Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science

References

• Ahteensuu, M. (2012). Assumptions of the deficit model type of thinking: Ignorance, attitudes, and science communication in the debate on genetic engineering in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 295–313. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9311-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alda-Kavli Learning Center for Science Communication. (n.d.). Alda center info. Retrieved from http://www.aldakavlilearningcenter.org/get-started/about-us
   Google Scholar
• Allum, N. C., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2016). Theory of change for public engagement with science. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/page/theory-change-public-engagement-science
   Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (n.d.). Leshner leadership institute for public engagement with science. Retrieved from https://www.aaas.org/pes/leshner-leadership-institute
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• An, X. & Yung, Y. (2014). Item response theory: What it is and how you can use the IRT procedure to apply it [White paper]. Retrieved from https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings14/SAS364-2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. B., Lee, H. Y., Byars-Winston, A., Baldwin, C. D., Cameron, C., & Chang, S. (2016). Assessment of scientific communication self-efficacy, interest, and outcome expectations for career development in academic medicine. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 182–196. doi: 10.1177/1069072714565780
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5, 307–337.
   Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & AbiGhannam, N. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. doi: 10.1177/1075547016645640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H., & Nisbet, M. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. doi: 10.1177/0963662512459315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Chemers, M. M., Hu, L.-T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortassa, C. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 447–459. doi: 10.1177/0963662516629745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, D. S. J., Asghari, A., & Nicholas, M. K. (2017). Item response theory analysis of the pain self-efficacy questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 14, 113–117. doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2016.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476–501. doi: 10.1177/1075547012460845
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS One, 11(2), 1–18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Fast, L. A., Lewis, J. L., Bryant, M. J., Bocian, K. A., Cardullo, R. A., Rettig, M., & Hammond, K. A. (2010). Does math self-efficacy mediate the effect of the perceived classroom environment on standardized math test performance? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 729–740. doi: 10.1037/a0018863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finney, S. J., & Schraw, G. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs in college statistics courses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 161–186. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00015-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758–779. doi: 10.1177/1075547013487513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, M. A., & Hall, M. K. (2012). Science communication in a café scientifique for high school teens. Science Communication, 34(4), 546–554. doi: 10.1177/1075547012444790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Annals Arbor, 1001, 48109–41259.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morony, S., Kleitman, S., Lee, Y. P., & Stankov, L. (2013). Predicting achievement: Confidence vs self-efficacy, anxiety, and self-concept in confucian and european countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 79–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016a). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2016b). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/
   Google Scholar
• Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1373–1405. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.511297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oon, P., & Subramaniam, R. (2013). Factors influencing Singapore students’ choice of physics as a tertiary field of study: A Rasch analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 35(1), 86–118. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.718098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacific Science Center. (2017). About portal to the public. Retrieved from https://popnet.pacificsciencecenter.org/about/
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 406–422. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1997). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematical problem solving: Implications of using different forms of assessment. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 213–228. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: IAP – Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ interactions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242–263. doi: 10.1177/1075547007308009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poynton, T. A., Carlson, M. W., Hopper, J. A., & Carey, J. C. (2006). Evaluation of an innovative approach to improving middle school students’ academic achievement. Professional School Counseling, 9(3), 190–196. doi: 10.5330/prsc.9.3.l6012ln4661857u3
   Google Scholar
• Romine, W. L., & Walter, E. M. (2014). Assessing the efficacy of the measure of understanding of macroevolution as a valid tool for undergraduate non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2872–2891. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.938376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, 17, 1–97.
   Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1996). The graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden, & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–10). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 173–208. doi: 10.1007/BF01320134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: Museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 69–78. doi: 10.1111/cura.12007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. doi: 10.1177/0963662516629749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaalvik, E. M., Federici, R. A., & Klassen, R. M. (2015). Mathematics achievement and self-efficacy: Relations with motivation for mathematics. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speer, A. B., Robie, C., & Christiansen, N. D. (2016). Effects of item type and estimation method on the accuracy of estimated personality trait scores: Polytomous item response theory models versus summated scoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 41–45. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (n.d.). Citizen science central. Retrieved from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/evaluation/instruments.
   Google Scholar
• Wirawan, H., & Bandu, M. T. (2016). A review of self-efficacy training for international student. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 33(2), 115–128. doi: 10.1108/IJILT-12-2015-0040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanon, C., Hutz, C. S., Yoo, H. H., & Hambleton, R. K. (2016). An application of item response theory to psychological test development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29(1), 18. doi: 10.1186/s41155-016-0040-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246. doi: 10.3102/00028312037001215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar