Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33076995›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2020

Enhancing our conceptual understanding of state and trait self-efficacy by correlational analysis of four self-efficacy scales in people with spinal cord injury.

Tijn van Diemen, Ashley Craig, Ilse J W van Nes, SELF-SCI Group, Janneke M Stolwijk-Swuste, Jan H B Geertzen, James Middleton, Marcel W M Post

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The self-efficacy in distress tolerance scale (SE-DT): a psychometric evaluation.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tijn van DiemenDepartment of spinal cord injury Rehabilitation, Sint Maartenskliniek, P.O. box 9011, 6500, GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. t.vandiemen@maartenskliniek.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8772-4962
Ashley CraigJohn Walsh Center for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Kolling Institute, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Ilse J W van NesDepartment of spinal cord injury Rehabilitation, Sint Maartenskliniek, P.O. box 9011, 6500, GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
SELF-SCI Group
Janneke M Stolwijk-SwusteCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan H B GeertzenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hanzeplein 1, 9713, GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
James MiddletonJohn Walsh Center for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Kolling Institute, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Marcel W M PostCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

the Dutch Rehabilitation foundation (Revalidatiefonds) 2014039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-efficacy is an important determinant of adjustment following spinal cord injury. Self-efficacy is defined as the belief that one can successfully execute behavior required to produce the desired outcomes. In its original conceptualization, self-efficacy refers to the confidence that people have in their ability to accomplish specific tasks and behaviors within a specific context. Over the years these situation specific aspects have been unconfined and multiple constructs of self-efficacy have been proposed. The most common is a division in trait and state self-efficacy. Another used division that is utilized is between general, domain-specific and task-specific self-efficacy. The scientific support for these constructs is to date still unclear. The objective of this study was to enhance the understanding of the self-efficacy construct by comparing four self-efficacy scales designed to measure three aspects of self-efficacy (general versus domain-specific versus task-specific) in people with spinal cord injury.

methodsDutch and Australian adults with spinal cord injury (N = 140) completed four frequently used self-efficacy scales; the Moorong Self-efficacy Scale, General Self-efficacy Scale, University of Washington Self-efficacy Scale and a Self-care Self-efficacy Scale approximately 6 months after their inpatient rehabilitation. Pearson correlations examined inter-relationships between the scales.

resultsHypothesized strong correlations between scales measuring similar aspects of self-efficacy were found (correlations 0.50-0.65). However, the hypothesized weak to moderate correlations between scales measuring diverging aspects of self-efficacy were only partly found (correlations 0.31-0.74), with 7 out of 12 correlations being strong instead of moderate.

conclusionsThe expected distinctions between the three aspects of self-efficacy was not demonstrated. All four scales measure a common latent construct, most likely general self-efficacy aspects. Further research is necessary to find ways to improve the measurement of domain-specific and task-specific aspects of SE, so that they are sensitive enough to capture change over time, and thus enhance clinical outcomes of people with SCI as they adjust to their disability.

Indexed as

Self EfficacyAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSpinal Cord InjuriesOutcome measuresRehabilitationSelf-efficacySpinal cord injuriesValidation study

Identifiers

PMID33076995
PMCPMC7574195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.