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 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.
Suzannah Vallejo Calvery, PhD
National Mentoring Summit
January 25, 2013
Down the Rabbit Hole:
Lit Review and Design
Fun with Scales:
Validity and Reliability
Back out of the looking glass:
Implications and ApplicationsThe Agenda
Best practices tied to mentor self-efficacyWhat about the Mentor?
What are the psychometric properties of the proposed measure?
Are there significant differences between demographic groups?New Instrument Preparation & Validation
* Bandura, 2006; Fowler, 2009; Gefen & Straub, 2005; Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003; Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003.
18 total items
3 latent constructs
PAF (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003, Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007)
Direct Oblimin rotation w/delta level of -.5*
5 original factors extracted, 3 retainedPrincipal Axis factoring
*Pett et al.
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.
Dynamic program assessment
Building support for implementation of best practicesAnd after that? Implications for practice