See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235349696

Development of a Physical Education

Teaching Efficacy Scale

Article in Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science October 2012

DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2012.716726

CITATIONS READS

5 286

4 authors, including:
Edward P Hebert Kay Daigle

Southeastern Louisiana University Southeastern Oklahoma State Uni

39 PUBLICATIONS 1,539 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jeffrey Martin

Wayne State University

225 PUBLICATIONS 2,037 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Oxford Handbook of Disability Sport and Exercise Psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward P Hebert on 17 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are
added to the original docu and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read
them immediately.
This article was downloaded by: [Southeastern Louisiana University] On: 05 October
2012, At: 08:09
Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmpe20

Development of a Physical Education

Teaching Efficacy Scale

a a b
Charlotte A. Humphries , Edward Hebert , Kay Daigle & Jeffrey
c
Martin

Department of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond,

Louisiana, USA

Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Southeastern Oklahoma State University,
Durant, Oklahoma, USA

Division of Kinesiology, Health and Sport Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Version of record first published: 03 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Charlotte A. Humphries, Edward Hebert, Kay Daigle & Jeffrey Martin (2012):
Development of a Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale, Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 16:4, 284-299

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2012.716726

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
12

Do
wn
loa
de
d
by
[S
ou
the
ast
er
n
Lo
uis
ian
a
Un
ive
rsi
ty]
at
08
:0
9
05
Oc
to
be
r
20
 evelopmentofaPhysicalEducationTeaching
Me
asu
rem
ent
in
EfficacyScale
Phy
sica
l CharlotteA.HumphriesandEdwardHebert
Edu
cati
on DepartmentofKinesiologyandHealthStudies,
and
Exe
rcis SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity,Hammond,Louisiana
e
Scie
nce, KayDaigle
16:
284
DepartmentofHealth,PhysicalEducation,andRecreation,
299,
201
2 SoutheasternOklahomaStateUniversity,Durant,Oklahoma

Cop
yrig JeffreyMartin
ht
Tay
lor DivisionofKinesiology,HealthandSportStudies,
&
Fra
ncis WayneStateUniversity,Detroit,Michigan
Gro
up,
LL
C

Relationshipshavebeenfoundbetweenteacherefficacyandmanyteachingandlearningvariables,butfew
ISS
N: researchershaveexaminedteachingefficacyinphysicaleducation.Theinstrumentreportedhere,the
109 PhysicalEducationTeachingEfficacyScale,wasdevelopedbasedontheteachingefficacyliterature,
1 existingscales,andNationalAssociationforSportandPhysicalEducationsTeacherEducationStandards.
367
X
Studentsattending11institutionswhoaremajoringinregularandalternatephysicaleducationteacher
prin educationandwhoareatdifferentstagesofpreparation(N=592)completedtheinitialsurvey.Exploratory,
t/ followedbyconfirmatory,factoranalysisresultedina35item,7factorscale.FactorswereContent
153
Knowledge,whichwereactivitiesonemightteach;ApplyingScientificKnowledgeinTeaching,which
2
784 reflectedacademiccontent;AccommodatingSkillDifferences;TeachingStudentswithSpecialNeeds;
1 Instruction,whichincludedmanagement,motivation,andinstruction;UsingTechnology;andAssessment.
onli ResultssupportthatthePhysicalEducationTeachingEfficacyScaleaddressesmanyaspectsofteaching
ne
physicaleducationandmeetsresearchcriteriaforvalidityandreliability.
DOI
: Keywords:physicaleducation,efficacy,teachereducation,instrumentdevelopment
10.1
080/
109
136
7X. INTRODUCTION
201
2.71
672 Selfefficacybeliefsreflectonescapabilitiestoexercisecontrolovereventsandestimationsof
6 competencetoexecutegiventasks.Efficacybeliefsaffectperformance,influencetheselection

D CorrespondenceshouldbesenttoCharlotteA.Humphries,DepartmentofKinesiologyandHealthStudies,Box10845,
SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity,Hammond,LA,70402.Email:Charlotte.Humphries@selu.edu
 NGEFFICACYSCALE
285

oftasks,andareakeyfactorinselfregulationofmotivation.Overthepast30years,scholarshave
studiedefficacybeliefsofteachersandreportedrelationshipsbetweenateacherssenseofefficacyand
amultitudeofdesirableoutcomes,includingstudentachievement(seeTschannenMoran,Hoy,&
Hoy,1998,forareview).Inphysicaleducation(PE)research,teacherselfefficacyhasbeenlinkedto
professionaldevelopment(Martin,McCaughtry,HodgesKulinna,&Cothran,2008;Martin,
McCaughtry,Kulinna,Cothran,&Faust,2008),andteacherandstudentbehavior(Martin&Hodges
Do Kulinna,2004;Martin&Kulinna,2005).Asaresultoffindingssuchasthese,teachingefficacyhas
beenidentifiedasapowerfulfactorintheteachingandlearningprocess(Ashton,1984;Guskey&
wn
Passaro,1994;Soodak&Podell,1996;TschannenMoranetal.,1998).
loa
de
d ResearchonteacherefficacycanbetracedtotwoRandCorporationassessmentsofeducational
by programsinwhichresearchersfoundthatteachersefficacybeliefswerepositivelyrelatedto
[S studentachievementandtothelikelihoodthatteacherswouldfollowthroughonimplementing
ou newstrategies(Armoretal.,1976;Berman,McLaughlin,BassGolod,Pauly,&Zellman,1977).
the ThesestudiesusedtwoLikertscaleditemstoassessteacherefficacy:Whenitcomesrightdown
ast toit,ateacherreallycantdomuch,becausemostofastudentsmotivationandperformance
er dependsonhisorherhomeenvironment;andIfItryreallyhard,Icangetthroughtoeventhe
n mostdifficultorunmotivatedstudents.Later,Ashtonandhercolleagues(Ashton,1984;Ashton,
Lo Webb,&Doda,1983)usedmultipledatasources(thetwoitemsfromtheRandstudies,
uis interviews,andclassroomobservations)andfoundarelationshipbetweenteacherefficacyand
ian studentachievement,identifieddifferencesbetweenlowandhighefficacyteachers,and
a describedworkplacefactorsthatunderminedteachingefficacy.
Un
ive Duringthisera,GibsonandDembo(1984)developedtheTeacherEfficacyScale,whichcon
rsi ceptualizedtwoaspectsoftheconstruct:personalteachingefficacyateachersexpectationsof
ty] beingabletobringaboutlearninginstudents,andgeneralteachingefficacyonesbeliefsregarding
at theextenttowhichteachersingeneralcanovercomeoutsidefactorsthatimpedestudentlearning.
Thoughtherehasbeenmuchdiscussionanddebate,bothconceptuallyandintermsofmeasurement,
08
theTeacherEfficacyScaleandvariationsofithavebeenthedominantmeansbywhichteaching
:0
efficacyhasbeenassessed(seeHenson,2002;Klassen,Tze,Betts,&Gordon,2011;TschannenMoran
9
etal.,1998forreviews).
05
Oc
Researchershaveconsistentlyshownrelationshipsbetweenateacherssenseofefficacyand
to
assortedvariablesintheteachingandlearningprocess.Forexample,teacherefficacyhasbeen
be
relatedtoclassroommanagementstrategies(Ashtonetal.,1983),willingnesstoadoptnewideas
r
(Ghaith&Yaghi,1997;Stein&Wang,1988),persistencetoworkwithstudentswhostruggle
20
(Gibson&Dembo,1984),expectationsforstudentperformance(Tournaki&Podell,2005),
12
teacherevaluations(Riggs&Enochs,1990),andfacultyabsenteeism(Imants&VanZoelen,
1995).Ateacherslevelofefficacyhasalsobeenshowntobepositivelyrelatedtostudent
PH
YS expectationsfortheirownperformance(Anderson,Greene,&Loewen,1988),aswellasstudent
IC achievement(Armoretal.,1976;Caprara,Barbaranelli,Steca,&Malone,2006;Dembo&
AL Gibson,1985).Finally,teachingefficacyhasbeenshowntohaveimplicationsforjob
ED
satisfaction,commitmenttotheprofession,andlengthofcareer(Capraraetal.,2006;Glickman
UC
AT &Tamashiro,1982;Trentham,Silvern,&Brogdon,1985).
IO
N Whileresearchershaveshownthatteacherefficacyhasgreatpromise,manyquestionsremaintobe
TE
AC
answered.Forexample,intheirreview,TschannenMoranetal.(1998)urgedresearcherstoexamine
HI factorsthatcontributetothedevelopmentofteacherefficacy,studythestabilityofefficacyover
car eerstages,andexaminehowefficacyvarieswithcontextualfactorssuchasstudent
286 HUMPHRIESETAL.

