Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument and Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument

Abstract

The Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument and the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument are two parallel, multi-dimensional questionnaires consisting of 16 items each, developed by S. J. Hillman in 1986. These instruments were designed to measure professional self-efficacy by assessing the degree to which educators—either principals or teachers—hold positive or negative feelings concerning their professional achievement and productivity. Both scales share an identical structure rooted in attribution theory, where respondents attribute outcomes to internal factors (ability, effort) or external factors (materials, luck). The key differentiation lies in the focus: the Principal Instrument addresses achievement at the school level, while the Teacher Instrument focuses on achievement within the classroom context.

Keywords

Self-Efficacy, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Principal Self-Efficacy, Attribution Theory, Educational Leadership, School Achievement, Psychometrics, Educational Research

Authors

S. J. Hillman

Purpose

The primary purpose of these instruments was to take preliminary steps toward developing a multi-dimensional measure of self-efficacy specifically tailored for educational professionals. The scales aim to quantify the subjective belief systems of teachers and principals regarding their capacity to influence positive outcomes in their respective domains.

By using parallel forms, the instruments allow researchers to compare the attributional styles and efficacy beliefs of school administrators versus classroom instructors, providing insight into how internal and external factors are perceived to drive professional success or failure.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured is professional self-efficacy, defined here as an educator’s belief in their ability to achieve desired outcomes and productivity. This construct is operationalized through an attributional framework, where each item presents a situation (either positive or negative) and requires the respondent to attribute the outcome to one of four possible causes, which define the four resulting subscales:

• Positive Internal: Attributing success to personal ability or effort.
• Negative Internal: Attributing failure to lack of ability or effort.
• Positive External: Attributing success to external factors (e.g., easy materials, luck).
• Negative External: Attributing failure to external factors (e.g., difficult objectives, bad luck).

Validity

In the preliminary development phase documented in 1986, the discussion of validity was largely confined to content validity. The items were designed to reflect realistic scenarios encountered by teachers and principals regarding achievement and productivity.

Due to the relatively high estimates of internal consistency observed (high alpha coefficients), it was tentatively assumed that sufficient homogeneity existed among the items and scales. This homogeneity was interpreted as providing an assumed, though not explicitly tested, measure of construct validity for the multi-dimensional structure.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability of both the Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument and the Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument was assessed using alpha coefficients. The results indicated strong reliability across the instruments’ four subscales.

The alpha coefficients for the subscales of each instrument ranged from 0.81 to 0.93. These high values suggest that the items within each of the four designated subscales are highly correlated and reliably measure their intended dimension of attributional self-efficacy.

Factor Analysis

The development of the four subscales—positive internal, negative internal, positive external, and negative external—was based on correlational evidence rather than traditional confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis procedures. The source content explicitly states that there was no evidence of other procedures, such as factor analysis, being utilized to empirically confirm the underlying structure of the subscales during this preliminary phase.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire; multi-dimensional preliminary scale.

Format: Parallel 16-item questionnaires (for principals and teachers). Each item is a forced-choice scenario with four attributional responses (A, B, C, D). Responses are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English

Population Group: Educational professionals (Teachers and Principals)

Age Group: Adult professionals

Population Details: The preliminary sample consisted of 35 teachers and 19 principals. These participants were drawn from 20 public schools in the state of Michigan, equally split between high-achieving and low-achieving schools. The study was part of a larger research effort that also involved 758 fourth-grade students.

Test Methodology: Attributional scenario assessment using a Likert-type scoring system to quantify self-efficacy beliefs related to professional outcomes.

Keywords

Educational Psychology, Attribution Theory, Professional Development, Cronbach’s Alpha, Scale Development, Michigan Schools, AERA, ERIC Document

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified.

Correspondence Address: Not specified.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was developed and presented in 1986 by S. J. Hillman at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). The source document is publicly available through the ERIC system.

The original paper, “Measuring self-efficacy: Preliminary steps in the development of a multi-dimensional instrument,” can be accessed via the ERIC database under identifier: ERIC ED 271 505.

Reference’s

• Hillman, S. J. (1986). Measuring self-efficacy: Preliminary steps in the development of a multi-dimensional instrument. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. ERIC ED 271 505.
• Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell and L. Ross (eds.), Social cognitive development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fuller, B., et al. (1982). The organizational context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research 52:7–30.
• Stipek, D. J., and Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived personal control and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research51:101–37.

Items of the Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument and Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument

1. If the achievement level of your school is high, it would be because
A. you possess a natural ability to be an effective instructional leader.
B. as a principal, you put a great deal of effort into emphasizing academic achievement.
C. the achievement test used to measure the achievement level of your students was too easy.
D. you were lucky to get a good school.

2. If your school appeared to be strong in a particular skill such as “Language-Spelling Skills,” it would be because
A. you possess a natural ability to be an effective instructional leader.
B. as a principal, you emphasize the importance of students acquiring this skill.
C. the materials used in the classroom covering this skill area were too much like the items on the achievement test.
D. you were lucky to get a good school.

3. If very few of the students in your school by the end of the year are able to master the basic statewide objectives established for their grade level it would be because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. you lack of effort in emphasizing the importance of all students mastering the basic objectives.
C. the statewide objectives are unrealistic and too difficult to attain.
D. you were not lucky enough to get assigned to one of the better schools.

4. If your school, which has a history of being a low-achieving school, increases its achievement level this year to above the norm, this would be because of
A. your natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. your effort in supporting and emphasizing the importance of students’ achievement.
C. a change in the achievement testing, making it easier for your students to succeed.
D. your being lucky. Recent redistricting brought brighter students to your school.

5. If the achievement level of your school is below the norm, it would be because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. you did not put in the effort needed to emphasize high achievement.
C. the materials used in the classroom did not emphasize the areas tested by the achievement measure.
D. you were not lucky enough to get a school of high achievers.

