et al., 2002; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005).
Examining teacher efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers, both in
general and within more specific teaching tasks (i.e., engaging
students, managing the classroom, and enlisting various
 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
instructional strategies), during teacher preparation is important
because teacher efficacy beliefs are malleable early in learning
(Bandura, 1977, 1997) and once established, are somewhat resistant
to change (Pajares, 1996). The quality of teacher education
programs, which provide instructional opportunities, experiential
teaching activities, feedback, and effective models for pre-service
teachers, plays an important role in the establishment and devel-
opment of pre-service teacher efficacy beliefs (Capa Aydin &
Loadman, 2006; Gordon & Debus, 2002; Lin et al., 2002; Woolfolk
Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005). Therefore, monitoring pre-service
teacher efficacy beliefs during teacher preparation will allow
teacher education programs to act upon the findings and create
learning opportunities for pre-service teachers that will build the
knowledge, skills, and efficacy beliefs necessary to be successful
practitioners in the field upon program completion.
Paralleling the earlier discussion of the factor structure for
teacher efficacy scores with practicing teachers, there is attention
being paid to the TSES’s factor structure with pre-service teachers’
scores. In the creation of the TSES, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy (2001) intended the instrument to measure teacher efficacy in
general using the total score of all scale items and the subscale
scores to indicate level of efficacy for managing the classroom,
engaging students, and providing effective instructional strategies.
When analyzing the pre-service teachers’ TSES scores employing
exploratory factor analytic (EFA) procedures to provide initial val-
idity evidence, they found the factor structure to be less distinct
than with in-service teachers. That is, some of the items cross-
loaded onto different factors than intended. More recently, Fives
and Buehl (2010) noted the same results after they too used EFA
procedures with their data, and their conclusions echoed
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) conjecture that pre-
service teachers might not be sufficiently experienced in the
teaching profession to distinguish between the many tasks
involved. Therefore, both teams of researchers have suggested that
until further testing and validation is done, only the TSES’s total
score should be used for pre-service teachers, thus representing
their efficacy for teaching as a unidimensional latent construct.
An important note is that in both studies to which we just
referred, researchers did not provide details about their samples of
pre-service teachers in terms of where they were in their teacher
preparation programs (i.e., beginning, middle, end, or a mixture of
all levels). That is, it is not clear whether or not these samples were
homogenous in terms of where the pre-service teachers were in the
developmental trajectory. Identifying the stage of professional
development will be helpful in understanding any shifts in
construct validity of pre-service teachers’ TSES scores.
Another way that current research can build on earlier validity
studies of pre-service teachers’ TSES scores is by moving from
conducting exploratory to confirmatory factor analysis. EFA is an
important analysis because it is designed to reveal the unknown
links between observed and latent variables (Byrne, 1998).
However, when the links between variables have been demon-
strated, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a theory-driven proce-
dure that tests the relations between the observed and latent
variables a priori, is the next level of analysis to use. This is because
it provides stronger validity evidence compared to EFA, a data-
driven method (Thompson, 2004). The CFA adds important infor-
mation because a confirmed theoretically-driven model will be
more likely to be reproduced in the data gathered in future studies
(Byrne, 1998; Thompson, 2004).
There has been one study in which a CFA was conducted on TSES
scores from a sample of pre-service teachers. Poulou (2007) used
a Greek translation of the TSES with pre-service teachers in Greece
who were in their fourth and final year of their teacher education
programs and had completed their student-teaching field
829
requirement. Two models were tested e a one-factor model rep-
resenting teacher efficacy as a unidimensional latent construct and
a three-factor model with three related latent constructs repre-
senting teacher efficacy. Findings from this study indicated that the
3-factor model was a better fit to the data, suggesting that pre-
service teachers e like the in-service teachers in prior studies
(Heneman et al., 2006; Klassen et al., 2009, 2008; Tsigilis et al.,
2010) – could differentiate between the three factors of teaching
measured by the TSES.
Currently, total scores (e.g., Klassen et al., 2008; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007) and the scores from the three
subscales (i.e., SE, IS, and CM) of the TSES are being used with pre-
service (and in-service) teachers to make inferences about their
confidence to teach in general, as well as their confidence to enact
the skills necessary to manage classroom behavior, engage
students, and implement appropriate teaching practices (Larson &
Goebel, 2008; Martinez, 2003; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007).