characteristicsandsubjectmatter.Thestudyofteacherefficacyhasalsobeencriticizedforitstreatment
oftheconstructasaglobaldisposition(Bandura,1997;Wheatley,2005).Theprimaryinstrumentsthat
havebeenusedtomeasureteacherefficacyhavefailedtogroundtheconstructinBanduras(1986,
1997)conceptualizationofefficacyastaskand/orsituationspecificandmaythereforebeinadequate.In
linewiththisidea,researchershavebeguntodevelopteachingefficacyinstrumentsspecifictocontent
areas,suchasscience(Riggs&Enochs,1990),andwriting(Graham,Harris,Fink,&MacArthur,
2001).Mostrecently,multidimensionalinstrumentshavebeenconstructedthatexamineteachers
efficacybeliefsspecifictocertainaspectsoftheteachingprocess,suchasknowingthecoursecontent,
motivatingstudents,adaptinginstructiontostudentneeds,assessingstudents,managingbehavior,and
overcomingbarrierstostudentengagement(e.g.,Baker,2005;Brouwers&Tomic,2000;Duncan&
Ricketts,2008;Martin&Kulinna,2003;Skaalvik&Skaalvik,2007;WoolfolkHoy&Spero,2005).

Todate,however,withtheexceptionofMartinandcolleagues,fewresearchershaveexamined
Do teachingefficacyamongphysicaleducators,orefficacyspecifictoteachingPE.Theoneexisting
wn PEteacherselfefficacyinstrumentisnarrowlyfocused,examiningteachersefficacytoteachPE
loa lessonswithhighlevelsofphysicalactivity(Martin&Kulinna,2003).Hence,thepurposeofthis
de studywastodevelopabroader,multidimensionalteachingefficacyinstrumentspecificto
d personalteachingefficacyforPE.Inasocietybesetbysedentarylifestylesandintolerableobesity
by rates(CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention,2012),informationthatcanhelpincrease
[S physicaleducatorseffectivenessisincreasinglyimportant.Thisinferenceisbasedonthebodyof
ou literaturelinkinghigherteacherefficacywithdesirableteacherbehaviorsinthiscase,gettingall
the studentstoperformmoderatetovigorousphysicalactivityinasafe,supportiveenvironment.
ast TeacherefficacymaybeofparticularconcerninPEinlightoffindingsthatteacherefficacywas
er weakerinthepresenceofexcessiveroledemands,lowstatus,lackofrecognition,professional
n isolation,andalienation(TschannenMoranetal.,1998;Webb&Ashton,1987),characteristics
Lo thatareoftenreportedinPE.Thus,theavailabilityofateachingefficacyinstrumentspecifictoPE
uis canbeasignificantcontribution.
ian
a
Un
METHODS
ive
rsi
ty] Instrument Development
at
08 InkeepingwiththemultidimensionalinstrumentsdevelopedbySkaalvikandSkaalvik(2007)
:0 andWoolfolkHoyandSpero(2005),wesoughttocreateaninstrumentthatassessedefficacyfor
9 variousaspectsofteachingPE.Amultidimensionalapproachwaschosentoreflectthe
05 complexityofteachingPE.
Oc
to AsastartingframeworkforidentifyingimportantaspectsofteachingPE,weusedthemultifactor
be efficacysurveyspreviouslydevelopedandtheInitialPhysicalEducationTeacherEducationStandards
r developedbytheNationalAssociationforSportandPhysicalEducation(NASPE,2001,2009).The
20 NASPEStandardsaddressexpectationsrelatedtoprospectiveteachersknowledgebase,broadareasof
12 teaching(suchasplanning,managementandmotivation,communication,andstudentassessment),and
professionalism.Standardsarefurtherlinkedtooutcomes/elementsillustratingmorespecific
expectations.The2009revisionisbrieferthanthe2001standards,butisnotsubstantivelydifferentin
itsconceptualizationofeffectiveteaching.
 TEACHINGEFFICACYSCALE
287

