Download - Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1998, 27, 596–603

Self-efficacy as a predictor of academicperformance in science

Sharon Andrew BAppSc MSc(Hons) RN

Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong,NSW 25252, Australia

Accepted for publication 25 February 1997

ANDREW S. (1998) Journal of Advanced Nursing 27, 596–603Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in scienceNursing students have traditionally experienced difficulties with the sciencesubjects in nursing curricula, and irrespective of the institution conducting anursing programme, this trend appears to be continuing. A satisfactory means ofpredicting academic performance in these subjects will facilitate thedevelopment of educational strategies designed to assist students overcometheir difficulties. In this study, an instrument called the Self-Efficacy for Science(SEFS) was developed and tested. The SEFS was designed to predict academicperformance in the science areas of a first-year undergraduate nursing course. Acohort of first-year students enrolled in a bachelor of nursing course weresurveyed by questionnaire. Students’ academic scores for two first-year sciencesubjects were obtained and used as the criterion measure for the study.Principal component factor analysis revealed the SEFS contained six instead ofthe hypothesized four factors. These six factors could explain 70% of students’self-efficacy for science. Cronbach alpha of the SEFS was 0·9. The SEFS couldpredict 24% of the cohort’s academic performance in a physical science subjectand 18·5% for a bioscience subject. Studying science in the final year at highschool was not statistically significantly related to the SEFS. Implications forstudents and future research are discussed.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, science, academic performance, nursing, academicprediction, undergraduate education and gender

factors contributing to students’ responses to science inINTRODUCTION

the nursing curricula (Akinsanya & Hayward 1980, Bishop1990, Courtenay 1991, Caon & Treagust 1992, 1993,Although nursing curricula may vary (Barclay & Neill

1987, Wharrad et al. 1994), nursing students will be Chapple et al. 1993).Due to the multiplicity of factors influencing students’expected, at some stage of a nursing course, to study biosci-

ence and possibly physical sciences. Nursing students in perceptions about science, academic performance in theseareas of the nursing curricula has been hard to predict.traditional and undergraduate courses have consistently

been reported as having difficulties with these areas of The development of specific educational strategies,designed to improve students’ academic achievements andtheir nursing courses. The science background of students,

the difficulty of the subject, perceived relevance to nursing reduce their anxieties, is dependant upon a satisfactorymethod of identifying nursing students self-expectationsand teaching methods employed have been suggested asabout the biological or physical sciences. Therefore, theaim of this study was to establish whether Bandura’sCorrespondence: Sharon Andrew, 28 Terrie Avenue, Figtree, NSW 2525,

Australia. (1977, 1986) theory of self-efficacy could be used in the

596 © 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd

Self-efficacy

prediction of nursing students’ academic performance in between self-efficacy expectations and academic perform-ance and course persistence, found that better results werethe science subjects of a first-year undergraduate nursing

course. To measure students’ self-efficacy for science an obtained if the measure/tool was more specific to the stud-ent group being assessed (Multon et al. 1991). Therefore,instrument called the Self-Efficacy for Science (SEFS) was

developed and tested. In this paper, the term science to measure the science self-efficacy expectations of nursingstudents, it is important that the instrument used isshould be interpreted as referring to the bio-and physical

sciences (chemistry, physics). specifically designed for this purpose. Hence, to do this,a research instrument called the Self-Efficacy for Science(SEFS) was developed and tested. The SEFS was designed

LITERATURE REVIEWto measure nursing students’ self-efficacy for science, andto determine its ability to predict academic performanceStudents’ high school subjects (particularly biology) have

been found to be a weak indicator of academic perform- in nursing bioscience and physical science subjects of afirst year bachelor of nursing course.ance in first-year bioscience subjects of undergraduate

nursing courses (Kershaw 1989, Caon & Treagust 1992).Studies have frequently concluded that motivation is a THE STUDYpossible explanation for students’ academic achievements(Higgins & Leelarthaepin 1986, Bishop 1990, Mills et al. The aim of the study was two-fold: firstly, to develop a

research instrument capable of measuring nursing stud-1992).Learning and motivation from the social cognitive per- ents’ self-efficacy for science and secondly, to determine

if that instrument was a predictor of students’ aca-spective are viewed in terms of cognitive processes thatare based on self-evaluations of past experiences and demic performance in the science subjects of a first year

undergraduate nursing course.involve the setting of internal standards or goals for behav-ioural tasks (Bandura 1977). Self-efficacy in this theory isa personal expectation about one’s ability to successfully

Hypothesesperform a specific task or behaviour (Bandura 1986). Thesepersonal expectations in term influence the effort and per- To test the predictive validity of the SEFS and to investi-

gate the relationship between students’ science back-sistence that individuals will expend in the behaviouraldomain (Bandura 1977, 1986). ground and science self-efficacy, the following research

hypotheses for the study were proposed:Although Bandura’s self-efficacy theory was developedto assist in the understanding and treatment of phobias, itwas recognized as a theory with wider implications. It has $ nursing students’ self-efficacy for science is related

to academic performance in science-based first-yearbeen shown to be predictive of academic performance andpersistence in disciplines other than nursing (Lent et al. subjects.

