Normative data of the teacher self-efficacy scale in Chilean elementary school teachers

Abstract

Self-efficacy is crucial to teaching performance; it enables teachers to establish positive relation-ships with students, cope with work challenges, and promote academic success. Assessing perceived self-efficacy is vital because it directly impacts daily pedagogical practices. This study sought to establish normative data for interpreting the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) scores among Chilean elementary school teachers. The sample included 1,426 first- to eighth-grade teachers, with an average age of 41.4 years (SD = 10.8), from public and subsidized private schools. No significant differences (d = 0.09) were found in self-efficacy scores between men (M = 98.8; SD = 15.1) and women (M = 97.4; SD = 15.7), so the full sample was analyzed. The reliability coefficient was excellent (α = 0.971). The average TSES score was 97.7 (SD = 15.6), exceeding the theoretical midpoint (M_theoretical = 72). Most teachers were in the average range of the scale (T = 40–60). These normative data enable accurate interpretation of teacher self-efficacy, facilitating targeted interventions to improve teachers’ wellbeing and professional effectiveness.

1 Introduction

There is ongoing interest in studying teachers’ characteristics and how these are reflected in their pedagogical practices. Teacher self-efficacy is crucial for elementary school student learning (Almonacid et al., 2023; Gülsün et al., 2023; Leavy et al., 2023; Naimanova et al., 2023), given the high workload and dynamic and demanding context in which teachers operate (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2023). Self-efficacy refers to judgments about one’s cognitive, social, and behavioral abilities, allowing individuals to face various situations effectively for positive outcomes (Bandura, 1981, 1984).

Self-efficacy beliefs are significant in shaping an individual’s thoughts and emotions, thus reflecting their performance contexts and effort levels (Bandura, 1981, 1982, 1984). In a teaching context, teacher self-efficacy relates to beliefs about one’s abilities in specific performance areas, developing skills to perform professional duties, i.e., teaching and learning activities that achieve set objectives (Dellinger et al., 2008; Downes et al., 2021; Hoang and Wyatt, 2021; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) note that teacher self-efficacy encompasses instructional practices, classroom management, and student engagement, motivating students to participate in classes and school activities.

Teacher self-efficacy impacts behavior and personal experiences positively in students, fostering proper student-teacher relationships, reducing conflicts, and increasing closeness (Granziera and Perera, 2019; Hajovsky et al., 2020; Shu, 2022; Wettstein et al., 2021). Teacher self-efficacy perception is associated with a reduction in both externalizing and internalizing behavior in children, and this association remains consistent over time (Finch et al., 2023). Teachers with higher self-efficacy focus on student success and being accessible to students, while those with lower self-efficacy concentrate on behavior management (Pressley and Ha, 2021; Woodcock et al., 2022). Higher teacher self-efficacy enhances job commitment and satisfaction (Cayupe et al., 2023; Ispir and Yildiz, 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Mokhtar et al., 2023), contributing to better student academic performance (Mahmoodi et al., 2022; Murillo et al., 2018).

Classroom management is a concern for teachers, aiding appropriate student learning and performance (González-Mayorga and Rodríguez-Esteban, 2023). Teacher self-efficacy in promoting student engagement predicts the wellbeing of the educators (Reppa et al., 2023). Improving teacher self-efficacy in classroom management, instructional strategies, and student engagement impacts relationships positively and reduces behavioral issues (Rivas et al., 2023). Effective instructional practices are related to learning, supporting student writing development (Wang and Troia, 2023), and mathematics teaching (Bosica, 2022). Teacher self-efficacy perception is essential, given student diversity, linked to successful teaching strategies (Chunta and DuPaul, 2022; Gülsün et al., 2023; Opoku et al., 2022; Woodcock et al., 2022; Yada et al., 2018). High self-efficacy teachers adapt instructions to student needs, ensuring relevant and interesting learning experiences (Woodcock et al., 2022).

In Ghana, teachers reported moderate to high self-efficacy in student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management, highlighting the importance of experience and training workshops (Agormedah et al., 2022). Teacher self-efficacy is affected by contextual changes, impacting practices (Pressley and Ha, 2021). High self-efficacy teachers possess a deeper understanding of student needs, demonstrate a higher level of commitment to their colleagues, employ inclusive teaching methods, and effectively handle student behavior (Charles et al., 2023; Devi and Ganguly, 2022). Low self-efficacy influences less emotional support and collaboration among teachers, which is vital for inclusive education (Mudhar et al., 2023).