TheintentwastodevelopitemsthataddressedmajoraspectsofteachingPEandwouldalsobe
understandabletothepractitioner.Whenpossible,itemswerewordedtobecleartounder
graduates,whileusingterminologyfromthestandards.Forexample,theNASPEStandards
(2001,2009)indicatepreserviceteachersshouldbeabletodevelopandimplementappropriate
instructionalexplanations,cues,andpromptstofacilitatecompetentmotorperformance.Theitem
writtentoreflectthisideawas,Icanuseclearteachingcuesthathelpstudentsrememberand
understandhowtodoaskillcorrectly.Expectationsregardingmanagementsuggestthatteachers
shouldbeabletoorganize,allocate,andmanageresourcestoprovideactiveandequitable
Do learningexperiences.Toparallelthisidea,wewrotetheitem,Icanuseavailablespaceand
wn equipmenttomakesurestudentsgetlotsofpracticeanddonotspendtimewaitinginline.Table
loa 1listssampleitemsandcorrespondingNASPEStandards.
de
d Insomeinstances,wesoughttoprovidecontextfortherespondent.Forexample,theNASPE
by Standardsindicatephysicaleducatorsshouldbeabletoplanandadaptinstructionfordiverse
[S students.Itemsconstructedtoaddressthisidearequiredrespondentstoprovideefficacyestima
ou tionsforeffectivelydevelopingactivitiesforloworhighskilledstudents,orforstudentswith
the specificdisabilities.Thesedecisionswerebasedontheideathatefficacyjudgmentsarelikelyto
ast varywithteachingcertaintypesofcontentortostudentswithspecificcharacteristics.Becauseit
er wasimpracticaltocreateitemsforallpossibletypesofactivityorallpossibleformsofstudent
n diversity,itemsweredevelopedforsituationsthatphysicaleducatorswouldbelikelyto
Lo encounter.ThiswasalsoconsistentwiththerecommendationsofBandura(2006),Bong(2006),
uis andPajares,Hartley,andValiante(2001),thatselfefficacyitemsbespecificenoughtogive
ian meaningfulcontext,butnotsospecificastoprecludegeneralizability.
a
Un Afterwritingandrevisingitems,aversionoftheinstrumentwasprovidedtothreeoutside
ive readers,universityfacultyandresearchersinPEteachereducationinotherstatesandregions.
rsi Theyevaluatedeachitemrelativetotheclarityofthestatement,theextenttowhicheachitem
ty] reflectedtheideasintheNASPEStandards,andeachitemsimportanceforinclusioninthe
at instrumentrelativetoothercomparableitems.Changesweremadebasedontheirfeedback;two
08 itemsweredeletedbasedonthisreview,andmanywererewritten.
:0
9 Next,aconveniencesampleof19undergraduatePEteachereducationcandidatescompleteda
05 74itemversionofthesurveyinstrument,respondedtotheitems,evaluatedtheirclarity,and
Oc providedfeedbackontheresponsescale.Thisfeedbacksuggestededitorialchangestoafew
to items;resultsfromthefeedbackalsoindicatedthatameaningfulefficacyscalecouldbeachieved
be byusinga10pointscaleanchoredby(1)Disagree/Cannotdo,and(10)Agree/HighlycertainI
r cando,withamidpointof(5)Neutral/ModeratelycertainIcando.
1
20
12
Atthispoint,theinstrument(PhysicalEducationTeachingEfficacyScale[PETES])consistedof
PH
80efficacyitemsansweredusingthe110scale,alongwithasectionfordemographic
YS characteristics,universityattended,andstatusintheuniversitysPEteachereducationprogram.
IC UniversityInstitutionalReviewBoardapprovalwasgivenforthisandallotherphasesofdata
AL collection.
ED
UC
AT
IO 1
Thesurveyinitiallyuseda100pointscale,asrecommendedbyBandura(2006).However,everyoneusedonlymultiples
N
of itemstheyscoredbelow70,whileseveralcandidatesgaveitemsratedabove70withsuchscoresas76,94,andsoforth,
10 suggestingtheywerelapsingintoagradingscale,despiteinstructionstousemidrangenumbersasneutral.Thissuggested
to that,withthispopulation,a100pointscalecouldbeathreattovalidity,andthemoretraditional10pointscalewas
rate substituted.
Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012
Survey Items and Corresponding NASPE Standards

SamplePETEItem
2001NASPEStandard/Outcome
2008NASPEStandard/Element
2
8
8

Ihaveagoodgraspofexercise
1.ContentKnowledge
Describeandapplybiophysical
T 1.ScientificandTheoretical
A Describeandapplyphysiological
scienceconcepts(fromExercise
B
L
(anatomical,physiological,and
E
Knowledge
andbiomechanicalconcepts
1 Physiology,Biomechanics,

E biomechanical)andsocial
x
a relatedtoskillfulmovement,
m MotorLearning,andSport
p
l psychologicalconceptstoskillful
e
s physicalactivity,andfitness.
Psychology)andcanapplythem
o
f movement,physicalactivity,and
P
E
T toteachingPE.
E
S fitness.
 andthebiological,
1.ScientificandTheoretical
Describeandapplymotor
I differentfromfourthgraders
k Development
n psychological,sociological,
o Knowledge
w developmenttheoryandprinciples
physically,cognitively,socially,
h
o
experiential,andenvironmental
w

f relatedtoskillfulmovement,
i andemotionally.
r
s
factors(e.g.,neurological
t
g
r physicalactivity,andfitness.
a
d
e
r development,physique,gender,
s
a
r
e
2
.
socioeconomicstatus)that
G
r
o
w
t
h
influencedevelopmentalreadiness
a
n
d
U
n
d
e tolearnandrefinemovement
r
s
t
 rseStudents
Identify,select,andimplement
3.Planningand
s Planandadaptinstructionfordiverse
k troublewithadrill/activity,
i
l
appropriateinstructionthatis
l
Implementation
s
studentneeds,addingspecific
.
Iknowwaystochangeittomake

sensitivetostudents
I
f
accommodationsand/or
o
n iteasierforthem.
e
o strengths/weaknesses,multiple
f
m
modificationsforstudent
y

s
t needs,learningstyles,andprior
u
d
e exceptionalities.
n
t
s
w experiences.
e
r
e
Icanuseroutinessostudentsdo
h
4.Managementand
a
Usemanagerialroutinesthatcreate
v
4.InstructionalDeliveryand
i
Utilizemanagerialrules,routines,
n
notwastetimeduringclass.
g
Motivation
3
smoothlyrunninglearning
.
Management
D
andtransitionstocreateand
i
v
e
 andeffective
e
x
p
andmanageresources(e.g.,
e
r
i learningenvironment.
e
n
c
e students,time,space,equipment,
s
.
O
r
g
a
activities,teacherattention)to
n
i
z
e
,
a
l provideactiveandequitable
l
o
c
a
t
e
, learningexperiences.

m
a Icantalktostudentswhoare
i 5.Communication
n Communicateinwaysthat
t 6.Professionalism
a Communicateinwaystheconvey
i overweight,lowskilled,of
n

a demonstratesensitivitytoall
s
a respectandsensitivity.
f differentraces,andtobothmales
e
 onsiderateof
s
t
u
andfemalessoIdontinsult
d
e
n ethnic,cultural,socioeconomic,
t
s
(
e themorhurttheirfeelings
.
g ability,genderdifferences).
.
,
c
Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012

Icandemonstrateandexplaina
6.Planningand
Useeffectivedemonstrationsand
4.InstructionalDeliveryand
Implementeffectivedemonstrations,
skill/drillsotheclass
Instruction
explanationstolinkphysical
Management
explanations,andinstructional
understandswhattodo.

activityconceptstoappropriate

cuesandpromptstolinkphysical

learningexperiences.

activityconceptstoappropriate

learningexperiences.
Icanuseassessmentsforboth
7.StudentAssessment
Interpretanduselearningand
5.ImpactonStudentLearning
Utilizeassessmentsandreflectionto
gradingandtohelpmeplan.

performancedatatomake

fosterstudentlearningandinform

informedcurricularand/or

instructionaldecisions.

instructionaldecisions.

Ioftenlookforideasabout
8.Reflection
Useavailableresources(e.g.,
6.Professionalism
Participateinactivitiesthatenhance
teachingPEfromothersources

colleagues,literature,professional

collaborationandleadto
suchasteachers,theinternet,

organizations)todevelopasa

professionalgrowthand
professionalconferences,and

reflectiveprofessional.

development.
professionalliterature.
IcanintegratetechnologyifIhave
9.Technology
Design,develop,andimplement
3.PlanningandInstruction
Demonstrateknowledgeofcurrent
accesstoit(suchasvideoand

studentlearningactivitiesthat

technologybyplanningand
soundsystems)intomyteaching.

integrateinformationtechnology.

implementinglearning

experiencesthatrequirestudents

toappropriatelyusetechnologyto

meetlessonobjectives.
Icangetinformationorequipment
10.Collaboration
Identifyandactivelyseek
6.Professionalism
Participateinactivitiesthatenhance
orusefacilitiesformyPEclass

communityresourcestoenhance

collaborationandleadto
frompeoplewhoworkinlocal

physicalactivityopportunities.

professionalgrowthand
fitnesscentersandrecreation

development.
departments.

289
 290 HUMPHRIESETAL.

Participants
Dow
nloa PEteachereducationcandidatesat11institutionsacrosstheUnitedStateswereaskedtocompletethesurvey.
ded InstitutionswereselectedonthebasisofthepresenceofanundergraduatePEteachereducationprogramandtowardthe
by pursuitofadiversesetofrespondents.Institutionsincludedruralandurbansettings,bothpublicandprivate,andranged
[Sou fromsmall(totalenrollmentof2,700)tolarge(totalenrollmentof42,000)universities.Ofthe595completedsurveys,
thea 592wereusable.Mostrespondents(n=430)weretraditionalundergraduates,andtherest(22ofwhomhadbeen
stern teachingwithoutastandardlicense)wereinanalternativecertificationprogram.Ofthe592respondents,themajority
Loui werewhite(n=434,73%)orAfricanAmerican(n=107,18%),andmalesoutnumberedfemales63%to37%.
sian
a
Univ
ersit Data Analysis and Results
y]at
08:0 Datawererandomlysplitintotwosamples.Wethenconductedanexploratoryfactoranalysisusingaprincipalcomponents
905 analysiswithavarimaxrotation.Screeplotswerealsoexamined.Theresultsrevealedasevenfactorscale,withEigenvalues
Octo greaterthan1.0,accountingfor66%ofthetotalvariance.Factorloadingsrangedfrom.42to.77,and53itemswereretained.
ber InternalconsistencyofeachfactorwasassessedusingCronbachsalpha;thesevaluesrangedfrom.77to
2012
.94,allmeetingourcriterionlevelof.70(Cronbach,1951).Toexaminetestretestreliability,another64respondents
completedthePETEStwiceoverathreedayperiod,andthereliabilityofeachfactorscorewasevaluatedusing
intraclasscorrelation.Thesecorrelationsrangedfrom

.63to.88.

Toconfirmthefactorstructureobtainedinthefirsthalfofthesplitsample,wethenconductedaconfirmatoryfactor
analysis(CFA)usingstructuralequationmodeling(SEM)techniques.Maximumlikelihoodestimationwasusedwith
AMOS5.0(Arbuckle,2003).Standardconditionswerespecifiedbyhavingtheappropriateindicatorsloadoneachof
thesevenlatentfactors,andthenwedefinedthescaleofeachlatentfactorbyfixingthefactorloadingofoneindicator
foreachlatentvariabletoone.Subscaleswerefreetocorrelate.

Weexaminedavarietyofmodelgoodnessoffit(GOF)indexestoevaluatedifferentaspectsofmodelfit(Kline,2005).Results
oftheCFAindicatedaninadequatefitbasedonthefollowingfitindexesthatdidnotmeetcommonlyusedcriteria(Byrne,
2 2
2006;Kline,2005): (df=1,253,N=297)=3,319.28,p<.001, /df=2.65,ComparativeFitIndex(CFI)=.80,Root
Mea SEA)=.08and90%confidenceinterval=.072.078.Thesefindingssuggestedthatastrongerfitmightbeachievedwith
n modelmodification.Furthermore,todevelopamorepracticalscale(i.e.,reduceparticipantburden)wealsosoughttoreduce
Squa thetotalnumberofscaleitems.Becausefactorfive(i.e.,efficacyaboutinstruction)hadfarmoreitems(20)thanallofthe
re otherfactors,wewereparticularlyinterestedindeletingitemsfromit.Atthesametime,becausefactorfivehaditems
Erro reflectingmanagement,motivation,andcommunication,wedidnotwanttoeliminatetheitemsthatmightrepresentone
rof particulararea.
Appr
oxim Kline(2005)suggestedthatbothempirical(e.g.,factorloadings)andsubstantiveconsiderations(e.g.,theory,logic)beusedin
ation therespecificationofamodel.Hence,weprimarilyusedthefactorloadings(i.e.,lowloadings)fromitemsloadingonfactor
(RM fiveasaguidefordroppingitemstoimprovethefit.Aswedroppeditemsandrerananalyses,thevariousfitindexesimproved
08:0905October2012

PHYSICALEDUCATIONTEACHINGEFFICACYSCALE
291

incrementally.Thefinalmodelconsistedof35itemsin7factorswitheachfactorbeingmeasuredby46itemsandall
itemsloadingontheapriorifactorsidentifiedintheexploratoryfactoranalysis.
2
Finalfitstatisticswerealladequate(withoneexception)asfollows: (df=539,N=297)=1,579.57,p<.001,
2
/df=2.93,CFI=.86,RMSEA=.08,StandardizedRootMeanResidual(SRMR)=.06,and90%confidenceinterval=
.076.085.TheRMSEAisoftenconsideredoneofthemostvaluablefitindicesinSEMbutshouldnotbeusedasa
universalcutoffrule(Chen,Curran,Bollen,Kirby,&Paxton,2008).HuandBentler(1999)indicatedavalueof.06
wouldsuggestagoodfit,andsmallRMSEAconfidenceintervalsindicatepotentialmodelfitinthepopulation.Wealso
examinedthestandardizedRootMeanResidual(SRMR)whereavaluebelow.05isconsideredagoodfit,andlessthan
Dow .10isconsideredfavorable(Kline,2005,p.141).TheCFI(.86)fellshortofthetypicalGOFcriteriaof.90.However,
nloa accordingtoMarsh,Hau,andWen(2004):
ded
by . . . itisalmostimpossibletogetanacceptablefit(e.g.,CFI,RNI,TLI > .9;RMSEA,.05)foreven goodmultifactorrating
[Sou instrumentswhenanalysesaredoneattheitemlevelandtherearemultiplefactors(e.g.,510),eachmeasuredwithareasonable
thea numberofitems(e.g.,atleast510/perscale)sothatthereareatleast50itemsoverall.(p.325)
stern
Loui Giventhatwestartedwitha53item,7factormodelwith4to20itemsperfactor,ourresultsareconsistentwithMarshet
sian al.s(2004)observations.Clearly,wedidnotwanttoengageinthedubiouspracticeofdroppingmultiple(e.g.,40)items,
a sacrificingconstructvaliditysimplytoobtainadequateGOFindices.LikeMarshetal.(2004),wewouldarguethatusing
Univ GOFindicesasrigiddecisionrulesisunwiseandnotaviablealternativetogoodjudgmentbasedonasoundevaluationofall
ersit oftheresults(i.e.,factorloadings,factorcorrelations,varianceaccountedfor).
y]at
Indi clearlymetcriteria(.40to.60)establishedbyHair,Anderson,Tatham,andBlack(1998)todesignatelowtohigh
vidu factorloadings.Theassociatedsquaredmultiplecorrelations(SMC)rangefromexplaining33%to80%ofthevariance
al inthefactors.Factorcorrelationsrangedfrom.46to.86,withmost(16/21)rangingfrom.50to.75.Thesemoderate
facto correlationsandthevarianceaccountedforsupportthemultidimensionalityofthescaleandindicatethateachsubscale
r measuresauniqueformofselfefficacy.However,basedonfactorloadings,someitemswithlowerfactorloadings
loadi (e.g.,.57)werenotasstrongasotheritemswithmuchstrongerfactorloadings(e.g.,88).Atthesametime,the
ngs correlationsarenotsohighastosuggestredundantscalesorsolowastorefutethetheoreticaltenantsofselfefficacy
were theory.Finally,internalconsistencyofeachscalewasalsoassessedusingCronbachsalphaandrangedfrom.77to.91,
all allmeetingthetraditionalcutofflevelof.70(Cronbach,1951).Theabovefindingsareevidenceofinternalconsistency
high andbothconvergentanddivergentvalidity.
and
rang
ed
Factor descriptions
from
.57
to. Factor 1: Efficacy about PE content knowledge
90
and Thefirstfactoriscomposedoffivecohesiveitemsfocusingonconfidenceinoneslevelofknowledgetoteachcertainkinds
ofPEcontenteffectively.Initially,eightitems,toincludeawide
by[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012

