affective states. Individuals with higher self-efficacy for a given task are more likely to engage in that task and persevere when faced with difficulty. For students with a history of low writing skills, such as students with EBD and LD, improving their self-efficacy is a key goal of instruction. Self-efficacy is very task specific. Therefore, when designing a self-efficacy measure, it is important to tie it to a particular task rather than ask broad questions about a given domain. Bandura (2006) makes several additional recommendations for constructing a self-efficacy scale: (1) Use the phrase, “can do,” rather than “will do;” (2) conceptually analyze the relevant domains of functioning; (3) include items that represent varying levels of task difficulty; and (4) use a response scale that ranges from 0 (cannot do it at all) to 100 (highly certain can do it). However, a 0 to 100 response scale can be difficult for students with disabilities to interpret and may hinder their ability to more accurately report their beliefs. Measures of self-efficacy have been used throughout the past 25 years in SRSD research to demonstrate an increase in self-efficacy for writing as a result of instruction (Harris & Graham, 2003). However, the self-efficacy measure that is typically used in SRSD studies, which by and large focus on elementary-age students with LD, have not yielded useful information in recent studies of adolescents with EBD (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2009; Mastropieri et al., 2010). This current measure, developed by Graham and Harris, consists of 12 items, which students rate on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 4 (1=very different from me, 2 = different from me, 3 = like me, and 4 = a lot like me). Examples of items include: “When my class is asked to write my paper is one of the best,” “I like to write outside of school,” and “I do not like to write.” This self-efficacy measure may not be appropriate for adolescents with EBD for several reasons: (a) it was designed for elementary-aged students, not adolescents; (b) it is not
Zito, J. R., Adkins, M., Gavins, M., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated strategy development: Relationship to the social-cognitive perspective and the development of self-regulation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 77-95. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Item-total Correlations for the 16-item Self-efficacy for Writing Scale Item Mean (SD)a r I will be able to start writing this essay without any difficulty. 4.09 (.87) .61 Even if I don’t like this topic, I will still be able to write a good essay about it. 4.15 (.84) .67 I can make a good plan for this essay. 4.19 (.72) .69 I can write a good introduction sentence on this topic. 4.19 (.82) .63 It will be hard for me to find and correct all the grammatical errors in my essay.b 3.99 (.92) .27 It will be hard for me to decide what goes first, second, third, and so on. b 3.97 (.89) .37
3. I can make a good plan for this essay. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I can write a good introduction sentence on this topic. 1 2 3 4 5 5. If I get stuck while I am writing, I will be able to find ways to overcome the problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6. When writing an essay on this topic, I can think of good reasons to persuade the reader. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I can write a good essay on this topic. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral or Maybe Agree Strongly agree 8. I will be able to rewrite my confusing sentences clearly. 1 2 3 4 5 9. When writing this essay I will be able to think of arguments for both sides of the topic. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I will be able to revise my first draft of this paper to make a better-organized essay. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I will be able to manage my time effectively to finish this paper during this class period. 1 2 3 4 5