Table 7.

Comparison of underlying dimensions of teacher sense of efficacy derived from confirmatory factor analysis in different studies.

ItemMeanSDPresent StudyTschannen and Hoy (2001) Cheung (2006) Tsui and Kennedy (2009) 
56.591.15DeletedIS (.61)TL (.58)TS (.59)
96.421.19DeletedIS (.55)TL (.52)TS (.53)
106.781.10TL (.64)IS (.64)TL (.63)TS (.63)
126.431.12TL (.73)IS (.74)TL (.72)TS (.73)
36.231.38CM (.71)SE (.62)TL (.59)TS (.58)
46.721.10TL (.77)SE (.70)TL (.77)TS (.77)
116.031.62TL (.68)SE (.63)TL (.68)TS (.59)
26.441.31DeletedSE (.48)TL (.46)CM (.54)
16.271.23CM (.66)CM (.63)CM (.64)CM (.66)
66.671.25CM (.77)CM (.74)CM (.73)CM (.73)
77.021.05CM (.71)CM (.72)CM (.72)CM (.72)
86.481.24CM (.72)CM (.74)CM (.74)CM (.74)
Model Fit  GoodAcceptablePoorMarginal
Cronbach’s Alpha  TL: .78 CM: .84 Total: .88IS: .67 SE: .69 CM: .80 Total: .88TL: .82 CM: .80 Total: .88TS: .83 CM: .81 Total: .88
Note: () = the CFA factor loadings; SE = efficacy for student engagement; CM = efficacy for/in classroom management; IS = efficacy for instructional strategies; TS = efficacy for teaching and support; TL = efficacy in teaching and learning.

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options