Research has shown that teacher self-efficacy levels can be improved (Gómez-Marí et al., 2023); implementing teacher training programs that address the specific needs and requirements of various contexts is essential to enhancing pedagogical outcomes (Devi and Ganguly, 2022; Waswa and Celik, 2021). Teacher self-efficacy is linked to experience and further training (Altay, 2023; Reyes-Cruz, 2020; Segarra Escandón et al., 2022; Thomson et al., 2022). Teachers are part of an educational community where support from other members and administrative backing facilitate classroom management (Pressley and Rangel, 2023). Teacher self-efficacy is important to consider due to the substantial effort educators must make in their everyday activities; therefore, it is vital to provide support for teachers and their teaching (Ryan and Hendry, 2023).

Teacher self-efficacy perception should be evaluated to take actions supporting teachers in their work. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) focuses on three areas of teacher activities linked to their self-efficacy perception: efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. The efficacy for instructional strategies dimension concerns the teacher’s perception of effectiveness in implementing various classroom strategies; efficacy for classroom management addresses the ability to manage student behavior, adhering to classroom norms; efficacy for student engagement focuses on the teacher’s perception of engaging students in activities effectively (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

The scale includes psychometric studies of Chilean teachers. Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira (2016) found a four-dimensional factor structure with 17 items, proposing a fourth factor, efficacy in attending to student uniqueness and assessing teacher capacity to teach diverse students. The scale has validity and reliability evidence. Gálvez-Nieto et al. (2023) reported that the bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (B-ESEM) for 24 items, with one general factor and three residual factors, fit the data best, suggesting using a global score.

The TSES has been used in various studies in Chile, showing lower self-efficacy in public school teachers (Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira, 2016). Physical education teachers in public schools showed higher general self-efficacy but lower classroom management scores (Pérez et al., 2023). Teacher self-efficacy perception was associated with more years of experience and postgraduate training, providing tools to cope with daily challenges (Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira, 2016; Pérez et al., 2023). No gender differences were found in self-efficacy perception (Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira, 2015; Pérez et al., 2023), consistent with some studies but contrasting others reporting gender differences (Sirmaci and Taş, 2016; Tárraga-Mínguez et al., 2022).

Given the empirical knowledge of various constructs, the TSES lacks normative data for classifying teachers by self-efficacy levels. It is important to note that normative data for various self-efficacy scales have been presented in research conducted in different countries. For example, normative data for the General Self-Efficacy Scale have been provided for Spanish university students (Suárez et al., 2000) and Spanish adolescents (Espada et al., 2012). Additionally, Dominguez-Lara (2016) conducted research with Peruvian university students and presented normative values for the academic self-efficacy scale with the aim of identifying university students with low self-efficacy. Furthermore, normative data have been reported for the Academic Life Self-Efficacy Scale in Mexican university students (García-Méndez and Rivera-Ledesma, 2021) and for children’s self-efficacy (Oros, 2017). However, these contributions have not been made for Chilean teachers, despite the potential significance for the school community, given the numerous challenges faced by teachers, such as the high segregation of the educational system (Murillo et al., 2023; Murillo and Garrido, 2017) and other adverse conditions that reduce the likelihood of students reaching their full potential (Espinoza et al., 2022; Vargas Diaz and Matus Correa, 2022).

Normative data are essential for interpreting individual TSES scores compared to an appropriate reference group, providing a clear framework for assessing self-efficacy levels. These data assist in identifying teachers who require training to improve their classroom management and teaching strategies. They facilitate effective educational interventions, contribute to teacher wellbeing by reducing burnout risk, and promote educational equity by considering contextual and demographic differences. In summary, normative data provide precise assessment and remediation aimed at enhancing teacher wellbeing and professional efficacy, which in turn benefit the entire school community.

Therefore, it is essential to develop normative data for interpreting TSES scores among Chilean elementary school teachers, supporting teachers in areas with lower scores through targeted interventions, consistent with research highlighting the importance of training to increase self-efficacy in their work (Altay, 2023; Devi and Ganguly, 2022; Reyes-Cruz, 2020; Segarra Escandón et al., 2022; Thomson et al., 2022; Waswa and Celik, 2021). This approach represents a significant contribution to research and planning interventions in schools, enabling the evaluation of teacher self-efficacy perception and creating opportunities to improve weak areas, activating necessary resources at the personal, social, school, and community levels. Consequently, the goal is to establish normative data for interpreting the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) scores among Chilean elementary school teachers.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Design

This research used a non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive design, allowing data collection at a single point in time without manipulating independent variables (Toro Jaramillo and Parra Ramírez, 2010), describing the variables studied regarding their normative data.

2.2 Participants

The population consisted of all public school teachers in Chile from 1st to 8th grade (N = 85,298), teaching students aged approximately 6–13 years. A stratified random sample was estimated based on region, habitat (urban and rural), type of funding (public and subsidized schools), and gender. The sampling was probabilistic, stratified, and multistage with 95% confidence, 2.5% sampling error, and variance p = q = 0.5 (Scheaffer et al., 1987). The expected sample was 1,576 teachers, representing 1.85% of the population.

A total of 1,426 teachers (22.7% men, 77.3% women) with an average age of 41.5 years (SD = 10.8) from 250 public (65.1%) and subsidized (34.9%) schools participated in this research. Experience ranged from less than 1 to 48 years, with an average of 14.3 years (SD = 10.1). Geographically, 10.9% of teachers worked in rural schools and 89.1% in urban schools.

It should be noted that this dataset was collected for a large-scale national study; therefore, previous articles have published these data, such as, Salvo-Garrido et al. (2023, 2024) and Gálvez-Nieto et al. (2023). It is important to highlight that the proposed objectives are different.

2.3 Instruments

Sociodemographic Questionnaire: Data on age, gender, region, commune, school name, school type (public or subsidized), residence (urban or rural), professional title, years of experience, and ethnic group membership were collected.

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES): The TSES evaluates teacher efficacy perception (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), consisting of 24 items responded on a five-point ordinal scale (1 = none, 5 = a lot), covering three correlated factors: Efficacy for instructional strategies, Efficacy for classroom management, and Efficacy for student engagement. National and international evidence shows appropriate psychometric properties (Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira, 2016; Dominguez-Lara et al., 2019; Gálvez-Nieto et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), indicating the scale can be used with Chilean teachers as a unidimensional measure.

2.4 Procedure

The schools were randomly selected, and with this information, contact was made with the chosen institutions. Meetings were requested with school principals or relevant authorities to present the research and invite participation.

Subsequently, a list of primary school teachers from the educational institution was requested, and those who were invited to participate in the research were randomly selected. The school administrators sent an email to the selected teachers containing the link to complete the survey.

Teachers who agreed accessed a link to the informed consent, explaining the study’s objective and ethical principles, including voluntary participation, risks, and benefits. After reviewing the information, teachers could participate or exit the website.

Data were collected via the online platform Question Pro. This study was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Universidad de La Frontera, Chile (Evaluation File No. 053_21; Study Protocol Sheet No. 019/21).

2.5 Data analysis

Preliminary analysis compared teacher self-efficacy scores between men and women to determine the relevance of separate normative data (Dominguez-Lara et al., 2018), using Cohen’s d magnitude: < 0.41 insignificant; 0.41–1.15 low; 1.15–2.70 moderate; > 2.70 high (Ferguson, 2009). Descriptive (mean, standard deviation) and distributional (skewness, kurtosis) analyses were performed. Univariate normality of teacher self-efficacy was evaluated with skewness (< 2) and kurtosis (< 7) (Finney and DiStefano, 2013).

Normative data were determined using the percentile rank (PR) interval range and T score. PR represents the percentage of participants with a similar or lower score than the evaluated subject (Crocker and Algina, 2006). The T score (M = 50; SD = 10) assesses if the score is below, above, or within the normative sample mean. Values one standard deviation (SD) below and above the mean (T = 40–60) represent two-thirds of all participants, considered average teacher self-efficacy (Table 1) (Kelley, 1939). The JAMOVI software (The Jamovi Project, 2023) was used for the descriptive analyses, and a script created in SPSS (IBM Corp, 2015) by the authors was employed for the normative scores.

Finally, the K2 coefficient (>0.7) (Livingston, 1972) was calculated to assess the reliability of each cutoff point, determining the levels presented (Table 1) for precise classification (Dominguez-Lara et al., 2018; Fernández Arata et al., 2014). This coefficient is suitable as distributional characteristics (e.g., high kurtosis) do not significantly affect it, allowing use even without the normality assumption (Gempp and Saiz, 2014). The α coefficient was previously calculated to estimate reliability (>0.8) (Ponterotto and Charter, 2009).

3 Results

The initial comparative analysis of teacher self-efficacy scores between men (M = 98.8; SD = 15.1) and women (M = 97.4; SD = 15.7) indicated no significant differences (d = 0.09), so the full sample was analyzed. The reliability coefficient was excellent (α = 0.971), reflecting low measurement error. The average teacher self-efficacy score was 97.7 (SD = 15.6), well above the theoretical midpoint (Theoretical Range = 24–120; M_theoretical = 72), with acceptable skewness −0.621 (SE = 0.13) and kurtosis 0.151 (SE = 0.13), suggesting a reasonable approach to univariate normality. Table 2 presents the typical scores corresponding to the direct scores of the scale, thus providing normative data for the Chilean population. Normative values for the TSES showed that central values (average level) predominate compared to the lower scale values. The theoretical mid-point (Theoretical Mean = 72) represented a low PR (<16), below the observed mean (T < 40). Cutoff reliability was optimal in all cases (> 0.95), indicating low measurement error around scores defining the established levels (Tables 2, 3).

