Skip to main content

Effort Beliefs In Chemistry

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 9
Number of versions/translations 1
Cited implementations 2
Language
  • English
Country United States
Format
  • Response Scale
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Affective
Topic
  • Motivation
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

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: Effort Beliefs in Chemistry

(Post last updated June 23, 2022)

Review panel summary

The Effort Beliefs in Chemistry is a 6-item instrument scored on a 5-point Likert scale. It is designed to measure the degree to which students believe their effort will lead to positive outcomes in their chemistry courses. It has been used at one institution with students recruited from first-year undergraduate chemistry lecture [2] and laboratory courses [1]. The validity and reliability of the data generated using the instrument has been examined by the original authors. Response process validity evidence was collected by interviewing undergraduate students, who commented on the readability of items and their reasoning of answer choice [1]. Effort belief scores were found to be positively correlated with final grade percentage, which provides some evidence of validity based on relations to other variables [1]. Internal structure validity evidence is provided through results from a confirmatory factor analysis, which suggests a 1-factor model [1]. Single administration reliability was estimated using coefficient alpha [1, 2].

Recommendations for use

Based on the attributional theory of motivation that effort is tied to conceptions of ability, the Effort Beliefs in Chemistry instrument is designed to measure the degree to which students believe their effort will lead to positive outcomes in their chemistry course. Validity and reliability evidence support the use of the instrument to measure this aspect of motivation of undergraduate students in first-year laboratory and lecture courses [1, 2].

Details from panel review

The scale was originally designed and administered as a 9-item scale, but three items were dropped based on factor analysis results (i.e., low factor loadings). The decision to drop two of these three items was also supported by response process interview data and the modification indices for the items. Therefore, it is recommended that the instrument be used in its revised 6-item form.

Effort belief scores were found to be positively correlated with self-efficacy, interest, and course performance [2]. However, in a multiple regression analysis, effort beliefs scores did not account for a significant amount of variance in course grade [2]. Single administration reliability for the revised 6-item scale was estimated using coefficient alpha, which was reported as above 0.77 for all time points including cross-validation in the development study [1]. A follow-up study reported coefficient alpha values of 0.68 at time 1 and 0.83 at time 2 [2].

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

Versions
Listed below are all versions and modifications that were based on this instrument or this instrument were based on.
Name Authors
Measure Of Science Identity

  • Hosbein, K.N., & Barbera, J.
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. 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.