slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale : M-SEPPS Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

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


  • 174 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Mentor Self-efficacy and Perceived Program Support scale : M-SEPPS Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD' - eamon


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
slide1

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?
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.

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
ad