Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9093-x

Development and Validation of Chemistry Self-Efficacy

Scale for College Students

Esen Uzuntiryaki & Yeşim Çapa Aydın

Published online: 5 July 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This study described the process of developing and validating the College
Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS) that can be used to assess college students’ beliefs in
their ability to perform essential tasks in chemistry. In the first phase, data collected from 363
college students provided evidence for the validity and reliability of the new scale. Three
dimensions emerged: self-efficacy for cognitive skills, self-efficacy for psychomotor skills,
and self-efficacy for everyday applications. In the second phase, data collected from an
independent sample of 353 college students confirmed the factorial structure of the 21-item
CCSS. The Cronbach alpha coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. In addition, each
dimension of the CCSS had moderate and significant correlations with student chemistry
achievement and differentiated between major and non-major students. Followed by the
additional validation studies, the CCSS will serve as a valuable tool for both instructors and
researchers in science education to assess college students’ chemistry self-efficacy beliefs.

Keywords Self-efficacy . Chemistry self-efficacy . Scale development . Scale validation .

College students

Introduction

One of the essential elements of social cognitive theory, as proposed by Bandura (1986), is
perceived self-efficacy, which is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura 1997, p. 3).
Mainly, it concerns one’s judgment about his/her own capability rather than one’s intention
to perform a task. This characteristic of self-efficacy distinguishes it from other self-related

E. Uzuntiryaki (*)
Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Middle East Technical University, 06531
Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: esent@metu.edu.tr

Y. Çapa Aydın
Department of Educational Sciences, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: capa@metu.edu.tr
540 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

constructs like self-concept, self-esteem, and outcome expectancy. Self-concept is defined

as attitudes and feelings people hold about themselves (Hilgard et al. 1979; Rosenberg
1979). It is more global and results from comparison with other’s work. For example, an
item in a self-concept scale might be “Are you good at chemistry compared to others in
your class?” On the other hand, perceived self-efficacy is more task and situation-specific
and does not involve any comparison. It asks “How well can you solve chemistry
problems?” (Pajares 1996) Self-esteem differs from perceived self-efficacy in that it
concerns judgment of self-worth. According to Rosenberg (1965), self-esteem is “the
evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself or
herself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval toward oneself” (p. 5). A
growing body of evidence (Mone et al. 1995; Pajares and Kranzler 1995; Pajares and Miller
1994) supported Bandura’s (1986) assertion that self-concept and self-esteem, being global,
are less predictive of behavior than self-efficacy. Bandura (1986) has also differentiated
between perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. The latter refers to “judgments of
the likely consequence that behavior will produce” (p. 391). Self-efficacy beliefs may be
determinants of outcome expectancies. Highly efficacious students tend to expect high
grades on exams. In order to assess outcome expectancy, one would ask “How confident
are you that you will get an A in a chemistry class?” When variation in efficacy beliefs was
controlled, outcome expectations did not account for significant proportion of academic
performance (Lent et al. 1993; Shell et al. 1989) and occupational choice (Singer 1993).
Given the clarification of self-efficacy construct, sources of efficacy need to be
addressed. Bandura (1986, 1997) postulated four sources of self-efficacy: mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional/physiological states.
Among these, mastery experience is the most influential source. As students gain more
successful experience, their self-efficacy is enhanced. Students also form self-efficacy
beliefs through observation of others’ behaviors (vicarious experience). The third source
involves verbal persuasions that students receive from others. The effectiveness of
persuasion depends on the credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuader.
Finally, emotional/physiological states such as anxiety, stress, and fatigue also contribute to
self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) asserted that students combine these sources while making
their efficacy judgments. During this process, the value of each source of information
changes for each individual and for different situations.
Self-efficacy beliefs affect individual’s behavior, particularly their choice of action, effort
and persistence to complete a task, and resilience in adverse events. For example, in
schools, students with high self-efficacy tend to choose more challenging tasks, show more
effort, and do not give up easily, which explains why students of similar ability can have
different academic performance (Pajares 1997). Indeed, researchers have confirmed the
relationship between self-efficacy and student achievement (Hampton and Mason 2003;
Multon et al. 1991; Pajares and Miller 1994; Shell et al. 1995).
In chemistry and other sciences, self-efficacy has been found to be a predictor of
academic performance, as well. Andrew (1998) studied college students, and reported that
self-efficacy beliefs significantly predicted 24% of academic performance in physical
science and 18.5% in bioscience. In high school students, a significant positive correlation
between self-efficacy beliefs and achievement in science was found (Kupermintz 2002;
Lau and Roeser 2002). Lau and Roeser (2002) found that female students had higher
science grades and self-efficacy than male students. Britner and Pajares (2001) also
provided similar findings with middle school students. On the other hand, Anderman and
Young (1994) reported higher science self-efficacy in favor of males. In addition to student
achievement, perceived self-efficacy was also found to be related with self-regulation
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 541