6. If you received a negative evaluation from your superintendent in the area of instructional leadership, this would be because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. you do not feel this is an important part of your job; therefore, you do not emphasize it.
C. the evaluation was not fair with the standards by which you were measured being too difficult for anyone to attain.
D. your superintendent just happened to be in a critical mood the day he/she wrote the evaluation.

7. If a new science program is initiated in your school and the students’ achievement in this area increases signifi- cantly, this would be due to
A. your natural ability to be an effective instructional leader.
B. the effort you put into promoting the program and assisting teachers in working with it.
C. a good match between the objectives emphasized in the new science program and the achievement test.
D. your being lucky. Recent redistricting brought brighter students to your school, particularly those having a high aptitude for science.

8. Twenty-five percent of the students in grades 1–3 were retained and not promoted to the next grade. This rate is higher than any other school in the area. This would be due to:
A. your lacking natural ability in being an effective instructional leader.
B. your lack of effort in emphasizing the need for all students to achieve.
C. your school’s standards for retention are more rigid than other schools.
D. your not being lucky enough to get assigned to one of the better schools.

9. If students do well in your classes, it would be because
A. you have the natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. you put a great deal of effort into emphasizing the importance of academic achievement.
C. the basic material covered is designed so that even the slowest of students can get some right.
D. you were lucky to get a bunch of kid this year who are smart and self-motivated.

10. Suppose your superintendent commended you on doing a fine job as evidenced by the high level of achievement demonstrated by your students. This would mean
A. a great deal, because you feel you have a natural ability as an instructional leader in your school.
B. a great deal, because you have put in a lot of effort and time into promoting and insuring a high level of achieve- ment for all students.
C. very little, because you suspect the test used to measure the academic achievement of your students was very easy and most should pass it anyway.
D. very little, because you were simply lucky to be in a school where the majority of your students have a high enough IQ which enables them to achieve independently of anything you really do.

11. If your school scores very low in a particular subject area such as math on an achievement test, it would be because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to be an instructional leader, particularly in the area.
B. you did not emphasize the importance of achieving in this subject area as much as the other subjects.
C. the math section of the achievement test did not test what was taught.
D. you happened to get a school whose students don’t have the ability to achieve in this area.

12. If 95 percent of the students in your school are mastering the basic objectives established for their grade level, this would be because
A. you possess a natural ability to be an instructional leader.
B. you have emphasized the importance of all students achieving at least the basic objectives before the end of the school year.
C. the basic objectives were established at such minimum level as to enable even the slowest of students to suc- ceed in mastering them.
D. you were lucky to get a school whose student body tends to be very academically able.

Scoring:

Strongly Agree = 5; Agree = 4; Unsure = 3; Disagree = 2; and Strongly Disagree = 1.

Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument

1. If a student does well in your class, it is probably because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the assignments are easy.
D. you were lucky to get at least a few good students.

2. When your class is having trouble understanding something you have taught, it is usually because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort.
C. the material you are teaching is difficult to comprehend.
D. you were unlucky in getting a particularly slow class this year.

3. When most of your students do well on a test, it is more likely to be because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the test was easy.
D. you were lucky to get a class composed of generally good students.

4. When students in your class forget something that you had already explained, it is usually because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort in explaining the topic.
C. the topic area is particularly difficult.
D. you were unlucky in getting a particularly slow class this year.

5. Suppose your principal says you’re doing a fine job. This is likely to happen because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the material you are teaching is quite basic and easy to learn.
D. you were lucky to get a good academically able class this year.

6. If most of the students in your class are doing very well, it is probably because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the material you are teaching is quite basic and easy to learn.
D. you were lucky to get a good class academically to begin with.

7. If you are working with a student who can’t understand a concept and he suddenly “gets it,” it is likely to happen because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the material takes a while to understand anyway.
D. you were lucky at that moment.

8. If few of your students by the end of the year are able to master the basic objectives established for their grade level, it is most likely because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort.
C. the objectives were established unrealistically high.
D. you were unlucky in being assigned a particularly slow class this year.

9. When a large percent of the students in your class are doing poorly, it usually happens because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort.
C. the topic area is particularly difficult.
D. you were unlucky in being assigned a particularly slow class this year in understanding and learning.

10. Suppose you present some new material to your students and most of them remember it. This is likely to be because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the material is quite basic and easy to learn.
D. you were lucky to have a good class academically to begin with.

11. When your students do poorly on a test, it is because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort in teaching the material covered on the test.
C. the test was too difficult.
D. you were unlucky in being assigned a particularly slow class this year.

12. If a child does not do well in your class it is probably because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you did not put in enough effort in helping this child.
C. the material is particularly difficult.
D. you happened to get some poor students this year who started off way below the others.

13. When you are having a hard time getting your students interested in a lesson, it is usually because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you are not putting in enough effort.
C. the lesson is particularly boring.
D. you were unlucky in getting a group of students who generally are difficult to motivate.

14. If all of your students by the end of the school year are mastering the basic objectives established for their grade level, it is most likely because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching.
C. the objectives are a minimum and easy for all to obtain.
D. you were lucky to get students who, on the whole, are particularly bright.

15. When your students seem interested in your lesson right from the beginning, it is because
A. of your natural ability to teach.
B. of the effort you put into teaching the lesson.
C. the topic is one which students generally find interesting.
D. you were lucky to get students who are generally highly motivated to learn.

16. On those days when you are depressed and feel you are not doing as good a job as you would like, it is because
A. you do not possess a natural ability to teach.
B. you do not put in enough effort.
C. the material you are covering is very difficult to teach.
D. it is one of those unlucky days when everything goes wrong.

Scoring:

See previous scoring.