Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale : M-SEPPS Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale : M-SEPPS Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD National Mentoring Summit January 25, 2013. Down the Rabbit Hole: Lit Review and Design Fun with Scales: Instrumentation Psychometric Joy: Validity and Reliability

Download Presentation

Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale : M-SEPPS Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Mentor self efficacy and perceived program support scale m sepps suzannah vallejo calvery phd

Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale: M-SEPPS

Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD

National Mentoring Summit

January 25, 2013


The agenda

Down the Rabbit Hole:

Lit Review and Design

Fun with Scales:

Instrumentation

Psychometric Joy:

Validity and Reliability

Back out of the looking glass:

Implications and Applications

The Agenda


The big question

  • Funding is increasingly focused on:

    • Outcomes-based assessment

    • Best-practices

  • Only proven interventions are receiving the funding necessary to implement solutions.

The Big Question


Down the rabbit hole does mentoring work

  • Best practices gleaned over time

    • Match quality

    • Match length

    • Program infrastructure

  • 2002 vs. 2011 findings of DuBois et al. studies (2002, 2011)

Down the Rabbit Hole: Does mentoring work?


What about the mentor

Dyadic construct with monadic research base

Best practices tied to mentor self-efficacy

What about the Mentor?


New instrument preparation validation

M-SEPPS Instrument

Research Questions:

What are the psychometric properties of the proposed measure?

Are there significant differences between demographic groups?

New Instrument Preparation & Validation


Fun with scales

Fun with Scales

  • 6. Analysis:

    • Assumptions

    • Exploratory Factor Analysis

    • Item analysis

    • Reliability estimation

  • Literature Review

  • Item Construction*

  • Pilot

  • Item Refinement

  • Data Collection

* Bandura, 2006; Fowler, 2009; Gefen & Straub, 2005; Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003; Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003.


Method

Method

  • Participants

  • Original scale/item pool:

    • General self-efficacy

    • Personal teaching efficacy

    • Mentor/tutor self efficacy

    • Program Support


Principal axis factoring

104 participants in remaining analysis

18 total items

3 latent constructs

Process:

PAF (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003, Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007)

Direct Oblimin rotation w/delta level of -.5*

5 original factors extracted, 3 retained

Principal Axis factoring

*Pett et al.


Psychometric joy

Psychometric Joy!


Reliability estimates

Reliability Estimates

Factor Correlations and Factor Alpha Coefficients for the M-SEPPS Scale

Per Research Question #2:

Original Demographic data variables:

Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Level of education, Previous experience tutoring, Years tutoring.

Age was the only demographic variable that had significant differences between levels on Factors 2 an 3.


Back out of the looking glass limitations and future research

Back out of the Looking Glass:Limitations and Future Research

  • Limitations:

    • Sample size

    • Test-retest reliability

    • Scale redundancy

  • Next Steps:

    • CFA

    • Larger sample

    • Scale reduction


And after that implications for practice

Program Evaluation

Dynamic program assessment

Building support for implementation of best practices

And after that? Implications for practice


Mentor self efficacy and perceived program support scale m sepps suzannah vallejo calvery phd

Thank you for attending.

Q & A


  • Login