(Zimmerman 2000; Zimmerman and Bandura 1994), engagement (Lau and Roeser 2002;
Pintrich and DeGroot 1990) and career choice (Borget and Gilroy 1994; Lent and Lopez
1991).
In terms of teaching efficacy, Riggs and Enochs (1990) introduced the construct of self-
efficacy to science teaching and learning and developed the Science Teaching Efficacy
Belief Instrument (STEBI). This instrument was used in several research studies indicating
that personal science teaching efficacy was related to preservice teachers’ field experiences
(Cannon and Scharman 1995), enjoyment of student-centered teaching strategies (Watters
and Ginns 2000), and use of inquiry-based teaching methods (Czerniak 1990). Rubeck and
Enochs (1991) adapted the STEBI to chemistry teaching in an attempt to provide subject-
matter specificity. Using this instrument, they employed path analysis to investigate
variables affecting science and chemistry teaching efficacy. The most striking finding was
that related coursework with laboratory components was a significant predictor of both
chemistry and science teaching efficacy.
Despite many research studies in literature, researchers have sometimes used global or
one-item scales to assess student self-efficacy, as also noted by Multon et al. (1991).
Pajares (1996) criticized the use of omnibus measures in that they have low predictive
power. He stated, “Omnibus tests that aim to assess general self-efficacy provide global
scores that decontextualize the self-efficacy behavior correspondence and transform self-
efficacy beliefs into a generalized personality trait rather than the context-specific
judgments” (p. 547). On the other hand, measures should not be too specific in that they
would lose their generalizability to other skills and contexts. For example, an existing
instrument assessing science self-efficacy include very specific items such as “Please
indicate your level of confidence in calculating whether the 4 kW electrical circuit in your
kitchen will enable you to run a 2.4 kW space heater, 600 W toaster, and a 1,200 W kettle”
(Andrew 1998). This obscures assessment of self-efficacy beliefs in terms of adaptation to
similar situations. The optimal level of specificity should be determined to identify the
critical tasks being assessed within the selected activity domain (Bandura 1997, 2001).
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) suggested that the level of specificity depends
on the purpose of the research.
In addition, some science self-efficacy scales in the literature fail to differentiate between
self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. For instance, Luzzo et al. (1999) used a math/science
course self-efficacy scale in which students were asked to indicate confidence in their
ability to complete math/science courses offered at the university with a B or better. As
mentioned earlier, these items are related to outcome expectancy rather than perceived self-
efficacy. There are other examples encountered in the literature (e.g., Britner and Pajares
2006).
Studies of self-efficacy beliefs mostly have been concerned with science in general
rather than specific areas of science like chemistry, physics, and biology. In an effort to
develop a more specific instrument, Baldwin et al. (1999) designed the Biology Self-
Efficacy Scale for non-major college students. It included three dimensions: methods of
biology, generalization to other biology/science courses and analyzing data, and application
of biological concepts and skills. With respect to chemistry, Dalgety et al. (2003) developed
an instrument called “Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire (CAEQ)” to
measure first-year university chemistry students’ attitude toward chemistry, chemistry self-
efficacy, and learning experiences. They considered the items in Baldwin et al.’s scale and
adapted them to chemistry. Further, they added some items. Dalgety et al. reported that 17
items assessing chemistry self-efficacy in CAEQ loaded as a single factor. The items
appeared to assess only students’ understanding of chemistry. However, there were no items
542 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

