Women Engineering Students’ Self Efficacy Beliefs – The Longitudinal Picture

Rescaling the Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy V3.0 for Undergraduate Engineering Students

“…• • Two persistence items for ES (Item 4: "I can persist in an engineering major during the current academic year"; Item 7: "I can persist in an engineering major during the next year") turned out to be poor items. • • With the addition of one new Item ("I can cope with being the only male/female in a class"), Coping Self-Efficacy items became more cohesive in the Revised LAESE V3.0; however, CS still shows a smaller Cronbach's α than the other constructs, which is similar to findings in the literature (Concannon & Barrow, 2010;Marra & Bogue, 2006).…”

“…Concannon and Barrow (2010) later reported internal consistency reliability evidence of their four subscales (Cronbach's α = .89 for Engineering Self-Efficacy I, .91 for Engineering Self-Efficacy II, .89 for Engineering Career Success Expectations, and .79 for Coping Self-Efficacy) and Cronbach's α = .90 overall from both genders (n = 493). The reliability evidence with fewer items was better than the original LAESE V3.0 with 31 items utilizing data from women only (Marra & Bogue, 2006) and various Likert-type scales. Later, Concannon and Barrow (2012) identified a multicollinearity issue between Engineering Self-Efficacies I and II (over .85 in correlation) indicating "problematic discriminant validity" (Brown, 2015, p. 146).…”

“…However, despite the popularity of LAESE V3.0 in engineering education research, the existing literature reveals limited reliability and validity evidence. Marra and Bogue (2006) presented acceptable internal consistency reliability evidence of the six constructs of LAESE V3.0 with Cronbach's α, ranging from .73 to .84 using data from 164 undergraduate women engineering students enrolled across five institutions. In their study, constructs were scaled using a varying number of response options from the 5-point to 10-point Likert-type responses, which meant inconsistency in scaling the responses.…”

“…To assess multifaceted aspects of engineering students' self-efficacy-related beliefs in the United States, the Longitudinal Assessment of Engineering Self-Efficacy (LAESE) instrument was developed through several iterations as part of the NSF (National Science Foundation)-funded Assessing Women in Engineering (AWE) project (Marra & Bogue, 2006;Marra, Bogue, Rodgers, & Shen, 2007;Marra, Moore, Schuurman, & Bogue, 2004;Marra, Schuurman, Moore, & Bogue, 2005). While the initial version, LAESE V1.0 started with 42 items for nine constructs, the latest version, LAESE V3.0 with 31 items, is scaled on 7-point Likert-type responses, from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to assess students' perceptions of six constructs: (a) Engineering Self-Efficacy I, (b) Engineering Self-Efficacy II, (c) Engineering Career Success Expectations, (d) Feelings of Inclusion, (e) Coping Self-Efficacy, and (f) Math Outcome Expectations (see Appendix A).…”

Self-efficacy of Saudi English Majors after the Emergent Transition to Online Learning and Online Assessment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Learners judge their own performances by their peers' work. Through these vicarious experiences, as termed by Bandura (1997), learners measure their own proficiency (Marra & Bogue, 2006).…”