Table 3 shows the normative values by interval range, based on the interpretation ranges of the T score.

Most teachers have high scores. Teachers with low scores (<65) are around the lowest 2% of the distribution, while higher scores (>115) are above the 85th percentile. Regarding the T score, most participants were between 40 and 60, indicating average teacher self-efficacy. These normative data provide precise information about the self-efficacy levels expressed by participating teachers, allowing for appropriate interventions.

4 Discussion

The results indicate that perceived self-efficacy among Chilean elementary school teachers is generally high, with most participants falling within the average and high ranges on the TSES. These findings align with previous studies suggesting that teacher self-efficacy is closely related to experience and continuous training, as noted by Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira (2016) as well as Pérez et al. (2023).

The high reliability of the established cutoff points (>0.95) reinforces the precision of the obtained normative data, allowing for an accurate interpretation of teacher self-efficacy levels with a low margin of error. High teacher self-efficacy is associated with greater job satisfaction and professional commitment (Cayupe et al., 2023; Ispir and Yildiz, 2023; Liu et al., 2022; Mokhtar et al., 2023), positively influencing student academic performance (Mahmoodi et al., 2022; Murillo et al., 2018).

The analyses show no significant differences in self-efficacy levels between men and women, consistent with some previous studies (Covarrubias-Apablaza and Mendoza-Lira, 2015; Pérez et al., 2023), though contrasting with others reporting gender differences (Sirmaci and Taş, 2016; Tárraga-Mínguez et al., 2022). This finding suggests that in the Chilean context, teacher self-efficacy might be independent of gender, which is good news for educational equity.

The concentration of high scores on the TSES suggests that teachers have a positive perception of their ability to manage classrooms, implement effective instructional strategies, and engage students. This aligns with research highlighting the importance of self-efficacy in classroom management and student engagement to promote a positive learning environment (Rivas et al., 2023; Woodcock et al., 2022).

However, some teachers were in the lower scale ranges despite generally high self-efficacy levels. These teachers could benefit from specific interventions to improve their self-efficacy, as suggested by studies emphasizing the need for institutional support and continuous professional development programs (Altay, 2023; Devi and Ganguly, 2022; Reyes-Cruz, 2020; Segarra Escandón et al., 2022; Thomson et al., 2022; Waswa and Celik, 2021). The TSES items focus on specific classroom situations, both in terms of capacity development (e.g., item 2 focuses on critical thinking) and handling challenging behaviors (e.g., item 3). Therefore, intervention programs that provide resources to improve teacher performance could be developed using the TSES for initial and final assessments and considering a prior longitudinal invariance analysis (Brown, 2015).

In conclusion, the normative data presented in this study provide a solid foundation for accurately classifying teacher self-efficacy levels in Chile. These findings enrich the literature on teacher self-efficacy and have significant practical implications. Educational institutions and policymakers can use these data to design and implement specific intervention programs to improve teacher self-efficacy, contributing to better professional performance and a more effective educational environment. Different teacher profiles can be established, grouped, and differentiated based on perceived self-efficacy levels, identifying teachers with similar demographic or professional characteristics and allowing for differentiated and pertinent interventions. From a methodological standpoint, this study is particularly relevant because teacher self-efficacy levels are sometimes determined based on arbitrary criteria and without empirical support, as observed in some studies (Agormedah et al., 2022; Savas et al., 2014). This practice could compromise research outcomes, especially when these results inform public policy or state-funded initiatives.

Despite the significant contributions of this study, some limitations must be considered. First, the sample consisted only of public and subsidized private school teachers, which may not fully represent the reality of private school teachers, given that teacher self-efficacy experiences often differ depending on the type of school management (Huang et al., 2023), and even in relation to the school’s geographical location (Surana, 2021). Second, the high TSES scores may be influenced by social desirability bias or an overestimation of one’s teaching abilities. Therefore, it is recommended to complement this evaluation with objective measures such as classroom observations, peer reports, or student assessments (Parola et al., 2022) to mitigate the potential effect of social desirability bias.