related to laboratory skills (e.g., manipulating equipment and materials in a chemistry

laboratory, working with chemicals) although science education literature has emphasized
the role of laboratory activities in promoting meaningful learning (Hofstein and Lunetta
1982, 2004; Tobin 1990). In addition, some items (e.g., achieving a passing grade in a Part
2 chemistry course, achieving a passing grade in a chemical hazards course) were too
specific to be applicable to every chemistry class. Recalling Bandura’s assertion of task-
specificity of self-efficacy measures, researchers should conduct preliminary studies in
which experts are asked to identify the levels of challenges or impediments to perform the
required activities successfully.
Although CAEQ addresses specificity concerns in terms of measuring perceived self-
efficacy in chemistry rather than science, problems still appear. Therefore, the present study
aims to develop and validate an alternative chemistry self-efficacy instrument for college
students – College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS).

Method

Sample

Two different samples of freshman college students taking General Chemistry class were
used. Sample 1 was used during the initial scale development. In this pilot study, there
were 363 students (128 female, 231 male, and four non-respondents) from a university
in Turkey. The distributions of majors included aerospace engineering (15.2%), electrical
and electronics engineering (15.7%), industrial engineering (30%), molecular biology
and genetics (10.5%), chemistry (19.6%), and chemistry education (8.3%). In order to
cross-validate the results of pilot data analysis, the modified form of the CCSS was
administered to the Sample 2, which consisted of 353 students (121 female, 221 male,
and 11 non-respondents). Of these students, 9.1% were from the department of civil
engineering, 15.3% from electrical and electronics engineering, 15.3% from mechanical
engineering, 16.4% from physics, 25.4% from chemical engineering, 12.8% from
chemistry, and 4.5% from chemistry education. Students in both Sample 1 and Sample
2 were from different sections of the same General Chemistry class offered by the
Chemistry Department and were allocated to these sections according to their major
department.

Instrumentation

The CCSS was designed to assess college students’ beliefs in their ability to perform
chemistry tasks successfully. The first step for instrument development was to decide upon
the constructs underlying the chemistry self-efficacy. For this purpose, the literature of
science education was reviewed and it appeared that researchers commonly agreed on the
goal of science education that helps students understand scientific knowledge, develop
abilities of inquiry, and improve scientific literacy as students apply their knowledge
(Bybee 1997; Chiappetta and Koballa 2002; Chiappetta et al. 1993; DeBoer 2000; Millar
and Osborne 1998). Moreover, Millar and Osborne (1998) suggested developing students’
confidence in their ability to hold a personal point of view about scientific issues and
explain the natural events by use of scientific concepts. Drawing upon the research
literature about the purpose of science education as well as researchers’ experience and
discussions with chemistry educators, four dimensions were proposed: self-efficacy for
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 543

knowledge/comprehension-level skills, self-efficacy for higher-order skills, self-efficacy for

psychomotor skills, and self-efficacy for everyday applications.
After deciding on four dimensions, an initial item pool was generated with 22 items on a
nine-point rating scale. Because efficacy beliefs vary in strength, researchers were cautious
about the degree of rating they used in identifying the strength of students’ beliefs. Bandura
(1997, 2001) suggested that scales using too few steps should be avoided due to their
difficulty in differentiating information. The information obtained would be less reliable
and less sensitive. Therefore, each item was responded on a nine-point rating scale ranging
from “very poorly” to “very well.” The 22 items were arranged so that items of the four
dimensions were scattered randomly. Demographic information including gender and major
was also requested.
For the purpose of content validation, a group of 11 experts in chemistry, chemistry
education, educational psychology, and educational measurement were asked to assess the
quality of each item, verify matching of items to the corresponding dimensions, and provide
further suggestions. Having received feedback from experts, one item, “How well can you
determine the units of measurement in chemical calculations?” was deleted because it was
suggested that this item assessed mathematical skills rather than chemistry skills. In
addition, one item assessing the ability to explain the particulate nature of matter was
deemed essential by the experts to be included in the scale. Some other items were revised
to make them clearer.
Because of the fact that the medium of instruction is English at the college where the
scale was administered, the items were developed in English. Two experts (a native speaker
and an instructor at the department of foreign languages) examined the scale for grammar
and clarity. Some items were adjusted accordingly.1

