ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Psychometric properties of the Collective Efficacy Scale Short-Form in Chilean teachers.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emotional Exhaustion Variables in Trainee Teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023Article
- Perceived Collective School Efficacy Mediates the Organizational Justice Effect in Teachers' Subjective Well-Being.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Collective Efficacy Scale Short-Form (CES-SF) is a short and reliable instrument that assesses collective efficacy in schools at a group level. Previous research has shown a two-factor structure considering the perception of the group competence about their teaching capabilities and task analysis that refers to the opportunities inherent to a specific task. However, there is no conclusive evidence that collective efficacy corresponds to a two-factor model or single-factor structure. Methods: A cross-sectional research was conducted on a 693 sample of teachers ( Results: The CES-SF showed mixed results about its construct validity. Best fit has been found to retain two new factors (opportunities and challenges for collective efficacy) with eight items each, yielding a McDonald's ω of 0.803. Convergent validity was also established. Conclusion: The psychometric results suggest that a two-factor structure for the CES-SF is a valid and reliable measure for this construct for Chilean teachers. However, collective efficacy might not strongly relate to subjective wellbeing but to school-context variables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.