Future research should expand sample diversity to include private school teachers for broader generalization of findings. First, longitudinal studies are recommended to evaluate how teacher self-efficacy evolves over time and in response to different training interventions (Jiang et al., 2024). Second, multivariate analyses could be incorporated to examine the interaction of variables relevant to the Chilean educational context (e.g., school type, educational level, teaching experience, etc.) with teacher self-efficacy (Odanga et al., 2022), thereby providing additional information to schools aiming to optimize their resources. Finally, another promising research area explores the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and contextual factors such as institutional support and working conditions that may influence teacher performance and wellbeing. Additionally, incorporating more objective evaluation methods like classroom observations and peer evaluations to complement teacher self-reports would provide a more comprehensive understanding of teacher self-efficacy and its determinants.

The normative data presented in this study can serve as a valuable tool for school administrators and educational psychologists. By using the cut-off points based on T-scores and percentiles, educational institutions can identify teachers whose self-efficacy levels fall below or above the average range. This allows for the development of targeted interventions such as professional development programs, peer mentoring, or individual coaching. Moreover, tracking changes in these scores over time can help monitor the effectiveness of institutional strategies aimed at improving teacher wellbeing, classroom performance, and student outcomes. The availability of empirical norms contributes to informed decision-making and fosters more equitable support across diverse teaching contexts.

References

• 1

  AgormedahE. K.AnkomahF.FrimpongJ.QuansahF.Srem-SaiM.HaganJ. E.et al. (2022). Investigating teachers’ experience and self-efficacy beliefs across gender in implementing the new standards-based curriculum in Ghana. Front. Educ.7:932447. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.932447

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AlmonacidJ.PáezJ.MuñozI.OyarceC.CerdaM.WaltonM.et al. (2023). The perception of teaching self-efficacy in Chilean physical education teachers inserted in the school education field. Retos48, 564–574. doi: 10.47197/retos.v48.95893

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Altayİ. F. (2023). Study on prospective EFL teachers’ efficacy levels in relation to some independent variables. Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi38, 505–515. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2023.507

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BanduraA. (1981). “Self-referent thought: a developmental analysis of self-efficacy” in Social cognitive development: frontiers and possible futures. eds. FlavellJ. H.RossL. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 200–239.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol.37, 122–147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BanduraA. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cogn. Ther. Res.8, 231–255. doi: 10.1007/BF01172995

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BosicaJ. (2022). Using a mixed methods approach to study the relationship between mathematics anxiety, mathematics teacher efficacy, and mathematics teaching anxiety in preservice elementary school teachers in Ontario. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ.22, 190–209. doi: 10.1007/s42330-022-00203-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications. Available online at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_tools/1/ (Accessed March 15, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  CayupeJ. C.Bernedo-MoreiraD. H.Morales-GarcíaW. C.AlcarazF. L.PeñaK. B. C.SaintilaJ.et al. (2023). Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, workload as predictors of life satisfaction in elementary school teachers: the mediating role of job satisfaction. Front. Psychol.14:1066321. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1066321

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CharlesE.MetsalaJ.SpechtJ. (2023). Gains in pre-service teacher efficacy for inclusive education: contributions of initial beliefs and practicum length. Int. J. Incl. Educ.1–18, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2023.2264855

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChuntaA. M.DuPaulG. J. (2022). Educational diagnostic label and teacher self-efficacy: impact on classroom intervention choice. Sch. Psychol.37, 298–308. doi: 10.1037/spq0000509

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Covarrubias-ApablazaC. G.Mendoza-LiraM. (2015). Analysis of the self-efficacy sense in Chilean teachers from gender and experience perspectives; [Sentimiento de autoeficacia en una muestra de profesores chilenos desde las perspectivas de género y experiencia]. Estud. Pedagóg.41, 63–78. doi: 10.4067/s0718-07052015000100004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Covarrubias-ApablazaC. G.Mendoza-LiraM. C. (2016). Determinantes e impacto de los sentimientos de autoeficacia en los profesores. Educ. Educ.19, 339–354. doi: 10.5294/edu.2016.19.3.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CrockerL.AlginaJ. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DellingerA. B.BobbettJ. J.OlivierD. F.EllettC. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: development and use of the TEBS-self. Teach. Teach. Educ.24, 751–766. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DeviA.GangulyR. (2022). Pre-service teachers’ and recent teacher graduates’ perceptions of self-efficacy in teaching students with autism Spectrum disorder – an exploratory case study. Int. J. Incl. Educ.28, 2218–2234. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2022.2088869

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Dominguez-LaraS. (2016). Normative data of an academic self-efficacy scale in college students from Lima. Interacciones2, 91–98. doi: 10.24016/2016.v2n2.31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Dominguez-LaraS.Fernández-ArataM.CésarM.-S.Navarro-LoliJ. S.Calderón-De la CruzG. (2019). Escala de Autoeficacia Docente: Análisis estructural e invarianza de medición en docentes peruanos de escuelas públicas. Rev. Argent. Ciencias Comport.11, 61–72. doi: 10.32348/1852.4206.v11.n3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Dominguez-LaraS.Fernández-ArataM.Manrique-MillonesD.Alarcón-ParcoD.Díaz-PeñalozaM. (2018). Datos normativos de una escala de agotamiento emocional académico en estudiantes universitarios de psicología de Lima (Perú). Educ. Méd.19, 246–255. doi: 10.1016/j.edumed.2017.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DownesP. E.CrawfordE. R.SeibertS. E.CampbellE. M. (2021). Referents or role models? The self-efficacy and job performance effects of perceiving higher performing peers. J. Appl. Psychol.106, 422–438. doi: 10.1037/apl0000519

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  EspadaJ. P.GonzálvezM. T.OrgilésM.CarballoJ. L.PiquerasJ. A.Miguel HernándezU.et al. (2012). Validación de la Escala de Autoeficacia General con adolescentes españoles. Electron. J. Res. Educ. Psychol.10:355.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  EspinozaV.Santa CruzC.RosasR. (2022). Developmental trajectories of written language precursors according to socioeconomic status. Read. Writ. Q.38, 199–214. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2021.1929618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  FergusonC. J. (2009). An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract.40, 532–538. doi: 10.1037/a0015808

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Fernández ArataM.CésarY.SotoM. (2014). Error de medición alrededor de los puntos de corte en el MBI-GS. Liberabit20, 209–218.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  FinchJ. E.AkhaveinK.PatwardhanI.ClarkC. A. C. (2023). Teachers’ self-efficacy and perceptions of school climate are uniquely associated with students’ externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.85:101512. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2023.101512

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  FinneyS.DiStefanoC. (2013). “Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation models” in A second course in structural equation modeling. eds. HancockG. R.MuellerR. O.. 2nd ed (Charlotte, NC: Information Age), 339–342.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Gálvez-NietoJ. L.Salvo-GarridoS.Domínguez-LaraS.Polanco-LevicánK.Mieres-ChacaltanaM. (2023). Psychometric properties of the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale in a sample of Chilean public school teachers. Front. Psychol.14:1272548. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1272548

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  García-MéndezR. M.Rivera-LedesmaA. (2021). Escala de autoeficacia en la vida académica: Propiedades psicométricas en estudiantes de nuevo ingreso al nivel universitario. Rev. Electr. Educ.25, 1–28. doi: 10.15359/ree.25-2.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  GemppR.SaizJ. L. (2014). El coeficiente K2 de Livingston y la fiabilidad de una decisión dicotómica en un test psicológico. Univ. Psychol.13, 217–226. doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-1.eckl

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Gómez-MaríI.Pastor-CerezuelaG.Lacruz-PérezI.Tárraga-MínguezR. (2023). Do labels matter? Analysis of teachers’ self-efficacy towards the autism spectrum disorder depending on the diagnostic label used (ASD or Asperger’s). J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs23, 126–135. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  González-MayorgaH.Rodríguez-EstebanA. (2023). Classroom management self-efficacy in primary and secondary teachers: predictor variables and teacher profiles. Aula Abierta52, 71–80. doi: 10.17811/rifie.52.1.2023.71-80

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  GranzieraH.PereraH. N. (2019). Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: a social cognitive view. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.58, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Gülsünİ.MalinenO. P.YadaA.SavolainenH. (2023). Exploring the role of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, their self-efficacy, and collective efficacy in behaviour management in teacher behaviour. Teach. Teach. Educ.132:104228. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HajovskyD. B.ChesnutS. R.JensenK. M. (2020). The role of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the development of teacher-student relationships. J. Sch. Psychol.82, 141–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HoangT.WyattM. (2021). Exploring the self-efficacy beliefs of Vietnamese pre-service teachers of English as a foreign language. System96:102422. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102422

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HuangX.LaiC.WangC.XuG. (2023). The relationship between informal teacher learning and self-efficacy among public school teachers and private school teachers in China. J. Educ. Teach.49, 597–615. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2022.2150533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  IBM Corp (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (23.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  IspirB.YildizA. (2023). Relationship between professional attitudes and professional commitment of classroom teachers: the mediating role of teacher self-efficacy belief. Cukurova Univ. Fac. Educ. J.52, 528–555. doi: 10.14812/cuefd.1215217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  JiangH.ChughR.ZhaiX.WangK.WangX. (2024). Longitudinal analysis of teacher self-efficacy evolution during a STEAM professional development program: a qualitative case study. Human. Soc. Sci. Commun.11, 1–16. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03655-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KelleyT. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J. Educ. Psychol.30, 17–24. doi: 10.1037/h0052920