Dow
nloa
ded
292 sdeletedincludedteamsports,suchasbasketball,forwhichparticipantshadconsistentlyhighefficacyatalllevelsof
HUM experience,anddance,forwhichefficacywasgenerallylow.Itemsincluderacquetandfitnessactivitiesaswellasless
PHRI traditionalcontent,suchasoutdoorrecreationandaquatics.Higherscoresforthisfactorindicatehigherlevelsofefficacyabout
ES onescontentknowledgeforteachingPE.TheseitemsallclearlyfitunderNASPEelement2.1:Demonstratepersonal
ET competenceinmotorskillperformanceforavarietyofphysicalactivitiesandmovementpatterns(NASPE,2009,p.11),
AL.
thoughtheteachingaspectoftheitemsisinlinewiththespiritofStandard3:PlanningandImplementation:Physical
educationteachercandidatesplanandimplementdevelopmentallyappropriatelearningexperiencesalignedwithlocal,state,
andnationalstandardstoaddressthediverseneedsofallstudents(NASPE,p.13).
selec
tion
Factor 2: Efficacy for applying scientific knowledge in teaching PE
of
activ
ities, ThefouritemsloadingonFactor2pertaintotheunderstandingandapplicationofconceptsfromtheexercisescience
were disciplines(e.g.,exercisephysiology,motordevelopment),aswellastheuseofnationalcontentstandardsinplanning
writt andinstruction.Thisknowledgeandskillappearstobeseparatedfromthoseinthefirstfactorbytheirabstractnatureor
en becausetheyareacquiredinlatterstagesofthecollegecareerthroughcourseworkandfieldexperiences.Thefirstitem
for inthisfactor(Table2)isliketheitemsinFactor1,inthatitreflectsacombinationofteachingskillwithimplied
the personalcompetence.TheseconditemalignswithElements1.1:Describeandapplyphysiologicalandbiomechanical
PET conceptsrelatedtoskillfulmovement,physicalactivity,andfitness;and1.2:Describeandapplymotorlearningand
ES. psychological/behavioraltheoryrelatedtoskillfulmovement,physicalactivity,andfitness(NASPE,2009,p.9).The
Fact thirditemisinthespiritofStandard3,andthefourthalignswithElement1.3:Describeandapplymotordevelopment
or theoryandprinciplesrelatedtoskillfulmovement,physicalactivity,andfitness(NASPE,p.10).TheitemsinFactor2
anal appeartorelatenotsomuchtooneanotherastoanunderlyingconstructsummarizedbythefactorsworkingtitleof
ysis ThingsIlearnedincollege.Whiledisparateincontent,theyarekeyelementstonearlyallprogramsthatcandidates
redu
wouldbecomeacquaintedwithastheyprogressthroughtheirprograms.ThisisincontrasttoFactor1,whichislargely
ced
whatenteringphysicaleducationteachereducationcandidateshaveinmindastheyentertheirprograms.
this
to
only Factor 3: Efficacy about accommodating skill level differences
five,
whil FiveitemsrelatingtoskillleveldifferencesamongstudentsinPEclassesloadedontoFactor3.Skillanalysisunderlies
e allitemsinthisfactor.Theseitemsreflectbeliefsaboutonesabilitiestorecognizeskillleveldifferencesvia
main observation,planavarietyoftaskstoaccommodateforskillleveldifferencesinaclass,andmodifyactivitiestomake
taini themdevelopmentallyappropriate.TheseitemsallfallwithinStandards3:PlanningandImplementation:Physical
ng educationteachercandidatesplanandimplementdevelopmentallyappropriatelearningexperiencesalignedwithlocal,
varie
state,andnationalstandardstoaddressthediverseneedsofallstudents;and4:InstructionalDeliveryand
ty.
Management:Physicaleducationteachercandidatesuseeffectivecommunicationandpedagogicalskillsandstrategies
Item
toenhancestudentengagementandlearning(NASPE,2009,pp.1317).
Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012

293

TABLE 2

Statistical Characteristics of Manifest Items used in the CFA Analysis for the
PETES

ItemCharacteristicAbbreviations
M
SD
SRW
SMC
CR

Factor1:EfficacyaboutPEcontentknowledge
 suchashorseshoes,croquet,discgames,cooperativeand
5.99
2.38
I .70
.49
k 9.4
n challengeactivities),andcanteachthemeffectively
o
w

l
o
t Iknowalotaboutracquet/netgamessuchasbadmintonandtennis,andcanteach.them
a effectively
b 5.72
o 2.42
u .57
t 0.32
l 11.0
i Iknowalotaboutoutdoorrecreationactivities(suchascamping,canoeing,biking,
f orienteering),andcan
e 5.78
t 2.64
i .64
m 0.41
e 10.2
/ teachthemeffectively.
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
Iknowalotaboutswimmingandwatersafety,andcanteachthemeffectively.
o
5.81
n
2.63
a
.60
l
.36
g
10.6
a
Iknowalotaboutfitnessandcanteachiteffectively.
m
7.72
e
1.92
s
.72

.51
(
9 owledgeinteachingPE
.
2
F
a
c
t
o
r Ihaveagoodgraspofexercisescienceconcepts(fromexercisephysiology,biomechanics,
motorlearning
2 6.34
: 2.26
.69
E .74
f 10.0
f andsportpsychology),andcanapplythemtoteachingphysicaleducation.
i
c
a
c
y

f
o Iknowhowfirstgradersaredifferentfromfourthgradersphysically,cognitively,socially,
r andemotionally.
7.75
a 1.98
p .59
p
.35
l
10.7
y
Iknowalotaboutfundamentalmotorskills(manipulativeandlocomotor)andcanteach
i
themeffectively.
n
6.72
g
2.27

.76
s
.57
c
8.9
i
IknowwhattheNASPEstandardsare,andcanplanandteachtowardthem.
e
5.71
n
2.80
t
.67
i
.45
f
10.0
i
Factor3:Efficacyaboutaccommodatingskillleveldifferences
c

k
n
 seeiftheyaredoingitrightorwhattheyneedtocorrect.
8.28
1.57
.88
W .77
h 8.2
e Ifsomeoneishavingtroubleperformingaskill,Icantellandshowthemwhattodotoget
n better.
8.22
I 1.60
.90
w .81
a 7.6
t Icanplanskillsequencessothattasksgofromeasiertoharderinsmallsteps.
c 7.87
h 1.76
.74
s .55
o 10.9
m Ifadrillistooeasyforahighlyskilledstudent,Icaneasilychangeittomakeitmore
e challenging.
o 8.23
n 1.69
e .77
.60
p 10.2
e Ifoneofmystudentswashavingtroublewithadrill,Iknowwaystochangeittomakeit
r easierforthem.
f 7.82
o 1.66
r .78
m .61
10.0
a Factor4:Efficacyaboutteachingstudentswithspecialneeds

s
k
i
l
l
,
I IknowhowtoincludeastudentwithcerebralpalsyinaregularPEclass.
6.04
c 2.44
a .80
n .65
9.3
I dationinmyPEclass.
6.13
k 2.50
n .85
o .72
w 8.8
Iknowhowtoeffectivelyteachstudentswithemotionalorbehavioralproblemswhoarein
w myPEclass
h 7.22
a 1.22
t .87
t .76
o 8.3
IfIhadastudentwithvisionproblemsinoneofmyPEclasses,Icanfindwaysforthe
d studenttoparticipate
o 7.34
2.14
w .73
i .53
t 11.0
h withtherestoftheclasssuccessfully.