Evidence exists to substantiate the use of the total score as
a measure of overall teaching efficacy, as well as the scores from the
three subscales to measure the specific teaching tasks of managing
the classroom, engaging students, and implementing different
instructional strategies with in-service teachers on an international
stage (Heneman et al., 2006; Klassen et al., 2009; Tsigilis et al.,
2010). There is also some evidence to suggest that this type of
score use would be appropriate with pre-service teachers e at least
those who are almost finished with their teacher education
programs (Poulou, 2007). At this point, if the mean scores of the
entire TSES scale, as well as the subscales, are being used in
different ways to explain phenomena with all pre-service teachers
(e.g., Capa Aydin & Woolfolk Hoy, 2005; Fives & Alexander, 2004;
Knoblauch, 2006; Larson & Goebel, 2008; Martinez, 2003), addi-
tional empirical evidence is needed to justify these choices.
We argue that the issue about whether pre-service teachers’
teaching efficacy, as measured by TSES scores, is multidimensional
or unidimensional is not yet resolved. Findings from prior studies
that examined pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs using scores
from the TSES have used both EFA and CFA techniques to assess the
factor structure resulting in conflicting outcomes. Is the factor
structure of the TSES unidimensional or multidimensional with
pre-service teachers? We suspect that stage of teacher develop-
ment (i.e., beginning, middle, end, or mixed) might influence the
outcome. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to focus
on those pre-service teachers who are at the beginning of their
teacher education program to gather internal structure validity
evidence of the scores derived from the TSES utilizing CFA. We
wanted to answer the question: when using the TSES to measure
teacher efficacy among beginning pre-service teachers, does the
factor structure represent teacher efficacy as a unidimensional or
a multidimensional latent construct? We outline our approach to
do so next.
1.3. The plausible rival models
Prior research examining the factor structure of the TSES using
scores from in-service teachers (Heneman et al., 2006; Klassen
et al., 2009; Tsigilis et al., 2010) and pre-service teachers (Fives &
Buehl, 2010; Poulou, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001) provided us with two plausible rival models to examine.
The first model (Model 1) treats the TSES as a measure of a unidi-
mensional factor and is supported by research using EFA on pre-
service teachers’ scores from the TSES (Fives & Buehl, 2010;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The second model
(Model 2) treats the TSES as a measure of three separate, but
positively correlated factors (i.e., CM, IS, and SE), and is supported
830 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
by Poulou’s (2007) research using CFA on pre-service teachers’
scores from the Greek-translated TSES.
CFA conducted on the scores from samples of in-service teachers
from the United States and other countries (i.e., Canada, Cyprus,
Greece, Korea, and Singapore) indicates that the factor structure of
the TSES distinctly represents teacher efficacy as a multidimen-
sional construct with three latent correlated factors (Heneman
et al., 2006; Klassen et al., 2009; Tsigilis et al., 2010). CFA on the
scores from a sample of Greek pre-service teachers in their final
stage of teacher preparation (Poulou, 2007) provides initial support
that mimics these findings and contradicts the recommendations
that the TSES be used as a measure of a unidimensional construct
with samples of pre-service teachers (Fives & Buehl, 2010;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). In our study, we exam-
ined the competing models within two different samples to provide
evidence for whether pre-service teachers who are at the begin-
ning stage of teacher preparation can differentiate among these
three separate components of teacher efficacy (i.e., CM, SE, and IS)
or whether, for professional development reasons, they perceive
teaching efficacy as a unidimensional construct. We anticipated
that the stage of teacher development e in this case, those pre-
service teachers at the beginning of their teacher education
programs e would not differentiate between the factors like those
pre-service teachers who were at the end of their teacher education
program in Poulou’s (2007) study, who could.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants in the first sample (Sample 1) were 272
undergraduate pre-service teachers (PSTs) at the beginning stage of
their teacher education program in a large Midwestern research-
extensive university in the United States. The participants were
73.5% female with a mean age of 20.26 years. Participants repre-
sented a wide range of academic areas including: agriculture,
biology, chemistry, early childhood, elementary, English, health,
kinesiology, mathematics, physics, social studies, Spanish, special
education, technology, and visual arts. The distribution of self-
identified race/ethnicity by PSTs was as follows: White/Caucasian
(94.1%), African American (0.7%), Hispanic (2.9%), Asian American
(1.1%), Multi-racial (0.4%), and other (0.4%).