Data Analysis

Four steps were followed during analysis of data: (a) identifying the factor structure of
CCSS through the use of exploratory factor analysis, (b) cross-validating the analysis
by use of confirmatory factor analysis, (c) estimating each dimension’s internal con-
sistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alphas), and (d) providing further validity
evidence.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis with Sample 1

The CCSS was administered to 363 college students taking general chemistry class.
Exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was employed to
empirically reveal and demonstrate the hypothesized, underlying structure of, chemistry
self-efficacy. Before conducting an exploratory factor analysis, the results of the KMO
measure of sampling adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were examined to
determine appropriateness of factor analysis. Bartlett’s test was significant (BTS value=
3067.45, p<0.001), showing that the correlation matrix was significantly different from an
identity matrix. Similarly, the KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy of 0.92 was

1
The Turkish version of the scale is also available from authors.
544 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

substantial. Both revealed that it was appropriate to perform a factor analysis (Tabachnick
and Fidell 2007). The 22 items were factor analyzed and three factors emerged with
eigenvalues greater than 1. An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was then undertaken to
assist in the interpretation of the factors. The three factors were interpreted as relating to
self-efficacy for cognitive skills, self-efficacy for psychomotor skills, and self-efficacy for
everyday applications. It appeared that intended dimensions of self-efficacy for knowledge/
comprehension-level skills and self-efficacy for higher-order skills were combined in one
dimension, namely self-efficacy for cognitive skills. The overall percentage of variance
extracted (51%) supported the assertion that the three factors were deemed sufficient and
conceptually valid in their correspondence to the existing theory. All items had pattern
coefficients higher than 0.30, which was suggested to be satisfactory by Stevens (2002). On
the other hand, four items loaded on two dimensions. After a careful investigation of the
content of those items, three items were revised and one item was deleted. The deleted item
(How well can you explain the fundamental definitions in chemistry?) was considered to be
too general to assess self-efficacy as opposed to Bandura’s suggestion mentioned earlier.
Further, reliability coefficients for each of the dimensions all exceeded the threshold of 0.80
for acceptance.
Analysis of data from this pilot study guided to form the final form of the CCSS (see
Appendix) with 21 items on three dimensions. These dimensions along with the definitions
are:
1. Self-efficacy for cognitive skills (SCS) (12 items): Students’ beliefs in their ability to
deal with intellectual operations in chemistry including both lower and higher levels of
understanding in the cognitive domain. Examples from this dimension included: How
well can you describe the structure of an atom? To what extent can you explain
chemical laws and theories? How well can you interpret chemical equations?
2. Self-efficacy for psychomotor skills (SPS) (5 items): Students’ beliefs in their ability to
deal with muscle skills. Sample items were “How well can you construct laboratory
apparatus?” and “How well can you work with chemicals?”
3. Self-efficacy for everyday applications (SEA) (4 items): Students’ beliefs in their ability
to use the learned chemistry concepts in daily life situations. Examples were “How well
can you recognize the careers related to chemistry?” and “How well can you understand
the news/documentary you watched on television related to chemistry?”

Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Sample 2

In an attempt to confirm the factor structure of the scores obtained from the 21-item CCSS
that was determined with Sample 1, confirmatory factor analysis was employed using the
analysis of moment structures (AMOS) version 4 (Arbuckle and Wothke 1999) statistical
software package. The maximum likelihood estimation method was used. Figure 1
illustrates the model specification and the parameter estimates. As can be observed from the
figure, three dimensions of the CCSS (SCS, SPS, and SEA) were allowed to correlate to
each other.
Multiple goodness-of-fit tests were used to evaluate the fit between the hypothesized
model and the data. These are Normed Fit Index (NFI; Bentler and Bonett 1980), the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler 1990), and the Root Mean Square Error
Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger and Lind 1980). A NFI and CFI greater than 0.90
indicates a good fit to the data (Kline 1998). Browne and Cudeck (1993) reported that the
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 545

e1 e2 e6 e10 e14 e17 e18 e19

e3 e4 e7 e9

ITEM1 ITEM2 ITEM3 ITEM4 ITEM6 ITEM7 ITEM9 ITEM10 ITEM14 ITEM17 ITEM18 ITEM19

.74 .70 .74 .66 .59 .60 .73 .76 .74 .79 .67 .73

SCS

.90 .88
e5 ITEM5
.74 ITEM8 e8
.77
e11 ITEM11 .73
.74 ITEM12 e12
e13 ITEM13 .78 SPS .73 SEA
.71 ITEM16 e16
.77
e15 ITEM15
.78 .72
ITEM21 e21
e20 ITEM20

Fig. 1 Standardized coefficients for the three-factor model of college chemistry self-efficacy scale. All
coefficients are significant at p<0.01. Normed FIT Index=0.98; Comparative Fit Index=0.98; Root Mean
Square Error Approximation: 0.08. SCS Self-efficacy for cognitive skills; SPS self-efficacy for psychomotor
skills; SEA self-efficacy for everyday applications

RMSEA of about 0.05 indicates a close fit of the model and 0.08 represents a reasonable
error of approximation. They suggested not using a model with a RMSEA greater than
0.10. Despite its common use in the literature, chi-square statistics has been criticized for
being highly sensitive to sample size. In large samples, the statistics have the power to
detect even trivial differences between observed and model-implied covariance matrices
(Bollen 1989; Hoyle 1995; Kline 1998). Therefore, in this study, alternative indices were
considered rather than chi-square statistics.
Results from the CFA suggested that the three-factor structure fit well to the sample data
with all fit indices (NFI=0.98; CFI=0.98) indicating a good fit except for RMSEA (=0.08),
which indicated a reasonable fit. In addition, all parameters (factor loadings) were found to
be significant, indicating a significant contribution of each item to the corresponding
dimension. Lastly, there were no specification errors nor were any additional alterations of
the model specified.

Reliability Analysis with Sample 2

Analysis of internal consistency reliabilities yielded Cronbach alpha coefficients of 0.92 for
the SCS, 0.87 for the SPS, and 0.82 for the SEA, indicating satisfactory reliability.
Furthermore, examining item-total correlations indicated that all items in each dimension
contributed to the consistency of scores with item-total correlations higher than 0.60.

Further Validation

As a further validation evidence, Hotelling’s multivariate t-test was generated to check

whether three dimensions of the scale differentiate between major and non-major students.
546 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

The dependent variables were three dimensions of the CCSS. The prediction based on
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory was that major students would have higher chemistry self-
efficacy scores than non-majors. Majors (n=151) consisted of students from the departments
of chemical engineering, chemistry, and chemistry education, whereas non-majors (n=198)
included civil engineering, electrical and electronics engineering, mechanical engineering,
and physics students. Preliminary multivariate analysis, assumption testing (multivariate
normality and homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices) was conducted with no
serious violations noted.
Results of multivariate analysis revealed a significant main effect for major/non-
major difference (Wilks’ Lambda=0.95, F(3, 345)=6.46, p<0.001, η2 =0.05), suggesting
that the major and non-major students differed on a linear combination of the three
dimensions of the CCSS. The multivariate η2 of 0.05 would be interpreted as a medium
effect with respect to Cohen’s (1988) standards. The follow-up univariate analyses
indicated that there was a significant difference between majors and non-majors on the
SEA, F (1, 347)=13.48, p<0.001, η2 =0.04. Majors (M=6.25, SD=1.36) were more
efficacious than non-major students (M=5.69, SD=1.44) in performing chemistry tasks
related to everyday applications. On the other two dimensions (SPS and SCS), majors again
scored higher than non-majors; however, they did not appear significant. Thus, the findings
of higher chemistry self-efficacy scores of major students provided support for the
prediction.
In addition to multivariate test, correlational analysis was employed between three
dimensions of the CCSS and chemistry grades at the end of the semester. The prediction
asserted that chemistry self-efficacy would be positively related with students’ chemistry
achievement. Results revealed statistically significant, positive, and moderately high
relationship (Cohen 1988) between chemistry achievement and self-efficacy for cognitive
skills, r=0.34, p<0.05. Furthermore, analysis yielded significant correlation of chemistry
achievement with self-efficacy for psychomotor skills (r=0.18, p<0.05) and with self-
efficacy for everyday applications (r=0.18, p<0.05), both indicating a small effect
according to Cohen’s guidelines. Overall, as expected, positive correlations provided
further evidence for criterion-referenced validity.