s
t
u
d
e IknowhowtoeffectivelyteachastudentwithADHD(attentiondeficithyperactivity
n disorder)inmyPE
t 7.54
w 2.05
i .86
t .73
h 8.7
class.
m
e
n
t
a
l
r
e Factor5:Efficacyaboutinstruction
t
a
r
 ctiveclassessafelysothatstudentsarenotlikelytogethurt.
8.49
1.43
.76
I .58
10.8
c Icangetmystudentstorespectandcooperatewitheachother.
a 8.20
n 1.47
.74
o .55
r 11.0
g Icandemonstrateandexplainaskill/drillsothattheclassunderstandswhattodo.
a 8.63
n 1.34
i .80
z .65
e 10.4

a
n
d

r
u
n

a
(Continued)
Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012

294

TABLE 2 (Continued)

ItemCharacteristicAbbreviations
M
SD
SRW
SMC
CR

Icanuseclearteachingcuesthathelpstudentsrememberandunderstandhowtodoaskillcorrectly.
8.15
1.55
.82
.67
10.3
Icanusequestionsoractivitiestogetkidstothinkcriticallyorsolveproblems.
8.04
1.66
.80
.65
10.4
IamabletohelpchildrenfrompovertybackgroundshaveasuccessfulPEexperience.
8.32
1.74
.80
.65
10.4
Factor6:Efficacyforusingassessment

Iunderstandassessmentconcepts(suchasvalidity,reliabilityandauthenticassessment)andcanapplythem
7.644
1.92
.83
.69
9.2
inteachingPE.

Icanmakeuprubricstoassessstudentlearningofskillsorgameplay.
7.83
1.81
.84
.71
9.4
MygradesreflecthowwellstudentshavelearnedwhatIwantedthemtolearn.
8.18
1.63
.66
.43
11.1
Icanuseassessmentsbothforgradingmyclassesandtohelpmeplan.
8.05
1.75
.85
.72
8.8
Icanchangealessonasthedaygoesonbasedonhowthelessonisworking.
8.43
1.43
.74
.54
10.5
Factor7:Efficacyforusingtechnology

IfmyprincipalwantstoseemeusetechnologysuchascomputerprogramsoraudiovisualequipmentinPE,I
8.25
1.98
.81
.66
9.1
candoit.

IcanintegratetechnologyifIhaveaccesstoit(suchasvideoandsoundsystems)intomyteaching.
8.32
1.77
.83
.70
8.4
IamawareoftechnologybasedequipmentandcomputerprogramsforPE,evenifIdonthaveit.
7.62
2.27
.78
.61
9.4
IoftenuseemailandtheinternettofindorshareideasaboutPE.
8.08
1.63
.66
.43
11.1
Icanusetheinternettohelpplanlessons.
8.32
1.75
.68
.46
10.8

Note:M=Mean.SD=StandardDeviation.SRW=StandardizedRegressionWeights.SMC=SquaredMultipleCorrelation.CR=CriticalRatio.SRW,SMC,andCR
arefromtheCFAofthemeasurementmodel.
University]at08:0905October2012

PHYSICALEDUCATIONTEACHINGEFFICACYSCALE
295

Factor 4: Efficacy for teaching students with special needs

Thefourthfactorreflectsrespondentsefficacybeliefsforeffectivelyworkingwithstudentswithspecialneedsina
regularPEclass.Severalitemsthatrelatedtospecialneeds/differentiatinginstruction,suchasteachingchildrenwho
wereobese,spokenoEnglish,orwerepoor,didnotloadinthefinalPETES.Fiveitemsloadedontothisfactor.They
includearangeofcognitiveandbehavioraldiagnosesandincludedestimationsofonesabilitytoteachthesestudents
effectivelyandmodifyactivitiestoencourageparticipation.Higherefficacyscoresarealsolikelytoreflecta
heightenedlevelofknowledgeaboutparticulardisordersandgraspofspecificstrategiesforaccommodatingthem.As
Dow inFactor3,NASPEStandards3and4arethemostaligned,withabroademphasisoneffectiveplanningand
nloa instructionaldelivery,includingreferencesthroughouttheirelementsonmeetingtheneedsofallstudents.
ded
by Factor 5: Efficacy about instruction
[Sou
thea Sixitemsrepresentthisfactorthatreflectsefficacybeliefsforwhatmanywouldconsidertheactofteaching.Twoitems
stern reflecteachofthethreemajorfunctions:(1)managementusingroutines,effectiveuseofspaceandequipment,managing
Loui behavior,(2)motivationencouragingappropriatelevelsofclassparticipationandanappreciationofPE,and(3)
sian communicationespeciallyinwaysthatdemonstraterespectandsensitivitytodiversity.Higherscoresonthisfactorshould
a beinterpretedtoreflectgreaterlevelsofefficacytoengageineffectiveinclassteachingbehaviors,orwhatmightbe
cons Standard4,astheyrefertoactionsinclass.
idere
d
Factor 6: Efficacy for using assessment
gene
ral
com Fiveitems,addressingmultipleaspectsofassessment,loadedontoFactor6.Itemsincludestatementspertainingto
pone understandingandusingmeasurementconceptsinteaching,creatingrubrics,usingassessmentsformodifyingongoing
nts lessonsandplanningfutureones,andusingassessmentingrading.Higherscoresonthisfactorreflectstrongerteacher
of beliefsinonesunderstandingofassessmentandeffectiveimplementationofit.ThefiveitemsfallwithinStandard5:
effec ImpactonStudentLearning:
tive
teac Physicaleducationteachercandidatesutilizeassessmentsandreflectiontofosterstudentlearningandinform
hing. instructionaldecisions(NASPE,2009,p.18).Theyreflectanunderstandingthatassessmentismorethangiving
All grades,includingplanningandadaptinginstruction,andmultipleformsofassessment.
item
sin
Fact Factor 7: Efficacy for using technology
or5
woul Fiveitemsloadedontotheseventhandfinalfactor,allpertainingtotheuseoftechnologyinplanning,teaching,and
d professionalcommunication.Higherscoresonthisfactorreflectincreasedlevelsofefficacyforusingtechnologyin
align planningandteachingandanawarenessofavailablesoftwareandhardwarethatmaybeusinginteachingPE.These
with alignwithelement3.7:Demonstrateknowledgeofcurrenttechnologybyplanningandimplementinglearning

Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012
296
HUM
PHRI
ES DISCUSSION
ET
AL.
Teachingandlearningcompriseacomplexphenomenon,andresearchershavefoundthatteacherefficacyplaysa
significantrole.Teacherssenseofefficacyappearstoaffectbasicbeliefsaboutstudentsandinstructionandchoicesof
instructionalmethodsandalsoinfluencestheirstudentsbeliefsabouttheircapabilitiesandlearning.Asresearchon
expe teacherefficacyhasevolved,scholarshaveincreasinglysoughtwaystostudyefficacyinamannerthatismore
rien consistentwithBandurasconceptualizations,leaningtowardefficacymeasuresthatarespecifictosubjectmatterand
ces focusingonspecificcomponentsoftheteachingprocess(e.g.,Martin&Kulinna,2003;Skaalvik&Skaalvik,2007;
that WoolfolkHoy&Spero,2005).
requ
ire WesoughttoconstructateacherefficacyinstrumentspecifictoteachingPEandusedtheNASPEInitialPhysicalEducation
stud TeacherEducationStandardsasabasisforgeneratingideas/conceptsthatwouldbeconsideredimportanttoaddress.The
ents resultingPETESisa35itemsurveycomposedof7efficacyfactors:(a)contentknowledge,(b)applyingscientificknowl
to edge,(c)accommodatingskillleveldifferences,(d)teachingstudentswithspecialneeds,(e)instruction,(f)assessment,and
appr (g)usingtechnology.Theresultantfactors(areasofefficacybeliefs)alignrelativelywellwiththeideasexpressedinNASPE
opri Standardsandalsoparallelmultifactorefficacyinstrumentsdevelopedforgeneralclassroomteachingorothersubjectareas
ately (e.g.,Duncan&Ricketts,2008;Skaalvik&Skaalvik,2007;WoolfolkHoy&Spero,2005).Factorsarecomposedofitems
use thatlogicallyrelateandshowhighlevelsofinternalconsistency.Testretestreliabilityindicatesstablescoreswhenthesurvey
tech isrepeatedoverashorttimespan.
nolo
gy ThesepreliminaryresultssuggestthatthePETESisanappropriateinstrumentformeasuringPEteachingefficacy,and
to itisofferedasatoolforstudyingthedevelopmentofefficacyanditsimpactonteacherbehaviorandstudentoutcomes.
meet However,instrumentdevelopmentandtheestablishmentofvalidityandreliabilityisanongoingprocess.Hence,
less researchersareencouragedtocontinuetoevaluatethepsychometricpropertiesofthePETES.Forinstance,the
on multitraitandmultimethodapproachisanexcellentwaytoestablishvalidity(Campbell&Fiske,1959).Inkeeping
obje withsuggestionsfromotherscholars,importantareasofstudyincludechangesinefficacybeliefsovertheteacher
ctive preparationprogramandacrossthecareer,factorsthataffectPEteachingefficacybeliefs,andcomparisonsofefficacy
s beliefstoactualteachingperformance.Sourcesofefficacy(Klassenetal.,2011)alsoremainsasignificantand
(NA incompletelyunderstoodissue.Furtherresearchmightalsoaddressdifferencesinefficacyinmoreandlesssuccessful
SPE, teachers,whetherefficacypredictsprofessionallongevity,therelationshipbetweenefficacyandstudentattitudesand
200 learning,andwhethergraduatesoftraditionalandalternativecertificationprogramsdifferintheirefficacy.
9,p.
15).
AC LEDGMENTS
KN
OW TheauthorsthankRussCarsonofLouisianaStateUniversity,BenDysonoftheUniversityofMemphis,NellFaucette
oftheUniversityofSouthFlorida,CliffaFosterofUniversityof
October2012

PHYSICALEDUCATIONTEACHINGEFFICACYSCALE
297

MaryHardinBaylor,KarenFredenburgofBaylorUniversity,JonGrayofSamHoustonStateUniversity,Jacalyn
LundofGeorgiaStateUniversity,LynnOwensofMontanaStateUniversity,PaulRukavinaofAdelphiUniversity,
andHansvanderMarsofArizonaStateUniversity,fortheirinvaluableassistanceindatacollection.

REFERENCES

Dow Anderson,R.N.,Greene,M.L.,&Loewen,P.S.(1988).Relationshipsamongteachersandstudentsthinkingskills,
nloa
ded senseofefficacy,andstudentachievement.AlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch
,
34
,148165.
by
[Sou Arbuckle,J.L.(2003).Amos5.0usersguide.Chicago,IL:SmallWaters.
thea
stern Armor,D.,ConryOseguera,P.,Cox,M.,King,N.,McDonnell,L.,Pascal,A.etal.(1976).Analysisoftheschoolpreferredreadingprogramin
Loui selectedLosAngelesminorityschools,fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2005/R2007.pdf
sian
a Ashton,P.T.(1984).Teacherefficacy:Amotivationalparadigmforeffectiveteachereducation.JournalofTeacher
Uni
versi Education,35,2832.
ty]
Ashton,P.T.,Webb,R.B.,&Doda,N.(1983).Astudyofteacherssenseofefficacy.Finalreport.Gainesville,FL:UniversityofFlorida,Contract
at
No.400790075,NationalInstituteofEducation.
08:0
905 Baker,P.H.(2005).Managingstudentbehavior:Howreadyareteacherstomeetthechallenge?AmericanSecondaryEducation
,33,5164.
 NewYork,NY:Feeeman.
Band
ura, Bandura,A.(2006).Guidetotheconstructionofselfefficacyscales.InF.Pajares&T.Urdan(Eds.),Adolescenceand
A.
(1986 education:Vol.5:Selfefficacybeliefsofadolescents(pp.307337).Greenwich,CT:InformationAgePublishing.Berman,P.,McLaughlin,M.,BassGolod,
). G.,Pauly,E.,&Zellman,G.(1977).Federalprogramssupportingeducational
Socia change:Vol.VII:Factorsaffectingimplementationandcontinuation,fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2005/R1589.7.pdf
l
found
ation Bong,M.(2006).Askingtherightquestion:Howconfidentareyouthatyoucouldsuccessfullyperformthesetasks?InF.Pajares&T.Urdan(Eds.),
sof Selfefficacybeliefsofadolescents(pp.287305).Greenwich,CT:InformationAgePublishing.
thoug
ht Brouwers,A.,&Tomic,W.(2000).Alongitudinalstudyofteacherburnoutandperceivedselfefficacyinclassroommanagement.Teachingand
and TeacherEducation,16,239253.
actio
n:A
social Byrne,B.M.(2006).StructuralequationmodelingwithEQS:Basicconcepts,applicationsandprogramming
.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
cogni
tive Campbell,D.T.,&Fiske,D.W.(1959).Convergentanddiscriminantvalidationbythemultitraitmultimethodmatrix.
theor
y.
PsychologicalBulletin,56,81105.
Engle
wood
Cliffs Caprara,G.V.,Barbaranelli,C.,Steca,P.,&Malone,P.S.(2006).Teachersselfefficacybeliefsasdeterminantsofjobsatisfactionandstudents
,NJ: academicachievement:Astudyattheschoollevel.JournalofSchoolPsychology
,
44,473490.
Prenti
ce
CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.(2012).Overweightandobesity,fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/facts.html
Hall.