The participants in the second sample (Sample 2) were 180
undergraduate pre-service teachers who were in the beginning
stage of their teacher education program in a large Mid-south
comprehensive university in the United States. The participants
were 57.8% female with a mean age of 21.70 years. Participants in
Sample 2 also represented a wide range of academic areas similar to
those in Sample 1. The distribution of self-identified race/ethnicity
by PSTs was as follows: White/Caucasian (92.8%), African American
(6.1%), Hispanic (0.6%), and other (0.6%). In the present study, we
used a purposeful convenience sampling method; however, both
samples were similar to those in other studies of the TSES in terms
of age and gender (e.g., Fives & Alexander, 2004; Fives & Buehl,
2010; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
2.2. Instrumentation
Teacher efficacy was measured with the TSES 24-item long form
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). These items are grou-
ped into three subscales: (1) Efficacy for student engagement (SE; 8
items), Efficacy for instructional strategies (IS; 8 items), and Efficacy
for classroom management (CM; 8 items). Consistent with the
manual’s instructions, participants responded to each of the
questions using a rating scale, ranging from 1 (Nothing) to 9 (A Great
Deal). To help restrict beginning pre-service teachers’ forward-
looking capabilities to a more proximal period of time as they
contemplated their self-perceptions of teaching competence, we
asked the participants to respond to each of the items “considering
their current ability,” as opposed to thinking about other teachers’
abilities or the abilities they will have when they become an in-
service teacher themselves. We wanted to get a more realistic
measure of our participants’ competency beliefs during the teacher
preparation process instead of those they expect to have when they
are teachers in the field after they have completed their teacher
education program. The TSES scores for the three subscales and the
total scale have been found to be internally consistent (Cronbach’s
alpha) in previous research (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001); they were also in the current study for the two
samples respectively; SE (a ¼ 0.89 & 0.92), CM (a ¼ 0.91 & 0.94), IS
(a ¼ 0.91 & 0.94), and total scale (a ¼ 0.96 & 0.97).
2.3. Procedure
In Sample 1, PSTs were recruited between fall 2007 and spring
2008 when they were enrolled in an introductory educational
psychology course. The introductory educational psychology course
fell in the teacher education sequence after students had completed
their introduction to teaching course which was the first course in
the teacher education program that all participants had to take.
Data were collected from the PSTs at the beginning of each
semester using a paper-and-pencil format. All eligible PSTs were
invited to participate in the study by people unaffiliated with the
course and were given a packet of information including a letter of
explanation, the consent form, and a paper questionnaire. Those
PSTs who elected to participate in the study, completed the ques-
tionnaires and returned them in one of the subsequent classes to
the research team.
In the Sample 2, PSTs were recruited between fall 2009 and
spring 2011 when they too were enrolled in an introductory
educational psychology course. Like the first sample, the students
take the introductory educational psychology course at the begin-
ning of the teacher education program because it acts as a prereq-
uisite into the official teacher education program at the University.
PSTs in this sample were students of the first author and were
required to complete the TSES as part of the course’s experiential
activities to supplement the learning of the various concepts
related to motivation and teacher development. Consent to use the
data for the purposes of research was sought on the last class
meeting by a research assistant after the first author had left the
room with no further face-to-face class meetings scheduled. PSTs
were informed about the research study and told that participation
was voluntary and that course grades would be unaffected because
the first author would not be privy to the consent documents until
after the semester had concluded and the final grades had been
officially reported. Data in this study come from those PSTs from
whom we received written consent.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Prior to conducting the CFA, we inspected multivariate
normality in both samples via Mahalanobis distance. Descriptive
statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, skewness, and Kurtosis)
for the total score, three sub-scale scores, and item-level scores for
each sample are in Table 1. Although the descriptive statistics
indicated some negative skewness for the items (i.e., PSTs generally
report higher efficacy scores than the scale midpoint), the
 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834 831

Table 1
Scale-level and item-level descriptive statistics for TSES total, subscale, and average item-level scores.