Discussion

The College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS) with three dimensions was developed
as a result of an extensive review of literature, dialogue with chemistry educators for
content validation, a pilot study with a sample of 363 college students in order to test the
factorial structure of the scale, and a cross-validation study with a sample of 353 college
students to confirm the three-dimensional model and to provide reliability and further
validity evidence. The 21-item CCSS was found to measure three dimensions of chemistry
self-efficacy:
– Self-efficacy for cognitive skills (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19)
– Self-efficacy for psychomotor skills (Items 5, 11, 13, 15, 20)
– Self-efficacy for everyday applications (Items 8, 12, 16, 21)
Factor analytic evidence indicated that all pattern coefficients were high, indicating a
significant contribution of each item to the corresponding subscale. In addition, the results
of the confirmatory factor analysis also indicated that the three-factor model showed a good
fit proved with high fit indices (NFI=0.98; CFI=0.98; RMSEA=0.08). These findings
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 547

provide a single piece of evidence for the construct validity of the CCSS scores with this
sample of college students. All three dimensions also showed high internal consistency
estimates higher than 0.80. Overall, it can be concluded that the CCSS was a
multidimensional construct consisting of three dimensions. These dimensions are essential
to be successful in chemistry and are commonly suggested in the scientific literacy
literature (Bybee 1997; Chiappetta et al. 1993; DeBoer 2000).
Criterion-related validity was tested by using correlational inquiry. Each dimension of
CCSS had moderate and significant correlations (ranging from 0.18 to 0.34) with student
chemistry achievement, supporting the findings of previous studies investigating the
relationship between student achievement and self-efficacy (Andrew 1998; Kupermintz
2002; Lau and Roeser 2002). Furthermore, this finding is also consistent with Bandura’s
(1986, 1997) assertion that as students feel more confident in their ability, they show more
effort and persistence and consequently achieve better in their classes. In this study, the
highest correlation was with the self-efficacy for cognitive skills and the low correlations
were with the self-efficacy for everyday applications and self-efficacy for psychomotor
skills. It has been observed that chemistry tests used at this college mostly assess students’
understanding of chemical phenomena rather than application of chemistry concepts to real
life situations and usage of muscle skills. This might be the reason for relatively low
correlations. Further research studies, particularly in qualitative nature, can be conducted to
explain this relationship in depth.
The ability of the scale to differentiate between major and non-major students is also
essential and this aspect was measured using multivariate test. The results indicated that
the CCSS differentiated between major and non-major students, with higher chemistry
self-efficacy scores for majors. This result seemed not to be surprising because major
students are expected to have more experience than non-majors, which concurred with
Bandura’s argument that as individuals gain more experience, their efficacy judgments
are enhanced.
Researchers now have a measure of chemistry self-efficacy for college students in three
dimensions (self-efficacy for cognitive skills, self-efficacy for psychomotor skills, and self-
efficacy for everyday applications) with good psychometric characteristics, allowing for a
better understanding from both its conceptual and empirical perspectives. However, this
scale should be validated further with different populations (particularly student populations
from English-speaking countries) to increase external validity. In addition, future validation
studies should focus on the relationship between these dimensions of the CCSS and other
constructs (e.g. outcome expectancy), as also suggested by Benson (1998) and Messick
(1989).