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  LeavyA.BjerkeA. H.HouriganM. (2023). Prospective primary teachers’ efficacy to teach mathematics: measuring efficacy beliefs and identifying the factors that influence them. Educ. Stud. Math.112, 437–460. doi: 10.1007/s10649-022-10181-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  LiuX.JiS.JiangJ.ChenC. (2022). Childhood maltreatment and life satisfaction in Chinese student preschool teachers: the roles of resilience and social support. Behav. Sci.12:438. doi: 10.3390/bs12110438

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  LivingstonS. A. (1972). Criterion-referenced applications of classical test theory 1,2. J. Educ. Meas.9, 13–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1972.tb00756.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MahmoodiM. H.HosseiniyarS.SamoudiN. (2022). EFL teachers’ classroom management orientation, self-efficacy, burnout, and students’ l2 achievement. Profile24, 29–44. doi: 10.15446/profile.v24n1.91153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MokhtarA.MaouloudV. M.OmowunmiA. K.bin NordinM. S. (2023). Teachers’ commitment, self-efficacy and job satisfaction as communicated by trained teachers. Manag. Educ.37, 127–139. doi: 10.1177/08920206211019400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MudharG.ErtesvågS. K.PakarinenE. (2023). Patterns of teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education associated with teacher emotional support, collective teacher efficacy, and collegial collaboration. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ.39, 446–462. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2023.2233297

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MurilloF. J.DukC.GarridoC. M. (2018). Evolución de la segregación socioeconómica de las escuelas de América Latina. Estud. Pedagóg.44, 157–179. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07052018000100157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MurilloF. J.GarridoC. M. (2017). La ségrégation sociale dans les écoles publiques et privées en Amérique Latine. Educ. Socied.38, 727–750. doi: 10.1590/es0101-73302017167714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MurilloF. J.Martínez-GarridoC.GrañaR. (2023). School segregation by socioeconomic level in primary education in Latin America and the Caribbean. REICE21, 87–117. doi: 10.15366/reice2023.21.1.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  NaimanovaD.LebedevaL.AkpayevaA.AstambayevaZ.RyabovaE.YessenovaK. (2023). Investigation of primary school teachers’ student-centered teaching and technology integration competencies. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol.11, 1386–1404. doi: 10.46328/ijemst.3681

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  OdangaS. J.AlokaP. J.RaburuP. (2022). Effects of experience on teachers’ self-efficacy in secondary schools. Alberta J. Educ. Res.68, 119–132. doi: 10.11575/ajer.v68i1.70744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  OpokuM. P.NketsiaW.MohamedA. H. (2022). The self-efficacy of private school teachers toward the implementation of inclusive education in Ghana: a mixed-methods study. Front. Educ.7, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.985123

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  OrosL. B. (2017). Valores Normativos de la Escala Multidimensional de Autoeficacia Infantil para Población Argentina. Rev. Iberoam. Diagn. Eval. Psicol.44, 172–181. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP44.2.14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  ParolaA.PettignanoM.MarcionettiJ. (2022). Development and validation of the teacher career-related support self-efficacy (TCSSE) questionnaire. Behav. Sci.13:36. doi: 10.3390/bs13010036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  PérezS.CorreiaC.de CamposL. F.Venditti JuniorR.JuniorS.daO. T. (2023). Autoeficacia en profesores de Educación Física chilenos de la región del Ñuble: formación y desempeño profesional. Educ. Físic. Cien.25:e245. doi: 10.24215/23142561e245

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  PonterottoJ. G.CharterR. A. (2009). Statistical extensions of Ponterotto and Ruckdeschel’s (2007) reliability matrix for estimating the adequacy of internal consistency coefficients. Percept. Mot. Skills108, 878–886. doi: 10.2466/pms.108.3.878-886

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  PressleyT.HaC. (2021). Teaching during a pandemic: United States teachers’ self-efficacy during COVID-19. Teach. Teach. Educ.106:103465. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103465

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  PressleyT.RangelR. (2023). Elementary teacher self-efficacy after a year of teaching during COVID-19. Psychol. Sch.60, 3284–3297. doi: 10.1002/pits.22921

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ReppaG.MousoulidouM.TzovlaE.KoundourouC.ChristodoulouA. (2023). The impact of self-efficacy on the well-being of primary school teachers: a Greek-Cypriot study. Front. Psychol.14:1223222. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1223222

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Reyes-CruzM. (2020). Emociones y sentido de autoeficacia de los futuros profesores de inglés. REDIE22, 1–14. doi: 10.24320/redie.2020.23.e25.2686