Sample 1 (n ¼ 272) Sample 2 (n ¼ 180)

M SD Skewness Std. Error Kurtosis Std. Error M SD Skewness Std. Error Kurtosis Std. Error
Teacher efficacy total scale 6.69 1.10 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.29 5.87 1.38 0.10 0.18 0.63 0.36
Instructional strategies 6.61 1.18 0.32 0.15 0.14 0.29 5.74 1.50 0.00 0.18 0.79 0.36
Classroom management 6.69 1.23 0.42 0.15 0.36 0.29 6.10 1.49 0.20 0.18 0.62 0.36
Student engagement 6.76 1.14 0.33 0.15 0.16 0.29 5.76 1.42 0.07 0.18 0.61 0.36
Item level 6.77 1.50 0.44 0.15 0.08 0.29 5.87 1.45 0.09 0.18 0.66 0.36

Note. Scale minimum ¼ 1.00; scale maximum ¼ 9.00.

reasonably large sample sizes in the two samples reduces the risk of
skewness affecting the analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007, p. 80)
and the levels were within acceptable limits. Subscale intercorre-
lations range from 0.76 to 0.80 in the first sample and 0.78 to 0.95 in
the second sample and are statistically significant.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analyses
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum
likelihood estimation on each sample using LISREL 8 software
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) to test the two competing models for the
structure of the TSES. In Model 1, the 24 items on the TSES repre-
sented a single dimension of teacher efficacy. In Model 2, the 24
items on the TSES comprised three subscales that were to represent
three independent, yet correlated factors: Efficacy for Student
Engagement (SE), Efficacy for Classroom Management (CM), and
Efficacy for Instructional Strategies (IS). For both of these models,
we used the covariance matrix of the PSTs’ scores.
We evaluated model fit by using a multi-index strategy, as
recommended by a number of methodologists (e.g., Byrne, 1998;
Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jackson, Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson, 2009;
Thompson & Daniel, 1996). An absolute fit index assesses the
degree to which an a priori model reproduces the sample data.
Therefore, we used the following absolute fit indices: chi-square
statistic with associated degrees of freedom and associated p-
value and the root mean squared residual (SRMR). The incremental
fit index compares the target model with the null model where all
observed variables are uncorrelated (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The
comparative fit index (CFI) was an incremental fit index used in our
study. Good fit is indicated by a CFI value greater than 0.95 and
SRMR value lower than 0.05 for close fit and values between 0.05
and 0.08 for reasonable fit. When the sample size is less than 250,
the recommended combination rule using SRMR and CFI tends be
preferable to using the RMSEA and SRMR together (Hu & Bentler,
1999). Therefore, for the multi-index strategy, we used a combina-
tion rule that required the SRMR values to be at or below 0.05 and
the CFI values to be greater than 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was employed for non-
nested model comparisons (e.g., Model 1 vs. Model 2). The AIC
rewards good model fit, but penalizes the use of too many
parameters (Akaike, 1987). Relatively lower AIC values indicate
better model fit. Chi-square statistics representing the Likelihood
Table 2
Goodness of fit indices derived from CFA for the TSES.
c2 df SRMR CFI
Sample 1 Model 1 1184.21* 252 0.06 0.96
Model 2 1023.69* 249 0.06 0.97
Sample 2 Model 1 1185.10* 252 0.06 0.95
Model 2 1155.39* 249 0.06 0.96
Note. TSES ¼ Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale; Model 1 ¼ first-order model; Model
2 ¼ 3-factor model; SRMR ¼ root mean squared residual; CFI ¼ comparative fit
index; AIC ¼ Akaike Information Criterion. *p < 0.001.
Ratio Test are also reported; however, the Likelihood Ratio Test is
sensitive to sample size hence it was important to rely on the
multiple-index strategy previously outlined (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993). Smaller c2 values indicate better fit than larger c2 values
(MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). We also assessed modi-
fication indices to review any suggested model changes using the
following two criteria (a) that the changes would lead to a signifi-
cant improvement in fit and (b) the modifications were theoreti-
cally defensible.