Chen,F.,Curran,P.J.,Bollen,K.A.,Kirby,J.,&Paxton,P.(2008).AnempiricalevaluationoftheuseoffixedcutoffpointsinRMSEAtest

statisticinstructuralequationmodels.SociologicalMethods&Research,36,462494.
Band
ura,
A. Cronbach,L.J.(1951).Coefficientalphaandtheinternalstructureoftests.Psychometrika
,
16
,92969334.
(1997
). Dembo,M.H.,&Gibson,S.(1985).Teacherssenseofefficacy:Animportantfactorinschoolimprovement.ElementarySchoolJournal
,86,173
Self 184.
effica
cy:
The Duncan,D.W.,&Ricketts,J.C.(2008).Totalprogramefficacy:Acomparisonoftraditionallyandalternativelycertifiedagricultureteachers.
exerc JournalofAgriculturalEducation,
49
,3846.
iseof
contr Ghaith,G.,&Yaghi,H.(1997).Relationshipsamongexperience,teacherefficacy,andattitudestowardtheimplementationofinstructional
ol. innovation.TeachingandTeacherEducation,13,451458.
 2

Dow
nloa
ded
by
[Sou
thea
stern
Loui
sian
a
Uni
versi
ty]
at
08:0
905
Octo
ber
201
298 Tamashiro,R.T.(1982).Acomparisonoffirstyear,fifthyear,andformerteachersonefficacy,egodevelopment,andproblemsolving.
Psychology
intheSchools,
19
,558562.
HUM
PHRI
ES Graham,S.,Harris,K.R.,Fink,B.,&MacArthur,C.A.(2001).Teacherefficacyinwriting:Aconstructvalidationwith
ET
AL. primarygradeteachers.ScientificStudiesofReading
,
5
,177202.

Guskey,T.R.,&Passaro,P.D.(1994).Teacherefficacy:Astudyofconstructdimensions.AmericanEducational

Gibso ResearchJournal,31,627643.
n,S.,
&
Demb Hair,J.F.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R,L.,&Black,W.C.(1998).Multivariatedataanalysiswithreadings
(5thed.).
o,M.
H. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
(1984
).
Teach Henson,R.K.(2002).Fromadolescentangsttoadulthood:Substantiveimplicationsandmeasurementdilemmasinthedevelopmentofteacher
er efficacyresearch.EducationalPsychologist
,
37
,137150.
effica
cy:A Hu,L.,&Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariancestructuralanalysis:Conventionalcriteria
constr
uct
versusnewalternatives.StructuralEquationModeling
,
6
,155.
valida
tion.
Journ Imants,J.,&VanZoelen,A.(1995).Teacherssicknessabsenceinprimaryschools,schoolclimateandteacherssenseofefficacy.
School
alof Organisation,
15
,7786.
Educ
ation Klassen,R.M.,Tze,V.M.C.,Betts,S.M.,&Gordon,K.A.(2011).Teacherefficacyresearch19982009:Signsofprogressorunfulfilled
al promise?EducationalPsychologyReview
,
23
,2143.
Psyc
holog
y,
76, Kline,R.B.(2005).Principlesandpracticeofstructuralequationmodeling(2nded).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPress.Marsh,H.W.,Hau,K.T.,&
Wen,Z.(2004).Insearchofgoldenrules:Commentonhypothesistestingapproaches
569
582. tosettingcutoffvaluesforfitindexesanddangersofovergeneralizingHuandBentlers(1999)findings.StructuralEquationModeling,11,320341.

Martin,J.J.,&HodgesKulinna,P.H.(2004).Selfefficacytheoryandthetheoryofplannedbehavior:TeachingphysicallyactivePEclasses.
Glick ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport,
75
,288297.
man,
C.D., Martin,J.J.,&Kulinna,P.H.(2003).Thedevelopmentofaphysicaleducationteachersphysicalactivityselfefficacy
&
 education.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation
,
24
,265281.

instru Martin,J.J.,McCaughtry,N.,HodgesKulinna.,P.H.,&Cothran.D.(2008).Theinfluencesofprofessionaldevelopmentonteachersselfefficacy
ment. towardeducationalchange.PhysicalEducationandSportPedagogy,13,171190.
Journ
alof
Martin,J.J.,McCaughtry,N.,Kulinna,P.H.,Cothran,D.,&Faust,R.(2008).Theeffectivenessofamentoringbased
Teac
hing
in professionaldevelopmentonphysicaleducationteacherspedometerandcomputerefficacyandanxiety.Journalof
Physi
cal TeachinginPhysicalEducation,27,6882.
Educ
ation,
22, NationalAssociationforSportandPhysicalEducation(NASPE).(2001).Initialphysicaleducationteachereducationstandards(5thed.).Reston,
219 VA:Author.
232.
NationalAssociationforSportandPhysicalEducation(NASPE).(2009).Nationalstandards&guidelinesforphysicaleducationteachereducation.
Reston,VA:Author.
Marti
n,J. Pajares,F.,Hartley,J.,&Valiante,G.(2001).Responseformatinwritingselfefficacyassessment:Greaterdiscriminationincreasesprediction.
J.,& MeasurementandEvaluationinCounselingandDevelopment, 33,
Kulin
na,P.
214221.
H.
(2005
).A Riggs,I.M.,&Enochs,L.G.(1990).Towardthedevelopmentofanelementaryteachersscienceteachingefficacybelief
social
cogni instrument.ScienceEducation
,
74
,625637.
tive
persp
ective Skaalvik,E.M.,&Skaalvik,S.(2007).Dimensionsofteacherselfefficacyandrelationswithstrainfactors,perceivedcollectiveteacherefficacy,
of andteacherburnout.JournalofEducationalPsychology
,
99
,611625.
physi
cal Soodak,L.C.,&Podell,D.M.(1996).Teacherefficacy:Towardtheunderstandingofamultifacetedconstruct.TeachingandTeacherEducation,
activi 12,401411.
ty
relate
d Stein,M.K.,&Wang,M.C.(1988).Teacherdevelopmentandschoolimprovement:Theprocessofchange.Teaching
behav
iorin andTeacherEducation,4,171187.
physi
cal
Tournaki,N.,&Podell,D.M.(2005).Theimpactofstudentcharacteristicsandteacherefficacyonteacherspredictionsofstudentsuccess.Teaching
andTeacherEducation,21,299314.
 ham,L.,Silvern,S.,&Brogdon,R.(1985).Teacherefficacyandteachercompetencyratings.Psychologyinthe

Trent Schools,22,343352.
PHYSICALEDUCATIONTEACHINGEFFICACYSCALE
299

TschannenMoran,M.,Hoy,A.W.,&Hoy,W.K.(1998).Teacherefficacy:Itsmeaningandmeasure.ReviewofEducationalResearch
,
68,202248.

Webb,R.B.,&Ashton,P.T.(1987).Teachermotivationandtheconditionsofteaching:Acallforecologicalreform.InS.Walker&L.
Barton(Eds.),Changingpolicies,changingteachers:Newdirectionsforschooling?(pp.2240).Philadelphia,PA:OpenUniversity
Press.

Wheatley,K.F.(2005).Thecaseforreconceptualizingteacherefficacyresearch.TeachingandTeacherEducation,21,747766.

WoolfolkHoy,A.,&Spero,R.B.(2005).Changesinteacherefficacyduringtheearlyyearsofteaching:Acomparisonoffour
measures.TeachingandTeacherEducation
,
21
,343356.

Downloadedby[SoutheasternLouisianaUniversity]at08:0905October2012

View publication stats