SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1

Reliability Generalization Meta Analysis of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale

Öğretmen Öz-Yeterlik Algısı Ölçeğinin Meta-Analizle Güvenirlik Genellemesi

Harun Dilek(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-5671-6858
Selahattin Gelbal(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-5181-7262
Pages
1–27
Publication Date
2023-07-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The objective of this study was to estimate the overall Cronbach's alpha value of the total score and three subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The objective of this study was to estimate the overall Cronbach's alpha value of the total score and three subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, the study was conducted with 189 Cronbach's alpha values from 187 different studies for the total score of the scale and 157 Cronbach's alpha values from 156 different studies for the subscales.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, Cronbach's alpha values of the total score and subscales of the scale were found to be at an adequate level and recommendations were made for researchers.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Reliability generalization · Meta-analysis · Self-efficacy

Abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate the overall Cronbach's alpha value of the total score and three subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. For this purpose, the study was conducted with 189 Cronbach's alpha values from 187 different studies for the total score of the scale and 157 Cronbach's alpha values from 156 different studies for the subscales. The analyses were conducted with the Random Effect model using Bonett transformation. The average Cronbach's alpha value for the total score of the scale was .931, .854 for the efficacy for student engagement subscale, .871 for the efficacy for instructional strategies subscale and .869 for the efficacy for classroom management subscale. In order to explore the variability in Cronbach's alpha values, moderator variable analyses were conducted with three categorical variables and the results were reported. As a result, Cronbach's alpha values of the total score and subscales of the scale were found to be at an adequate level and recommendations were made for researchers.

Özet

The objective of this study was to estimate the overall Cronbach's alpha value of the total score and three subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. For this purpose, the study was conducted with 189 Cronbach's alpha values from 187 different studies for the total score of the scale and 157 Cronbach's alpha values from 156 different studies for the subscales. The analyses were conducted with the Random Effect model using Bonett transformation. The average Cronbach's alpha value for the total score of the scale was .931, .854 for the efficacy for student engagement subscale, .871 for the efficacy for instructional strategies subscale and .869 for the efficacy for classroom management subscale. In order to explore the variability in Cronbach's alpha values, moderator variable analyses were conducted with three categorical variables and the results were reported. As a result, Cronbach's alpha values of the total score and subscales of the scale were found to be at an adequate level and recommendations were made for researchers.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dilek, H., Gelbal, S. (2023). Reliability Generalization Meta Analysis of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 1–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/1646285

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther., 1,139-161.
  2. Begg, C. B. & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, (50), 1088-1101.
  3. Bonett, D. G. (2002). Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(4), 335-340.
  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
  5. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. The Guilford Press.
  6. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning.
  7. Çapa, Y., Çakıroğlu, J. & Sarıkaya, J. (2005). The development and validation of a Turkish version of the teacheıs’ sense of efficacy scale. Education and Science, 30(137), 78-81.
  8. Dinçer, S. (2021). Eğitim bilimlerinde uygulamalı meta-analiz. Pegem Akademi.
  9. Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A monte carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 161-180.
  10. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
  11. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Education and Debate, (327).
  12. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
  13. Nunnaly, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  14. Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641.
  16. Sánchez-Meca, J., López-López, J. A. & López-Pina, J. A. (2013). Some recommended statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(3), 402-425. 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02057.x
  17. Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics is datametrics: The test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(2), 174–195. 10.1177/0013164400602002
  18. Tschanen Moran, M. & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
  19. Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 6-20. 10.1177/0013164498058001002