Table 2 presents a summary of the fit indices of the two
confirmatory factor analyses for each sample. The first model we
examined was the first-order model (Model 1), where efficacy is
seen as a global ability. The three-factor model (Model 2) with
teacher efficacy represented by three latent correlated factors was
the second model we examined. Based on the fit indices, both the
1-factor and 3-factor models in both samples indicate a relatively
good fit to the data based on our combination rule. In Sample 1, the
difference in AIC values leads us toward the 1-factor model. In
Sample 2, all of the fit indices look relatively the same. Therefore, it
is in the examination of the parameter estimates e specifically the
inter-factor correlations – that helps us to draw our conclusions
(see Table 3). To be distinct factors, inter-factor correlations need to
be less than 0.8 (Brown, 2006). In both samples, all of the inter-
factor parameter estimates are above 0.8 indicating that the
factors are not distinct. In fact, in Sample 1, these inter-factor
correlations ranged from 0.95 to 1.0. No model modifications
were defensible based on set criteria. Thus, even though fit criteria
were met for Model 1 and 3, extremely high inter-factor correla-
tions support a unidimensional model for both samples. Item
loadings on this single factor were all high and significant (see
Table 4).
4. Discussion
In this study, we used confirmatory factor analyses to examine
the fit between beginning pre-service teachers’ scores from the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) in two different samples
and two plausible rival models: 1-factor and 3-factor. The findings
indicated that the 1-factor model resulted in the better fit within
both samples, showing that pre-service teachers who are at the
beginning of their teacher education programs do not differentiate
between the various aspects of teaching captured by the TSES.
Therefore, based on this research, we recommend using the total
Table 3
AIC
Inter-factor correlation matrix of the TSES subscale scores for the three-factor
1151.96 solution.
1367.28
Sample 1 Sample 2
1672.77
1667.75 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. SE 1.00 1.00
2. CM 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00
3. IS 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.93 1.00
832 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
Table 4
Pattern coefficients for Model 1.
Item Sample 1
1 0.69
2 0.69
3 0.65
4 0.76
5 0.64
6 0.72
7 0.66
8 0.67
9 0.74
10 0.74
11 0.73
12 0.67
13 0.76
14 0.82
15 0.79
16 0.82
17 0.77
18 0.73
19 0.77
20 0.72
21 0.80
22 0.73
23 0.83
24 0.76
Note. Items 1e8 represent the SE subscale and correspond to items 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12,
14, and 22 on the TSES. Items 9e18 represent the CM subscale and correspond to
items 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21 on the TSES. Items 19e24 represent the IS
subscale and correspond to items 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 24 on the TSES
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
scale score as an indicator of pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs
for teaching e at least for those pre-service teachers who have
limited teaching experience and knowledge of teaching. We do,
however, strongly suggest that future research should examine the
scores from pre-service teachers at different time-points during the
teacher education process. It is likely that the inter-factor correla-
tions are lower (more distinct factors) as the PSTs move along the
developmental trajectory.
Efficacy beliefs are strengthened by feedback gained from
personal experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and
physiological indicators (Bandura, 1997). From these efficacy sour-
ces, individuals gain important information that influences not only
the formation of their competency beliefs, but also impacts their
evaluation of the tasks to be completed (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The pre-service teachers in Poulou’s (2007)
study were in their last year of teacher preparation and had
completed their student-teaching experience. Based on the find-
ings from the CFA of their TSES scores, those pre-service teachers
were able to differentiate between the three factors of teacher
efficacy as measured by the TSES. Together, this research raises an
important question regarding the impact of stage of development
during teacher education on the factor structure of the TSES. At
what point in pre-service teachers’ development will we see the
differentiation of factors within teacher efficacy scores?