Implications for Science Education

Despite the need for further validation, this scale is a promising tool for both instruction and
research in science education to explore students’ self-efficacy beliefs in chemistry. From an
instructional perspective, college instructors can use the CCSS to make general assessment
of their class and more specific appraisal of individual student’s chemistry self-efficacy
beliefs in three dimensions. Interpretation of the results would allow teachers to modify the
current instruction to foster students’ chemistry self-efficacy. For instance, instructors can
provide classroom environment in which students’ engagement in chemistry tasks are
maximized through student-centered instruction. As suggested by Bandura (1997), students
develop efficacy beliefs based on authentic accomplishments. Thus, if students have low
548 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

sense of efficacy in psychomotor skills, instructors may spend more instructional time in
students’ performing chemistry experiments. In this way, students will have more evidence
about their success and their sense of efficacy will be enhanced accordingly. Similarly, for
students with weak self-efficacy in everyday applications, college instructors may design
instruction to develop students’ abilities to cope with the application of chemistry in daily
life issues. For instance, students can be encouraged to involve in chemistry projects. It is
also found in the present study that majors having more experience with chemistry tasks
were more efficacious than non-major students. Moreover, instructional strategies such as
inquiry-based instruction in which students are mentally and physically active in their
learning environment can be implemented. Such instruction would also help students
become more self-aware of their improvement.
On the other hand, college instructors should use optimal level of challenge of the
chemistry tasks so that student success is enhanced and failure is minimized. Students’
interpretations of these successful experiences will bolster their self-efficacy. During this
period, instructors should also scaffold these activities.
Recall Bandura’s (1997) suggestion that students may need time to see authentic
improvement. In this case, verbal persuasion coming from an instructor whom they trust can
be powerful in cultivating self-efficacy. However, while doing this, instructors should avoid
social comparisons, instead they should give specific feedback that help students improve.
From a research standpoint, the CCSS can be used in several ways. Researcher can
investigate the association between self-efficacy beliefs and student achievement. Theory
suggests that students with high self-efficacy tend to choose more challenging tasks, show
more effort, and do not give up easily. In turn, students’ success is enhanced (Bandura
1997). Empirical evidence is needed to support this assertion. In addition, correlational
studies can be conducted to investigate the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and
other variables such as students’ motivation and self-regulatory skills.
It is essential to study the factors that contribute to efficacy judgments of students. This
opens new possibilities for research: What kind of teacher characteristics makes a difference
in the development of self-efficacy beliefs? How does classroom atmosphere affect efficacy
beliefs? Do students experiencing a supportive environment have high efficacy beliefs?
What type of instructional methods would promote self-efficacy beliefs? The CCSS can be
administered as a pre-test and post-test in an experimental setting to compare different
instructional methods.
In the present study, data were collected from freshman college students taking
chemistry class at a single point in time. Chemistry self-efficacy beliefs can also be studied
longitudinally through their training in the college in order to monitor changes in efficacy
beliefs. How do efficacy beliefs of students, particularly major students, develop through
years? What are the factors affecting the development of self-efficacy? How well do
efficacy beliefs influence students’ future behaviors in their careers such taking risks,
making innovations, and persisting in the face of obstacles?
The self-efficacy scale developed in this study (CCSS) hopefully will fill the gap in the
literature as being optimally specific to chemistry subject. Followed by the additional
validation studies, the CCSS will serve as a valuable tool for both instructors and
researchers to assess college students’ chemistry self-efficacy beliefs.

Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge the help of Serdar Atılgan for his assistance with the
collection of the data for this study and thank to Prof. Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy for her valuable comments on
earlier versions of this manuscript.
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 549

Appendix

The College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale

Directions: This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the

kinds of things that create difficulties for students in chemistry. Please indicate your opinion
about each of the statements below. Please do not skip any item. Your answers are
confidential.

