The Self-Efficacy for Advocacy Scale: Additional Validation Research

Date of Award

2022

Degree Name

M.A. in Clinical Psychology

Department

Department of Psychology

Advisor/Chair

Roger Reeb

Abstract

This M.A. thesis project included a number of studies further examining the psychometric properties of the Self-Efficacy for Advocacy Scale (SEAS). The SEAS is a 218-item scale that assesses a person's self-efficacy for advocacy across a wide variety of (a) ecological domains (micro to macro), (b) social justice and human rights issues, and (c) specific advocacy behaviors. Study 1 provided evidence of convergent validity by showing that the SEAS correlates with another agency-related construct (i.e., community service self-efficacy), and Study 1 also replicated findings from past research (e.g., strong internal consistency). In Study 2, further evidence of convergent validity was established by showing that the SEAS correlates with a different agency related construct (i.e., perceptions of sociopolitical power), and evidence of discriminant validity was obtained by showing that the correlations between the SEAS and a measure of social desirability (including both impression management and self-deception subscales) were nonsignificant and negligible in magnitude. Study 2 also replicated past research (e.g., strong internal consistency). In addition, Study 2 found that the SEAS was sensitive (able to capture) changes in self-efficacy for advocacy that occur due to advocacy training. Study 3 examined data from a number of studies in order to establish a Preliminary Short Form of the SEAS. To do this, Study 3 used a hybrid psychometric strategy that included an empirical approach (i.e., a series of follow-up statistical analyses to select items passing psychometric criteria) and a rational approach (i.e., content analysis to select items that represent critical domains of the SEAS). All studies employed undergraduate students at the University of Dayton. Major limitations of SEAS validation research thus far, including (a) a need to more fully examine different types of reliability and validity and define the construct's nomological network and (b) a need to determine if findings from psychometric studies of the SEAS generalize to diverse community samples, are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided.

Keywords

Psychology, self-efficacy for advocacy, validation, psychometric properties, self-efficacy, short form

Rights Statement

Copyright © 2022, author.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS