Community service self-efficacy: research review.

Abstract

The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES) measures the person's confidence in his or her own ability to make clinically significant contributions to the community through service. In the first section, research supporting self-efficacy theory is reviewed, the relevance of self-efficacy to service-learning is discussed, and the rationale for developing the CSSES is provided. The second section reviews empirical research on the reliability and validity of this psychometric instrument. The third section provides recommendations for future research. A final section provides a summary and conclusion.

Introduction

The CSSES was developed and validated by Reeb, Katsuyama, Sammon, and Yoder (1998) to be used in service-learning research and program evaluation. This psychometric instrument (see Table 1) measures "...the individual's confidence in his or her own ability to make clinically significant contributions to the community through service" (p. 48). For each item on this 10-item scale, scores range from 1 (quite uncertain) to 10 (certain). In a critique of psychometric instruments in service-learning research, Bringle, Phillips, and Hudson (2004) conclude that "...the CSSES is significant as a scale developed for service learning with good theoretical rationale, promising psychometric characteristics, and potential utility as a moderator variable, mediating variable, and outcome variable" (pp. 101-102). See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2006.htm

The first section of this paper provides an overview of theory and research pertaining to self-efficacy, discusses the relevance of the self-efficacy construct to service-learning, and presents the rationale for developing the CSSES. The second section reviews empirical research examining the reliability and validity of this psychometric instrument. The third section provides recommendations for future research examining the psychometric properties and practical utility of this measure. The fourth section provides a summary and conclusion.

I. Theoretical Background and Rationale

Self-Efficacy Construct: Research and Theory

Self-efficacy, a theoretical construct derived from Bandura's social-cognitive theory, is defined as follows: "an expectation of personal mastery..." (1977, p. 191); a "self-appraisal of operative capability" (1982, p. 123); "a conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce [desired] outcomes"(1977, p. 193); or "'...a belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations" (1995, p. 2). As reviewed by Bandura (1997), decades of research support his original hypothesis that "...expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior is initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences..." (1977, p. 191). In addition, across a variety of situations, circumstances, and populations, the following pattern of findings is obtained: First, self-efficacy for coping in a given situation tends to improve as an individual receives an intervention designed to enhance coping competence. Second, while post-intervention self-efficacy is positively correlated with future performance accomplishments in the situation, it is inversely related to anxiety (and other debilitating emotions) during performance. Third, relative to an individual's actual performance attainments during an intervention, the person's post-intervention self-efficacy level is a better predictor of subsequent performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1997), further suggesting that self-efficacy plays a major role in the initiation and persistence of coping behavior.

To conceptualize developmental changes in self-efficacy, Bandura (1978) proposed the principle of reciprocal determinism, which maintains that self-efficacy, behavior, and environmental factors transact and influence one another in a bidirectional fashion. Bandura (1978, p. 346) writes: "In the ... process of reciprocal determinism, behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as interlocking determinants of each other ... in a triadic reciprocal interaction ... For example, people's efficacy ... expectations influence how they behave, and the environmental effects created by their actions in turn alter their expectations..." Given the principle of reciprocal determinism, the following pattern would be expected in the area of community service-learning: a student with high self-efficacy for community service would be more likely than a student with low self-efficacy to pursue service-learning opportunities; once the student with high self-efficacy becomes involved in service, he or she would exhibit high levels of effort and perseverance, even when obstacles and failures are initially encountered; in turn, the favorable service experiences and outcomes, created in part by the student's behavior, would reinforce and further improve his or her self-efficacy for community service. Conversely, if a student with low self-efficacy for community service became involved in a service-learning project, he or she may become frustrated easily and lack persistence in the face of obstacles; in turn, the negative service experiences and failures, created in part by the student's behavior, would lead to a further decline in his or her self-efficacy.

Rationale for Development of the CSSES

The rationale for development of the CSSES was threefold. First, the construct of self-efficacy is inherently pertinent to the goals of service-learning. As argued by Miller (1997), "One of the explicit goals of service-learning is to help students recognize that they can use knowledge gained in service-learning experiences to make the world a better place" (p. 16).

Second, it seemed clear that service-learning research on the self-efficacy construct would fill a significant void in the literature. While most of the psychometric instruments used in service-learning research (see Bringle et al., 2004) focused on such domains as motives (e.g., reasons for engaging in community service), values (e.g., social responsibility or commitment to help others), perceived community needs (e.g., beliefs regarding the extent to which community members need help from volunteers), or attitudes toward community service (e.g., beliefs about whether people have a duty to serve), there had been a dearth of research examining the construct of self-efficacy (confidence or sense of competence) for community service. Bandura's (1997) distinction between self-efficacy expectations and outcome expectations is helpful in illustrating the difference between self-efficacy and other constructs of interest in service-learning research: "...self-efficacy is a judgment of one's ability to organize and execute given types of performances, whereas an outcome expectation is a judgment of the likely consequences such performances will produce..." (p. 21). For instance, consider a student with a high sense of social responsibility accompanied by a belief that everyone has a duty to serve. This individual may also firmly believe that a certain set of actions (e.g., assisting in the implementation of a community-based diversion program for conduct-disordered youth) would address a perceived community need, but if the student has serious doubts regarding his or her capacity to perform the set of actions, this belief may not motivate the student to pursue the service opportunity.

Third, as noted by Reeb et al. (1998), the few studies that did examine self-efficacy in the service-learning literature (e.g., Miller, 1997) used measures with little or no demonstrated psychometric properties. Since these measures consisted of only one or two items, reliability was questionable. Further, items on these early scales tended to be global in nature (i.e., pertaining to a general sense of power to impact the world), and so validity was also in question. As noted by Miller (1997) and Reeb et al. (1998), a low score on a global item may reflect a sense of realism as opposed to a belief that one does not have an ability to contribute to his or her immediate community through service. Thus, it became clear that advancements in our understanding of the role of self-efficacy in service-learning would require the development and validation of a psychometric instrument to measure the construct.

II. CSSES Psychometric Properties: Past Research

Most CSSES validation studies have examined undergraduate college students, and the samples have consisted of approximately 90% European-Americans, 5% African-American, and 5% Other (e.g., Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans). However, the paper also reviews research on the instrument's utility with conduct-disordered African-American adolescents (Reeb, 2006) as well as an international population of adults engaged in service (Ferrari et al., 2006).

Internal Consistency

In research on college undergraduate students, including three studies reported by Reeb et al. (1998) and two others reported by Reeb (2006), coefficient alpha for the CSSES was consistently found to be over .90. In another study reported by Reeb (2006), which focused on troubled adolescents in probation or community treatment programs due to felony offenses, internal consistency was obtained in the pre-intervention (alpha coefficient = .87) and at 6-month evaluation (alpha coefficient = .87).

Temporal Consistency

In one study reported by Reeb et al. (1998), test-retest (pre- to post-semester) reliability for this measure was examined with students who were not involved in service-learning during that particular semester. As expected, the coefficient of stability was high in magnitude and statistically significant (r = .68, p < 001), and the pre- to post-semester mean difference in CSSES scores was not statistically significant. Likewise, Reeb (2006) found that, for troubled adolescents in a routine probation (i.e., no community service intervention), the test-retest coefficient was high in magnitude and statistically significant (r = 93, p < .01) and the mean difference at initial versus 6-month evaluations was non-significant.

Factor Structure

With regard to construct validity, one study reported by Reeb et al. (1998) involved a factor analysis of college undergraduates' (N = 676) responses to CSSES items and items of the Social Responsibility Inventory (Markus, Howard, & King, 1993). As hypothesized, items of the CSSES loaded heavily on a separate unique factor, with item loadings ranging from .67 to .81. Thus, results suggested that this scale is unidimensional.

Discriminant Validity

Demonstration of discriminant validity is critical in defining the nomological network for a construct (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In the factor analysis reviewed above (Reeb et al., 1998), CSSES items loaded on one factor only, and items of the Social Responsibility Inventory did not load on this particular factor. This pattern of findings provides evidence of discriminant validity. Since CSSES items have face validity and measure an attribute that many view in a favorable light, the extent to which these items reflect social desirability is pertinent to discriminant validity. Reeb et al. (1999) found that the correlation between this instrument and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) was low in magnitude and not statistically significant. Reeb (2006) replicated this finding. To further explore the issue, Reeb (2005) examined the relationship between this psychometric instrument and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984), which has the advantage of assessing self-deception and impression management separately. The correlation between this measure and BIDR Self-Deception was small in magnitude and not statistically significant (r = .09, p > .05). The correlation between this instrument and BIDR Impression Management was statistically significant with a large sample providing strong statistical power (r = .19, p = .05), but the coefficient was negligible in magnitude (i.e., impression management accounted for less than 4% of the variance in CSSES scores).

Convergent Validity

The relationship between the CSSES and measures of general self-efficacy is pertinent to establishing convergent validity for this psychometric instrument. To some extent, improvements in an individual's self-efficacy for community service (i.e., perceived ability to make contributions through community service) should generalize or transfer to other domains of functioning. In a discussion of the generalization of self-efficacy beliefs, Bandura (1997, p. 53) writes:

   Powerful mastery experiences that provide striking testimony to
   one's capacity to effect personal changes can also produce a
   transformational restructuring of efficacy beliefs that is
   manifested across diverse realms of functioning. Such personal
   triumphs serve as transforming experiences. What generalizes is
   the belief that one can mobilize whatever effort it takes to
   succeed in different undertakings.

Further, Bandura (1997) emphasizes that the "... development and exercise of capabilities would be severely constricted if there was absolutely no transfer of efficacy beliefs across situations or settings" (p. 50), and he concludes: "Adaptive functioning requires discriminative generalization of perceived self-efficacy" (p. 51).

Some researchers have examined general self-efficacy (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982). Chen et al. (2001, p. 79) defined this construct as "one's estimate of one's overall ability to perform successfully in a wide variety of achievement situations" or "how confident one is that she or he can perform effectively across different tasks and situations." Chen et al. (2001, p. 63) have suggested that general selfefficacy "emerges over one's life span as one accumulates successes and failures across different task domains."

Since self-efficacy for community service and general self-efficacy are distinct (but interrelated) constructs, a moderate correlation between measures of the constructs would be expected, if both measures have adequate convergent validity. Reeb (2006) further defined the nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) of the CSSES by demonstrating that (a) this measure correlated significantly with the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al., 2001) and (b) the magnitude of the correlation was in medium range (r = .29, p < .001).

Criterion-Related (Concurrent) Validity

In a study reported by Reeb et al. (1998), the method of contrasted groups was used to examine criterion-related validity. It was found that students who participated in each of three types of service (i.e., extracurricular, summer, and course-related) during the past year had higher CSSES scores than students who were not involved in that particular type of service. Further, a linear effect for participation was observed: students in three types of service programs during the past year had higher CSSES scores than those who participated in only two; students in two types of service programs scored higher on this instrument relative to those who participated in only one; and students in one type of service program had higher scores on this measure compared to those involved in none. In addition, multiple regression analyses indicated that, relative to a list of other factors pertinent to service-learning, CSSES items accounted for the greatest variance in measures of both involvement and satisfaction in each type of past service (extracurricular, summer, and course-related).

Consistent with research showing that self-efficacy influences initiation and persistence of behavior (Bandura, 1997), a different study reported by Reeb et al. (1998) found that students who pursued a course-related service-learning opportunity had significantly higher CSSES scores relative to those who did not pursue service-learning. This finding provided further evidence of criterion-related (concurrent) validity. In addition, it is important to show that CSSES scores in similar groups (i.e., similar with regard to service participation and commitment) do not differ in unexpected ways. For example, as would be expected, Ferrari et al. (2006) found that scores on this measure were very similar across adult eldercare workers in different geographic regions (urban versus rural) in Tasmania, Australia.

Sensitivity to Intervention Effects

Construct validity is established for a measure with the gradual accumulation of evidence from different sources over time, and each type of evidence presented above is pertinent to the inclusive, integrative concept of construct validity (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Additional evidence for construct validity is provided by studies demonstrating that scores on a measure change in the hypothesized direction in response to an intervention (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Consistent with research indicating that self-efficacy improves over the course of an intervention, one study reported by Reeb et al. (1998) examined the hypothesis that there would be a pre- to post-semester increase in CSSES scores for service-learning students but not for students not participating in service-learning. However, students who pursued the service-learning opportunity had extremely high scores on this instrument at pre-semester, perhaps creating a ceiling effect that precluded an adequate test of the hypothesis. Thus, servicelearning students maintained the high scores on this measure from pre- to post-semester, but their scores did not significantly increase over the course of the semester. While it seems likely that this finding is due to a ceiling effect, Reeb et al. (1998) concluded that "further research is needed to determine the ways in which service-learning experiences influence students' perceptions of self-efficacy in the area of community service" (p. 55).

A different study reported by Reeb et al. (1998) used a version of this psychometric instrument that assesses students' retrospective perceptions of a course's contribution to their self-efficacy for community service (Table 2). This CSSES Retrospective Version is useful in situations where (a) pre-semester testing is not possible or (b) students already have extremely high scores on the measure at pre-semester (perhaps creating a ceiling effect that precludes an examination of change). Using this retrospective version, the study found that students who participated in service-learning during the semester obtained higher scores on the measure compared to those who did not participate in service-learning. See http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2006.htm

A study reported by Reeb (2006) tested the hypothesis that CSSES scores of conduct-disordered adolescents would improve due to participation in a community-based diversion program (CBDP; Kazkin, 1997). This change was not expected for conducted-disordered adolescents in a routine probation control condition (RPCC). One component of this diversion program was an emphasis on work therapy, involving community service programs designed to "... improve the self-concept of delinquents by giving them an opportunity to help others" (Russo, 1974, p. 531). Since work therapy is "conceptually related" to service-learning, Pratt et al. (2003) hypothesized that work therapy may enhance a troubled adolescent's perception of his or her ability to make a contribution to the community through service.

Consistent with past research (Kazdin, 1997), recidivism was significantly lower in the CBDP group than in the RPCC group. Further, as hypothesized, the group by time (pre-intervention vs. 6-month evaluation) interaction on CSSES scores was significant. That is, from pre-intervention to 6-month follow-up, the CBDP group showed a significant increase in total scores, and this increase was observed for 9 out of 10 items of this measure. In contrast, the corresponding scores for the RPCC group did not change significantly from pre-intervention to 6-month evaluation. Thus, CSSES scores changed in the hypothesized direction in response to an intervention, and this provides further evidence of construct validity. Results of the study suggest that this psychometric instrument may be useful in research on adolescents, including underprivileged at risk youth with conduct problems. In general, the adolescents' scores on this measure were much lower than scores observed in Caucasian college students, and it is unclear whether this finding is due to differences in age (development), socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, education, or psychosocial adjustment.

Gender Differences

In two different studies reported by Reeb (2006), females obtained significantly higher CSSES scores than did males. However, on a measure of general serf-efficacy included in one of these studies, males scored higher than did females. The latter finding seems consistent with research on gender differences in occupational self-efficacy. Bandura's (1997) reviews this area of research and concludes: "'Male college students have an equally high sense of efficacy for both traditionally male-dominated and female dominated occupations," but female college students have a "...weaker sense of efficacy that they can master the educational requirements and job functions of occupations dominated by males" (p. 432). This gender difference is observed even though "the two groups do not differ in their actual verbal and quantitative ability on standardized tests" (p. 432). However, the present research program suggests that community service may represent a domain in which females have greater self-efficacy than males.

III. CSSES: Future Research Directions

The following recommendations are offered regarding future research examining the psychometric properties and practical utility of this instrument:

1. There is a need to fully define the construct's nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) by further examining the convergent and discriminant validity of this measure.

2. Research examining the construct of community service self-efficacy in diverse populations needs to continue. Consistent with this agenda, there is also a plan to develop and validate a Spanish version of this psychometric instrument.

3. There is a need to further examine the practical utility of the CSSES as an evaluative tool in applied research settings, such as diverse service-learning projects, volunteer programs, and other community-oriented initiatives (e.g., court-ordered community service programs).

4. Community action research examining the relationship between group members' personal efficacy for community service and the group's collective efficacy is needed. For instance, if personal efficacy for community service is improved in certain group members (e.g., leaders or other key members), does this impact the group's collective efficacy for community action? As Bandura (1997, p. 525) notes, "The times call for social initiatives that build people's sense of collective efficacy to influence the conditions that shape their lives and those of future generations."

5. Additional studies focusing on criterion-related validity would be helpful in determining the extent to which known groups (e.g., service groups versus non-service groups) differ on this measure in hypothesized directions.

6. There is a need for research that examines (a) the underlying nature of the gender differences in self-efficacy for community service and (b) the ways in which this construct relates to gender roles.

7. Additional research is needed to examine the utility of the CSSES as an outcome measure in service-learning and other community-oriented projects. Related to this goal, there is a plan to develop and validate an adapted version of this measure that is even more sensitive to pre- to post-intervention changes.

8. While further studies demonstrating the utility of this psychometric instrument as an outcome variable would be helpful, there is also a need to determine the extent to which changes in community service self-efficacy mediate other favorable changes that occur in an individual's personal development over the course of service provision.

9. Prospective longitudinal research is needed to examine the extent to which improvements in CSSES scores over the course of a service-learning project predict future participation in community service.

10. Research is needed to determine whether self-efficacy improves with training for community service, and research should ascertain the extent to which the CSSES predicts people's effectiveness (e.g., based on supervisor ratings) in the community. In orientation, training, and reflection exercises, it is important to keep in mind the four sources of information shown by Bandura (1977, 1982, 1995, 1997) to contribute to an individual's self-efficacy judgment: (a) enactive mastery experiences (past successes and failures in similar situations); (b) vicarious experiences (past observations of how successfully similar individuals cope in the situation); (c) verbal persuasion (encouragement and discouragement from others); and (d) perceived arousal (emotional and physiological) as one anticipates competence and success versus failure and vulnerability in the situation. While all four sources of information are important, research indicates that, "Enactive mastery experiences are the most influential source of efficacy information because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed" (Bandura, 1997, p. 80).

IV. Summary and Conclusion

The CSSES measures "... the individual's confidence in his or her own ability to make clinically significant contributions to the community through service" (Reeb et al., 1998, p. 48). The theoretical foundation for this measure is Bandura's (1997) selfefficacy theory. The self-efficacy construct is inherently pertinent to service-learning research and practice, and this psychometric instrument fills a void in the literature, since most other measures for service-learning research focus on motives, values, perceived community needs, or attitudes. As reviewed in this article, research demonstrates that the psychometric properties of this measure are promising. This article also delineated directions for future research examining the psychometric properties, nomological network, and practical utility of this instrument. As noted by Bringle (2004, p. 102), this measure has "... potential utility as a moderator variable, mediating variable, and outcome variable" in service-learning research and practice.

References

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (11th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bringle, R. G., Phillips, M. A., & Hudson, M. (2004). The measure of service learning: Research scales to assess student experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluation dependence. New York: Wiley.

Ferrari, J. R., Kapoor, M., Bristow, M. J., & Woods Bowman, H. (2006). Community eldercare in Tasmania: Examining whether caregivers believe they "make a difference" in an urban and rural island. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 32, 115-131

Kazdin, A. E. (1997). Practitioner review: Psychosocial treatments for conduct disorder in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 161-178.

Markus, G. B., Howard, J. P. F., & King, D.C. (1993). Integrating community service and classroom instruction enhances learning: Results from an experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 410-419.

May, K. M., & Sowa, C. J. (1994). Personality characteristics and family environments of short-term counseling clients. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 59-62.

Miller, J. (1997). The impact of service-learning experiences on students' sense of power. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 16-21.

Pratt, M., Smith, M., Reigelsperger, R., O'Connor, L. V., Saum, C., Baker, S., & Reeb, R. N. (2003). Journal of Psychological Practice, 8, 1-13.

Reeb, R. N. (2005). The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Further evidence of discriminant validity. Presented at the seventy-seventh annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Reeb, R. N. (2006). Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Further evidence of reliability and validity. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 32, 97-113.

Reeb, R. N., Blumenstiel, B., & Saum, C. (1999). The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Further evidence of construct validity. Presented at the seventy-first annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Reeb, R. N., Katsuyama, R. M., Sammon, J. A., & Yoder, D. S. (1998). The Community SelfEfficacy Scale: Evidence of reliability, construct validity, and pragmatic utility. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 5, 48-57.

Russo, J. R. (1974). Mutually therapeutic interaction between mental patients and delinquents. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 25, 531-533.

Sherer, M., Maddus, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,671.

Roger N. Reeb, University of Dayton

Reeb, Ph.D., is an Associated Professor of Psychology at the University of Dayton, where he has received awards for his service-learning research and practice.