Generalized math self-efficacy items function like self-concept items because they omit an explicit performance criterion¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Generalized math self-efficacy items that do not specify a clear criterion of performing well force students to adopt social or dimensional frames of reference, making them more like self-concept items. → Marsh 2019

Evidence¶

Marsh 2019¶

Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T. and Arens, A. K. (2019). The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: beware of lurking jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (2). pp. 331-353. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000281

q1 · i? · associational · r3

Conceptual argument from the article's measurement discussion (a theoretical argument, no data in the supplied text). The authors argue such items 'are more like typical self-concept items than self-efficacy items', a jingle fallacy. No effect size is printed.

"items such as "I am convinced that I can perform well in math homework and on math tests" do not specify a clear criterion of what it means to perform well, and students have to adopt some frame of reference to respond to the item"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Negative frame-of-reference effects are hypothesized to be truncated in pure self-efficacy measures relative to self-concept measures — related
• Older students show weaker social comparison effects but stronger dimensional comparison effects than younger students — related
• Dimensional comparisons: achievement–self-concept paths are positive in similar subjects but negative in dissimilar subjects — related