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  RivasA.MoossA.PontierC. H.RomilloJ.MuñozE. (2023). The effect of universal teacher-child interaction training on Hispanic teachers' sense of self-efficacy in early childhood education and care settings. Int. J. Child Care Educ. Policy17, 12–22. doi: 10.1186/s40723-023-00115-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  RyanM.HendryG. D. (2023). Sources of teacher efficacy in teaching reading: success, sharing, and support. Aust. J. Lang. Lit.46, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s44020-022-00016-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Salvo-GarridoS.Polanco-LevicánK.Dominguez-LaraS.Mieres-ChacaltanaM.Gálvez-NietoJ. L. (2023). Psychometric properties of the SV-RES60 resilience scale in a sample of Chilean elementary school teachers. Behav. Sci.13:781. doi: 10.3390/bs13090781

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Salvo-GarridoS.Polanco-LevicánK.Dominguez-LaraS.Mieres-ChacaltanaM.Gálvez-NietoJ. L. (2024). Relationships between resilience and self-efficacy in the prosocial behavior of Chilean elementary school teachers. Behav. Sci.14:678. doi: 10.3390/bs14080678

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  SavasA. C.BozgeyikY.Eserİ. (2014). A study on the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout. Eur. J. Educ. Res.3, 159–166. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.3.4.159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ScheafferR.MendenhallW.OttR. L. (1987). Elementos de muestreo. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica. Mexico DF.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Segarra EscandónR.Chocho OrellanaX.Sánchez CáceresZ. B.Morán VélezB.Julià FerréM. (2022). Variables influyentes en la autoeficacia de la enseñanza de las matemáticas de profesores en servicio. EDETANIA61, 83–106. doi: 10.46583/edetania_2022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  ShuK. (2022). Teachers’ commitment and self-efficacy as predictors of work engagement and well-being. Front. Psychol.13:850204. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.850204

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  SirmaciN.TaşF. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy perceptions and metacognitive learning strategies of pre-service mathematics teachers. Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi31, 1–563. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2016015698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2023). Collective teacher culture and school goal structure: associations with teacher self-efficacy and engagement. Soc. Psychol. Educ.26, 945–969. doi: 10.1007/s11218-023-09778-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  SuárezP. S.GarcíaA. M. P.MorenoJ. B. (2000). Escala de autoeficacia general: datos psicométricos de la adaptación para población española. Psicothema12, 509–513.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  SuranaS. (2021). Teacher self-and collective efficacy in teaching Javanese: a study of Indonesian urban and suburban teachers. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res.12, 260–279.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Tárraga-MínguezR.Sanz-CerveraP.Lacruz-PérezI. (2022). The effect of the terms “dyslexia” and “reading learning disability” on the teacher self-efficacy. Interdisciplinaria39, 263–274. doi: 10.16888/INTERD.2022.39.3.15

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  The Jamovi Project. (2023). jamovi (2.5.6.0). Available online at: https://www.jamovi.org (Accessed January 13, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ThomsonM. M.HugginsE.CarrierS. J.GrayD. (2022). Development trajectories for novice teachers: teaching efficacy, instructional beliefs, and domain knowledge. Int. J. Sci. Educ.44, 1277–1298. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2022.2075948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Toro JaramilloI. D.Parra RamírezR. D. (2010). “Fundamentos epistemológicos de la investigación y la metodología de la investigación” in Cualitativa/cuantitativa (Medellín: Universidad EAFIT. Fondo Editorial Universidad EAFIT).

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Tschannen-MoranM.Woolfolk HoyA. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teach. Teach. Educ.17, 783–805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Vargas DiazC.Matus CorreaC. (2022). Brechas persistentes de género en matemáticas en las pruebas nacionales chilenas Simce. Estud. Pedagóg.48, 389–400. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07052022000100389

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  WangH.TroiaG. A. (2023). How students’ writing motivation, teachers’ personal and professional attributes, and writing instruction impact student writing achievement: a two-level hierarchical linear modeling study. Front. Psychol.14:1213929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213929

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  WaswaD.CelikS. (2021). Online practicum and teacher efficacy: correlation, challenges, and lessons arising from Covid-19 pandemic. Rev. Amaz. Invest.10, 19–29. doi: 10.34069/ai/2021.41.05.2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  WettsteinA.RamseierE.ScherzingerM. (2021). Class- and subject teachers’ self-efficacy and emotional stability and students’ perceptions of the teacher–student relationship, classroom management, and classroom disruptions. BMC Psychol.9, 103–112. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00606-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  WoodcockS.SharmaU.SubbanP.HitchesE. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teach. Teach. Educ.117:103802. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  YadaA.TolvanenA.SavolainenH. (2018). Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy on implementing inclusive education in Japan and Finland: a comparative study using multi-group structural equation modelling. Teach. Teach. Educ.75, 343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar