Validation of a community collective efficacy scale in an African context
Van Straten, Wilhelmina
MetadataShow full item record
There is a lacuna in the literature regarding the measurement of community collective efficacy, especially in an African context. Previously, a variety of studies have used and validated self-efficacy measures in Western social contexts (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993; Carroll, Rosson & Zhou, 2005). Findings from cross-cultural psychology indicate that human behaviour is not acontextual (Devonport & Lane, 2006; Karademas, 2006; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Thus, this study was an attempt to explore the validation of a community collective efficacy scale in an African cultural context. A sample of 1050 Setswana-speaking participants was drawn from both urban and rural areas. The participants came from a relatively more collectivistic cultural context. Measuring instruments such as the Community Collective Efficacy Scale (Carroll, Rosson & Zhou, 2005), the Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale ( Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993), the New General Self-Efficacy Scale ( Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001), the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC-29) (Antonovsky, 1987, 1993) the Affectometer 2 (short version) (AFM) (Kammann & Flett, 1983), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) were used in this study. Criterion-related validity of the CCES was established. Construct validity was determined by conducting confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses on the community collective efficacy scale. Results indicated a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.72 for the CCES and an acceptable inter-item correlations. Criterion-related validity was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit and exploratory factor analysis yielded only one factor on the items used. The results of the study indicated that overall, the CCES may be a valid measure of community collective efficacy in the sample selected for the study based on parameter estimates. Future studies should further validate this instrument cross-culturally in various African groups and contexts.
- ETD@PUK