Research suggests that pre-service teachers enter their teacher
education programs with an abundant amount of knowledge about
schools, classrooms, and instructional practices (Holt-Reynolds,
1992) because they have been immersed within formal education
settings for at least 13 years, thus serving as apprentices to the
teaching profession (Lortie, 1975). Because of their experiences,
pre-service teachers also have been able to form perceptions of
their own abilities to teach (Woolfolk Hoy & Murphy, 2001). Once in
the teacher education programs, pre-service teachers experience
a variety of learning opportunities (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner,
2005). The next series of investigations can now focus on what
point in time during this developmental process pre-service
teachers are able to differentiate between the various aspects of
teaching measured by the TSES. Research to date suggests that
Sample 2 beginning pre-service teachers do not distinguish between the
0.76 various latent constructs; whereas, ending pre-service teachers do
0.81 make this differentiation. It leads us to wonder, how much formal
0.71 training is needed? Since mastery experiences are the most influ-
0.80
ential in the development of teacher efficacy beliefs (Bandura,
0.76
0.76 1997), what specific types of mastery experiences are the most
0.78 influential during teacher education (e.g., classroom observations,
0.73 actual teaching)? What other specific sources of efficacy informa-
0.78 tion are most prominent during teacher preparation? How much of
0.76
0.82
an impact do these efficacy sources have on the formation of effi-
0.73 cacy beliefs for teaching and influence pre-service teachers’
0.73 perceptions of the teaching tasks? Will this differentiation of the
0.86 various teaching tasks as measured by the TSES occur only after
0.76
pre-service teachers have completed their final student-teaching
0.84
0.85 requirement? Could it occur sooner in the teacher education
0.83 process depending on the types of experiences a pre-service
0.84 teacher is allowed? How does cultural context play a role in these
0.81 potential outcomes?
0.78
0.75
Future research should be done to investigate the factor struc-
0.83 ture of the TSES using scores from pre-service teachers at different
0.84 time points during the teacher education process. Attention should
be paid to the types of mastery experiences that pre-service
teachers receive during teacher education to see if certain types
of experiences (i.e., actual teaching experience vs. field observa-
tions) affect the outcome (i.e., differentiation of the factor struc-
ture) more than others. Future research also should focus on
examining the factor structure of the TSES when using scores from
pre-service teachers in culturally diverse settings. Providing addi-
tional validity evidence would strengthen the appropriateness of
using the TSES to measure teacher efficacy worldwide and allow for
cross-cultural comparisons to be made expanding the generaliz-
ability and cultural appropriateness of the construct.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript is based in part from data collected for the first
author’s dissertation.
This research was partially supported by a grant from the Pur-
due University Research Foundation. This research was also
partially supported by Western Kentucky University’s SKyTeach
Program in the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences and
Ogden College of Science and Engineering.
References
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 3, 317e332.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191e215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (1st ed.). New Jersey: W.H.
Freeman.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational changeIn Factors affecting implementation and continua-
tion, REPORT NO. R-1589/7-HEW, Vol. VII. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432).
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among
secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26, 519e539.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York:
Guilford.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Capa Aydin, Y., & Loadman, W.E. (2006, July). Sources of first-year teachers’ sense of
efficacy. In: Paper presented at the SELF Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Capa Aydin, Y., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2005). What predicts student teacher self-
efficacy? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 123e127.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement:
a study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473e490.
 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
Chacón, C. T. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign
language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 257e272.
Chong, W. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kates, A. D. (2010). The rela-
tionship among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate:
perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103,
183e190, 1080/00220670903382954.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal
of Experimental Education, 60, 323e337.
Deemer, S. A., & Minke, K. M. (1999). An investigation of the factor structure of the
teacher efficacy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 3e10.
Denzine, G. M., Cooney, J. B., & McKenzie, R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of
the teacher efficacy scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 689e708. doi:10.1348/000709905x37253.
Fives, H., & Alexander, P.A. (2004, May). Modeling teachers’ efficacy, knowledge, and
pedagogical beliefs. In: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2010). Examining the factor structure of the Teachers’
Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 118e134.
doi:10.1080/00220970903224461.
Gencer, A. S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish preservice science teachers’ efficacy
beliefs regarding science teaching and their beliefs about classroom manage-
ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 664e675. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2005.09.013.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and
attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 13, 451e458.
Gibbs, S., & Powell, B. (in press). Teacher efficacy and pupil behaviour: the structure
of teachers’ individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with
numbers of pupils excluded from school. British Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569e582.
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal
teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72, 483e511.
Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among
preschool teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and
literacy gains. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1094e1103.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,
63e69.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627e643.
Heneman, H. G., III, Kimball, S., & Milanowski, A. (2006, October). The Teacher Sense
of Efficacy Scale: Validation evidence and behavioral prediction (WCER Working
Paper No. 2006-2007). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin
Center for Education Research. Retrieved 01.06.07 from. http://www.wcer.wisc.
edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php.
Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: substantive implications
and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research.
Educational Psychologist, 37, 137e150.
Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization
study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 61, 404e420.
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities and
differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in
external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313e323.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.009.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowl-
edge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325e349.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1e55.
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in
confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 1, 6e23. doi:10.1037/a0014694.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., et al.
(2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67e76. doi:10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2008.08.001.
Klassen, R. M., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., Kates, A., & Hannok, W. (2008).
Motivation beliefs of secondary school teachers in Canada and Singapore:
a mixed methods study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1919e1934.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.01.005.
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy
research 1998e2009: signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational
Psychology Review, 23, 21e43. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8.
Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent
research and emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan, & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.),
833
Advances in motivation and achievement. The decade ahead: Theoretical
perspectives on motivation and achievement, Vol. 16A (pp. 1e33). Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group.
Knoblauch, N. A. (2006). Exploring relationships of teachers’ sense of efficacy in two
student teaching programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47, 36e47.
doi:10.5032/jae.2009.03056.
Knoblauch, N. A., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The
influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24, 166e179. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the construct through research in
alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341e359.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.013.
Larson, W. C., & Goebel, A. J. (2008). Putting theory into practice: a professional
development school/university co-teaching project. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 8, 52e61, Retrieved from. https://www.iupui.edu/
wjosotl/archive/vol_8/no_2/v8n2larson.pdf.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and
Taiwan preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research,
96, 37e46.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130e149.
Martinez, R. S. (2003). Impact of a graduate class on attitudes towards inclu-
sion, perceived teaching efficacy, and knowledge about adapting instruction
for children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Teacher Development, 7,
473e493.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teachers’ efficacy and
student self and task related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to
junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247e258.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Being or doing: the role of teacher behaviors and
beliefs in school and teacher effectiveness in mathematics, a SEM analysis.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3e15.
Murshidi, R., Konting, M. M., Elias, H., & Fooi, F. S. (2006). Sense of efficacy among
beginning teachers in Sarawak. Teaching Education, 17, 265e275. doi:10.1080/
10476210600849730.
Onderi, H., & Croll, P. (2009). Teacher self-perceptions of effectiveness: a study in
a district of Kenya. Educational Research, 51, 97e107.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543e578.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: student teachers’
perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191e218. doi:10.1080/
01443410601066693.
Rangraje, I., van der Merwe, A., Urbani, G., & van der Walt, J. L. (2005). Efficacy of
teachers in a number of selected schools in the KwaZulu-Natal province of
South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25, 38e43.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1e28.
Salami, S. O. (2007). Relationships of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy towrok
attitudes among secondary school teachers in Southwest Nigeria. Pakistan
Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 540e547.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and rela-
tions with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611e625.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout:
a study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059e1069.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in
schools: the relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and
teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649e659.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Multiple factor analysis (5th ed).. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding
concepts and applications. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct
validity of scores: a historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56, 197e208.
Timperley, H. S., & Phillips, G. (2003). Changing and sustaining teachers’ expecta-
tions through professional development in literacy. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 627e641.
de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Casanova Arias, P. F. (2007). Comparative analysis of
expectancies of efficacy in in-service and prospective teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 641e652. doi:10.1016/j.tate.207.02.005.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of
self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 944e956. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202e248.
Tsigilis, N., Koustelios, A., & Grammatikopoulos, V. (2010). Psychometric properties
of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale within the Greek educational context.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 153e162. doi:10.1177/
0734282909342532.
834 L.C. Duffin et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (2012) 827e834
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and
differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 96, 54e63.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747e766. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.2009.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy: their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181e193. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181.
Woodcock, S. (2011). A cross sectional study of pre-service teacher efficacy
throughout the training years. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36,
23e34, Retrieved from. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol36/iss10/2.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and
beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81e91.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137e148.
View publication stats
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 343e356. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. A. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the
achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (pp. 117e137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In
P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd
ed.). (pp. 715e737) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2001). Teaching educational psychology to the
implicit mind. In B. Torff, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the
intuitive mind (pp. 145e185). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and
instructional strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 91e100. doi:10.2224/
sbp.2011.39.1.91.