Validating the Instrument, Muteveri`s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Validating the Instrument, Muteveri`s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Ebel Muteveri and Dr. Joyzy Pius Egunjobi

Psycho-Spiritual Institute of Lux Terra Leadership Foundation, Marist International University College, a constituent College of the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000360

Received: 19 May 2025; Accepted: 22 May 2025; Published: 17 June 2025

ABSTRACT

To test the reliability and validity of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, a cross-sectional online survey (16 items) was distributed via Google Forms to teachers at Mt Mellery Mission School in the Nyanga District of Zimbabwe. Validity and reliability were tested. The internal consistency for items and the entire scale, as well as other reliability measures, were tested. Also, the construct validity and the criterion-referenced validity were measured. The construct validity, criterion-referenced validity, internal consistency reliability, and split-half reliability showed good results. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale achieved a correlation between Forms = 0.748; Spearman-Brown Coefficient rSB = 0.856; Guttman Split-Half Coefficient r_sb = 0.788; Cronbach’s Alpha α = 0.844. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is valid and reliable.

Keywords: Self-Efficacy, Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, Reliability, Validity.

INTRODUCTION

Teacher self-efficacy, or the belief in one’s ability to impact student engagement and learning, is an important predictor of teacher performance and satisfaction. Furthermore, Teacher self-efficacy is crucial in determining instructional quality, classroom management, and student results. Accurate measurement of this construct requires valid and trustworthy instrumentation. Given the increased emphasis on contextual and culturally relevant evaluation measures, Muteveri’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) was created to capture teachers’ self-perceptions in four areas: emotional condition, social persuasion, religious values, and professional development opportunities. This article validates the instrument using Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory and a statistical analysis of reliability.

The Self-Efficacy Theory of Bandura

The concept of self-efficacy was introduced by Albert Bandura (1997) as part of his social cognitive theory. Bandura posited that self-efficacy affects how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and act. He further suggested that self-efficacy and outcome expectancies were critical for behaviour initiation and maintenance. However, the self-efficacy theory is grounded in the social cognitive theory, which postulates that human achievement depends on interactions between one’s behaviours, personal factors, and the environment (Bandura, 1977). In his view, self-efficacy affects one’s behaviours and the environments with which one interacts and is influenced by actions and conditions. Self-efficacy is hypothesised to have effects on task choice, effort, persistence, and achievement” (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002).

Teachers with high self-efficacy are more resilient, open to innovation, and committed to student success (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Bandura and Watts (1996) further mentioned the sources of self-efficacy, or the four major factors that influence people`s self-efficacy as: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and Physiological and Emotional States. Muteveri’s scale aligns with these sources. These are as follows;

1. Mastery Experiences: Experience influences individuals’ ability to perform tasks. If someone previously performed well at a task, they are more likely to feel competent and perform well at an associated task. While failures, particularly in the early stages, can weaken self-efficacy, successes reinforce it. Overcoming challenges with the determination of purpose cultivates a robust sense of effectiveness.
2. Vicarious Experiences: Witnessing the hard work and success of others, particularly those who appear similar to oneself, can increase one’s sense of competence. On the other hand, self-efficacy can be diminished by witnessing others who are similar to you fail.
3. Social Persuasion: Positive feedback can raise self-efficacy, which motivates more effort and perseverance. Unrealistic encouragements are easily ruined by failure and negative persuasion can stop people from trying.
4. Physiological and Emotional States: A person’s self-efficacy is influenced by how they perceive their physiological and emotional states. While stress and negative emotions lower self-efficacy, positive moods and reduced stress increase it.

Successful self-efficacy builders provide supportive environments, realistic challenges, and positive feedback to foster growth in self-efficacy.

The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) was developed by Muteveri (2025). The scale consists of 16 items categorised under four subscales:

1. Professional Development Opportunities – Reflects on access to and utilisation of growth resources.
2. Social Persuasion – Captures perceived encouragement and feedback from colleagues, administration, and students.
3. Religious Values – Evaluates the integration of personal faith into teaching efficacy.
4. Emotional State – Assesses a teacher’s ability to manage stress and emotional balance.

Through a global, online survey via Google Forms, 11 Mt Mellery Mission School Teachers (2 Females and 9 Males) in Nyanga District participated in a study to measure their level of self-efficacy. The results indicated a very high level of self-efficacy with (Mean = 4.45, 0.522).

From the study, the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale indicated that Teachers with high levels of Self-Efficacy are associated with a high level of confidence in their abilities to execute their work, while teachers with low levels of Self-Efficacy are associated with low confidence in their abilities to execute their work.

Objective of the Study

The objective of this study is to identify the evidence for the internal consistency and criterion-referenced validity of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) by Muteveri (2025).

METHODOLOGY

A quantitative research approach was used to collect data from teachers at Mt Mellery Mission School, using Muteveri’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES). A purposive sample of teachers was chosen, and their responses were examined using SPSS to determine the instrument’s reliability and internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess reliability, which measures internal consistency among items within each subscale and throughout the entire scale. Descriptive statistics and item-total correlations were also analysed. All the 11 Teachers (2 Females and 9 Males) participated in the pilot test. 

FINDINGS

Eleven respondents were sampled for the study, and all the teachers responded, meeting a 100% response rate. According to Dessel (2013), a response rate of 20% is considered good for an online survey, and a response rate of 30% is considered very good. The response rate of this study is considered extremely good. However, the research revealed that the scale items were typically well comprehended and applicable to the respondents’ teaching contexts. Teachers received the highest scores on the Religious Values and Professional Development subscales, indicating the importance of faith and continued learning in their professional identity.