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP ☺

Very Poorly Average Well Very
poorly well

1. To what extent can you explain chemical laws and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

theories?
2. How well can you choose an appropriate formula to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
solve a chemistry problem?
3. How well can you establish the relationship between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
chemistry and other sciences?
4. How well can you describe the structure of an atom? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. How well can you work with chemicals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. How well can you describe the properties of elements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
by using periodic table?
7. How well can you read the formulas of elements and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
compounds?
8. To what extent can you propose solutions to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
everyday problems by using chemistry?
9. How well can you interpret chemical equations? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10. How well can you explain the particulate nature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
of matter?
11. How well can you construct laboratory apparatus? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. To what extent can you explain everyday life by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
using chemical theories?
13. How well can you collect data during the chemistry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
laboratory?
14. How well can you interpret graphs/charts related to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
chemistry?
15. How well can you use the equipment in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
chemistry laboratory?
16. How well can you understand the news/documentary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
you watched on television related to chemistry?
17. How well can you interpret data during the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
laboratory sessions?
18. How well can you write a laboratory report 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
summarizing main findings?
19. How well can you solve chemistry problems? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
20. How well can you carry out experimental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
procedures in the chemistry laboratory?
21. How well can you recognize the careers related 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
to chemistry?
550 Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551

References

Anderman, E. M., & Young, J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and
classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811–831.
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 27, 596–603.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Baldwin, J., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. (1999). The development of a college biology self-efficacy
instrument for non-majors. Science Education, 83, 397–408.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (revised). Retrieved May 26, 2005 from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/banduraguide.html
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: a test anxiety example. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 10–17, 22.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Borget, M. M., & Gilroy, F. D. (1994). Interests and self-efficacy as predictors of mathematics/science-based
career choice. Psychological Reports, 75(2), 753–754.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school
science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271–285.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs in middle school students. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 485–499.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cannon, J., & Scharman, L. C. (1995). Influence of a cooperative early field experience on preservice
elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy. Science Education, 80, 419–436.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.).
Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a
balance of scientific literacy themes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 787–797.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Czerniak, C. M. (1990). A study of self-efficacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in pre-service elementary
teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science
Teaching, Atlanta, GA, April.
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the Chemistry Attitudes and Experiences
Questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 649–668.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its
relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.
Hampton, N. Z., & Mason, E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of self-efficacy, self-efficacy
beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 101–112.
Hilgard, E. R., Atkinson, R. C., & Atkinson, R. L. (1979). Introduction to psychology (7th ed.). New York:
Harcourt.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of
research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first
century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.
Kupermintz, H. (2002). Affective and conative factors as aptitude resources in high school science
achievement. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 123–137.
Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’
situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139–162.
Res Sci Educ (2009) 39:539–551 551

Lent, R. W., & Lopez, F. G. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career
choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 424–430.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1993). Predicting mathematics-related choice and success
behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 223–236.
Luzzo, D. A., Hasper, P., Albert, K. A., Bibby, M. A., & Martinelli, E. A. Jr. (1999). Effects of self-efficacy-
enhancing interventions on the math/science self-efficacy and career interests, goals, and actions of
career undecided college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 233–243.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future (The report of a seminar
series funded by the Nuffield Foundation). London: King’s College London, School of Education.
Mone, M. A., Baker, D. D., & Jeffries, F. (1995). Predictive validity and time dependency of self-efficacy,
self-esteem, personal goals, and academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
55, 716–27.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes:
A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–
578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-
solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426–443.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical
problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching
efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625–637.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving of the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rubeck, M. L., & Enochs, L. G. (1991, April). A path analytic model of variables that influence science and
chemistry teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in middle school science teachers. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake
Geneva, WI.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome expectancy
mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in
reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91–100.
Singer, M. S. (1993). Starting a career: An intercultural choice among overseas Asian students. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 17, 73–88.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper
presented at the Psychometric Society Annual Meeting, Iowa City, IA.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tobin, K. G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities. In pursuit of better questions and answers to
improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2000). Developing motivation to teach elementary science: Effect of
collaborative and authentic learning practices in preservice education. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 11, 301–321.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment.
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.