Skip to main content

College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale – Cognitive Skills Scale

CCSS - CSS

OVERVIEW
Overview
Listed below is general information about the instrument.
Summary
Original author(s)

  • Ferrell, B., & Barbera, J.
Original publication

  • Ferrell, B., & Barbera, J. (2015). Analysis of students' self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 318-337.
Year original instrument was published 2015
Inventory
Number of items 8
Number of versions/translations 1
Cited implementations 4
Language
  • English
Country United States
Format
  • Response Scale
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Affective
Topic
  • Self-Efficacy
Evidence
The CHIRAL team carefully combs through every reference that cites this instrument and pulls all evidence that relates to the instruments’ validity and reliability. These data are presented in the following table that simply notes the presence or absence of evidence related to that concept, but does not indicate the quality of that evidence. Similarly, if evidence is lacking, that does not necessarily mean the instrument is “less valid,” just that it wasn’t presented in literature. Learn more about this process by viewing the CHIRAL Process and consult the instrument’s Review (next tab), if available, for better insights into the usability of this instrument.

Information in the table is given in four different categories:
  1. General - information about how each article used the instrument:
    • Original development paper - indicates whether in which paper(s) the instrument was developed initially
    • Uses the instrument in data collection - indicates whether an article administered the instrument and collected responses
    • Modified version of existing instrument - indicates whether an article has modified a prior version of this instrument
    • Evaluation of existing instrument - indicates whether an article explicitly provides evidence that attempt to evaluate the performance of the instrument; lack of a checkmark here implies an article that administered the instrument but did not evaluate the instrument itself
  2. Reliability - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  3. Validity - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  4. Other Information - information that may or may not directly relate to the evidence for validity and reliability, but are commonly reported when evaluating instruments; please see the Glossary for term definitions
Publications: 1 2 3 4

General
Original development paper ✔
Uses the instrument in data collection ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Modified version of existing instrument ✔
Evaluation of existing instrument ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Reliability
Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Coefficient (Cronbach's) alpha ✔ ✔ ✔
McDonald's Omega ✔
Inter-rater reliability
Person separation
Generalizability coefficients
Other reliability evidence

Vailidity
Expert judgment
Response process ✔
Factor analysis, IRT, Rasch analysis ✔ ✔ ✔
Differential item function ✔
Evidence based on relationships to other variables ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Evidence based on consequences of testing
Other validity evidence

Other information
Difficulty
Discrimination
Evidence based on fairness
Other general evidence
Review
DISCLAIMER: The evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the data summarized below is for use of this assessment instrument within the reported settings and populations. The continued collection and evaluation of validity and reliability evidence, in both similar and dissimilar contexts, is encouraged and will support the chemistry education community’s ongoing understanding of this instrument and its limitations.
This review was generated by a CHIRAL review panel. Each CHIRAL review panel consists of multiple experts who first individually review the citations of the assessment instrument listed on this page for evidence in support of the validity and reliability of the data generated by the instrument. Panels then meet to discuss the evidence and summarize their opinions in the review posted in this tab. These reviews summarize only the evidence that was discussed during the panel which may not represent all evidence available in the published literature or that which appears on the Evidence tab.
If you feel that evidence is missing from this review, or that something was documented in error, please use the CHIRAL Feedback page.

Panel Review: College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS) - Cognitive Skills Scale

(Post last updated June 23, 2022)  

Review panel summary

This 6-item Likert scale instrument is adapted from the original 12-item Self-efficacy for Cognitive Skills scale from the three-factor College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale (CCSS). This reduced scale was designed to measure university students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to perform cognitive skills required in their chemistry courses. It has been evaluated for first-year undergraduate chemistry courses in institutions across the United States [1-4], including a Hispanic-serving institution [3] and reformed courses [4].

The developers present evidence related to response process validity, based on interviews with undergraduate chemistry students in a first-semester general chemistry laboratory course. The developers also report evidence of internal structure validity, based on confirmatory factor analyses. A 1-factor, 6-item model for the revised scale is supported by model fit indices in the acceptable range; this factor structure is further supported in additional confirmatory factor analyses with alternate samples in the development study [1] and has been replicated in two additional studies [3, 4]. Evidence of measurement invariance validity supports the use of the instrument to compare scale scores across time, institutional settings, gender, and underrepresented minority status groups [4]. In multiple studies, evidence based on relations to other variables is provided by the relation between scale scores and course performance [2, 3]. In one context, chemistry majors were observed to have higher scale scores than non-majors [1]; this scale may be able to differentiate between major and non-major students, though this has not been demonstrated beyond the development context. The developers have also hypothesized and explored relations between scale scores and interest in chemistry through multiple regression and path analysis, though this relation has not been theoretically supported and might require further investigation [2]. In multiple studies, single administration reliability was estimated using coefficient alpha [1-3] and McDonald’s omega [4].

Recommendations for use

This reduced scale is designed to be used as a 6-item scale to measure students’ chemistry-specific self-efficacy for Cognitive Skills. There is evidence to support that the instrument generates valid and reliable data when used to assess students in first-year undergraduate courses in the United States. However, for contexts unlike those in these studies, users are encouraged to further investigate the validity and reliability of data generated using the scale.

Details from panel review

Initially, the scale was administered as an 8-item scale, but two items were dropped based on response process interview data and modification indices for the items. Though the internal structure validity evidence is consistent across multiple studies and samples, the error estimates (RMSEA) are also consistently higher than recommended [1, 3, 4]. Likewise, while Naibert et al. [4] suggest that evidence of measurement invariance validity supports the use of the instrument to compare scale scores across gender and underrepresented minority status groups, the change in RMSEA values are slightly outside the recommended range.

Across studies, coefficient alpha values were ≥ 0.82 [1], ≥ 0.85 [2], and ≥ 0.88 [3]; in one study, authors reported McDonald’s omega ≥ 0.83 [4] as evidence of single administration reliability.

References
[1] Ferrell, B., & Barbera, J. (2015). Analysis of students' self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 318-337. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00152D

[2] Ferrell, B., Phillips, M. M., & Barbera, J. (2016). Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1054-1066. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00148C

[3] Moreno, C., Pham, D., & Ye, L. (2021). Chemistry self-efficacy in lower-division chemistry courses: changes after a semester of instruction and gaps still remain between student groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 772-785. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00345J

[4] Naibert, N., Duck, K. D., Phillips, M. M., & Barbera, J. (2021). Multi-institutional Study of Self-Efficacy within Flipped Chemistry Courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(5), 1489-1502. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01361

Versions
Listed below are all versions and modifications that were based on this instrument or this instrument were based on.
Instrument is derived from:
Name Authors
College Chemistry Self-Efficacy Scale

  • Uzuntiryaki, E., & Aydin, Y.C.
Citations
Listed below are all literature that develop, implement, modify, or reference the instrument.

  1. Ferrell, B., & Barbera, J. (2015). Analysis of students' self-efficacy, interest, and effort beliefs in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 318-337.

  2. Moreno, C., Pham, D., & Ye, L. (2021). Chemistry self-efficacy in lower-division chemistry courses: Changes after a semester of instruction and gaps still remain between student groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 772-785.

  3. Ferrell, B., Phillips, M.M., & Barbera, J. (2016). Connecting achievement motivation to performance in general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1054-1066.

  4. Naibert, N., Duck, K.D., Phillips, M.M., & Barbera, J. (2021). Multi-institutional Study of Self-Efficacy within Flipped Chemistry Courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(5), 1489-1502.