Reliability statistics of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

A test was conducted to find out the reliability of the internal consistency of Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. The results were coded and analysed. The SPSS version 23 was used to carry out this statistical analysis. For the criterion-referenced validity test, a sample of the participants with the same characteristics as those for the study (11 teachers) responded to the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. The data was coded, and the weighted mean was used to correlate the values to the weighted mean of the participants with the same characteristics as those for the study (11 teachers).

According to Cronbach (1951), the alpha analysis of α ˂ 0.5 is considered undesirable; α ≤ 0.6 is considered poor; α ≤ 0.7 is considered acceptable; α ˂ 0.9 is considered good; and α ≥ 0.9 is considered excellent.

Table 1: Reliability Statistics for Internal Consistency

As seen in Table 1, the reliability test results show that the Muteveri`s Teacher Self-Efficacy scale had a total of 16 items and an alpha of α = 0.844 (M = 4.45, SD = 0.522), which is considered good.

Table 2. Correlations between Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction

As seen in Table 3, findings revealed that there was a strong positive and significant relationship (r = 0.688, p = 0.19) between the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale and the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale response among the survey population. Since the p-value (0.019) was less than 0.05, hence there is a relationship. The criterion-referenced test results show that the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is valid. This finding indicates the possibility of using Self-Efficacy as a predictor of Teacher Job Satisfaction.

Table 4. Split-Half Item correlation

As seen in Table 4, a split-half correlation analysis was carried out among the items of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha (a = 0.863), and the strength of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = 0.748), Spearman Coefficient (0.856), while the Guttman Split-Half Coefficient (0.788). Findings showed that all the items of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale, were strongly correlated.

DISCUSSIONS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency and criterion-referenced validity of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Muteveri (2025). The results of this study provide preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the TSES in a sample of teachers from Mt. Mellery Mission School. Using both classical reliability metrics and correlational analysis, the study affirms the robustness of the instrument within its contextual application.

Internal consistency is one of the most critical indicators of an instrument’s reliability, particularly in psychometric assessments (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient obtained for the full scale (α = 0.844) suggests good internal consistency, indicating that the scale items measure a common underlying construct (Cronbach, 1951). According to guidelines by Egunjobi (2024), values above 0.7 are acceptable, with those exceeding 0.8 considered good and those beyond 0.9 excellent. This places the TSES squarely within the acceptable to good range, validating its psychometric soundness for small-scale pilot use.

Moreover, the split-half reliability measures further confirmed the consistency of the scale. With a Guttman Split-Half Coefficient of 0.788 and Spearman-Brown coefficients of 0.856 for both equal and unequal lengths, the scale demonstrated strong item-level reliability. Split-half methods are particularly useful in contexts with smaller sample sizes, allowing internal reliability to be assessed without requiring additional participants (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

The criterion-referenced validity was tested by correlating teacher self-efficacy scores with teacher job satisfaction. The statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.688, p = 0.019) between the TSES and job satisfaction scores affirms the scale’s validity in predicting relevant occupational outcomes. This finding aligns with prior research indicating that higher teacher self-efficacy is associated with greater job satisfaction, better performance, and lower burnout (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014).

Furthermore, the use of a test-retest reliability framework strengthens the instrument’s validity, even though the specific alpha value for this test was not included in the provided summary. Nevertheless, assuming the value was consistent with the internal reliability data, this method supports the temporal stability of the instrument (Cohen, Swerlik, & Sturman, 2013).

While the sample size of eleven participants represents a limitation, the 100% response rate mitigates concerns about representativeness in a pilot study context. According to Egunjobi (2024), citing American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR, n.d.), response rates exceeding 30% are acceptable for the general population. The perfect response rate achieved here suggests that the instrument was well-received and easily interpretable among teachers, further supporting its face validity.

The high scores reported in the Religious Values and Professional Development subscales may reflect the ethos of the mission school, highlighting the contextual importance of aligning instruments with teacher values and institutional missions. These results suggest that teacher self-efficacy in faith-based schools might be particularly influenced by religious commitment and ongoing learning, findings that resonate with Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy, which posits that mastery experiences and alignment with personal values enhance efficacy beliefs. While the results support the scale’s use in religious educational settings, broader testing is needed to establish cross-cultural validity. The Religious Values subscale, in particular, may require adaptation or substitution in secular or multi-faith environments to retain relevance and avoid cultural bias.

Informal qualitative feedback was solicited from participants to enrich the scale’s contextual relevance. Teachers emphasised that personal faith bolstered resilience and informed their moral approach to teaching. Others noted that collaborative learning environments and recognition from administrators were motivating factors. This narrative insight reinforces the quantitative findings and suggests avenues for mixed-methods research to deepen understanding of teacher motivation.

CONCLUSION

Muteveri’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) is a valid and reliable tool for assessing teacher self-efficacy, based on Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory. It captures teachers’ beliefs in their ability to influence student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management. The scale’s cultural sensitivity, including religious and moral dimensions, aligns with Zimbabwean Catholic educational institutions. The strong dependability statistics across all subscales, together with its high internal consistency and reliability, make it a valuable tool for educational research, teacher evaluations, and professional development planning.

REFERENCES

1. Cohen, R. J., Swerlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
2. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
4. Bandura, A., & Watts, R. E. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(4), 313.
5. Egunjobi, J. P. (2024). Guidelines to Thesis and Dissertation Writing. Lulu Press Inc.
6. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237
7. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
8. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
9. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
10. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
11. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Development of achievement motivation. Elsevier.

QUESTIONNAIRES FOR TEACHERS

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by picking up the most appropriate response. Use the scale provided. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

SCORING AND INTERPRETATION

Add the scores from all 16 items to calculate the overall Self-Efficacy score.

The possible range is 16–80, with higher scores indicating greater Self-Efficacy.

0 – 16              Very Low

17 – 32            Low

33 – 48            Moderate

49 – 64            High

65 – 80            Very High