$ students’ who study science in the final year of high1984, 1986, 1987, Brown et al. 1989). Whilst self-efficacyhas been applied to nursing practice (Redman 1985, Moore school will have a higher self-efficacy for science than

students who did not study science.1990, Mowat & Laschinger 1994), very few studies wereidentified involving the application of self-efficacy theoryto nursing education or academic performance in nursing. Sample and design

Self-efficacy was found to be related, in one study, toacademic achievement in an introductory nursing course Undergraduate nursing students from a tertiary edu-

cational institution were surveyed by questionnaire during(Chacko & Huba 1991). Self-efficacy, in turn, was found tobe influenced by students’ language and mathematical the first year of their nursing course. The questionnaire

included the SEFS, students’ demographic details/aca-ability, motivation and concentration/preparation forclass. Self-efficacy was reported to account for 8% of vari- demic background and research tools not covered in this

paper (Andrew 1995). The questionnaire was completedance in students’ academic achievement (Chacko & Huba1991). voluntarily by 81 respondents, representing 94% of the

cohort. With ethics approval, consent to access students’To identify factors influencing students’ retention andattrition from a nursing course, two tools measuring nurs- academic scores for their first year subjects was sought

in the questionnaire. Approval was given by 77% (66ing and academic self-efficacy were developed and tested(Harvey & McMurray 1994). Although not concerned with respondents) to this request.

Students in the undergraduate nursing course beingacademic performance per se, one of the findings indicatedthat students with a low mean academic self-efficacy and examined study two science subjects, one each session, in

the first year of their bachelor of nursing course. The firstgrade point average were more likely to withdraw from anursing course (Harvey & McMurray 1994). session science subject (SCIE110) contained aspects of

physics and chemistry considered relevant to nursing. TheA meta-analysis of studies concerning the relationship

597© 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 596–603

S. Andrew

second science subject (SCIE111) included an introduction McMurray 1994). This method involves summing thestrength score for the individual items on the tool to get ato the biological functions of the body. Students’ academic

scores for these subjects were used to determine academic total strength score, and then dividing by the number ofitems to get a mean strength score for the tool. A meanperformance in science.score of five, for example, indicates strong self-efficacy forscience, whilst a low score indicates low self-efficacy for

Self-efficacy for sciencescience.

The face validity of the SEFS items were verified by theThe Self-Efficacy for Science (SEFS) a researcher-developed instrument, originally named the SS (Andrew experts in the teaching of physics, chemistry or human

bioscience to nursing students. One expert was also a1995), and later re-named the SEFS, was devised to deter-mine a student’s strength of self-efficacy for science. Self- nurse. Minor changes were made to the wording of a few

items. The science tasks were considered appropriate forefficacy strength refers to students’ degree of confidencein their ability to perform a task (Bandura 1986). It was nursing students.anticipated that a measure of the strength of a student’sself-efficacy for science would be related to academic RESULTSperformance in the science subjects.

The SEFS included science tasks, many of which were A SAS (1988) computer package was used in the analysisof the results.every day science tasks, however, some included course-

specific science-orientated tasks. The idea to use practical The gender composition of the respondents were foundto be 86% female and 14% male, with 71% of the femaleseveryday science tasks to measure self-efficacy was based

on Betz and Hackett’s (1983) research regarding mathemat- and 100% of the males giving consent for access to theirfirst year academic marks.ics self-efficacy expectations. These researchers found

that females were not confident in performing mathe-matics tasks, and those tasks that were gender-stereo-

Academic performancetyped resulted in higher self-efficacy expectations for theappropriate gender (Betz & Hackett 1983). Students’ academic performance was measured by their

score for each of the science subjects being examined. TheAlthough not identifiable to respondents, the SEFS wasdesigned to contain four sub-sections of neutral (5 items), descriptive statistics for these subjects, given in Table 1,

show that the mean for SCIE111 is lower and the standardmasculine (5 items), feminine (5 items) and mathematics(6 items) science tasks. Accordingly, these sub-sections deviation (SD) higher than SCIE110. However, a Spearman

Rank Order correlation found that students’ scores forwere termed: neutral science (NS), masculine science(MS), feminine science (FS), and mathematics science the both subjects were statistically related to each other

(P=0·0001).(MAS).The masculine and feminine items were chosen to reflect

societal gender-specific tasks. It is stressed, however, that Science backgroundoverall the science items were not designed to be gender-biased, rather to test the science self-efficacy expectations In the questionnaire, students were requested to list their

high school certificate (entry level for university) subjectsof all undergraduate nursing students. Neutral scienceitems were developed to cover general science tasks. and scores obtained for those subjects. The data regarding

students’ subject scores were incomplete for many stud-Masculine, feminine and neutral items were based onchemistry and physics principles which were applied to ents, and was not used in subsequent analyses. The science

subjects studied by students in their final year of higheveryday tasks, some of which were also directly appliedto nursing. The mathematics science sub-section includedmathematics items applied to science (physics, chemistry

Table 1 Summary statistics for SCIE110 and SCIE111and bio-) although some of these items were also specificto nursing. References for the tasks, except for one

Summary statistics(Walpole 1990), came primarily from material writtenspecifically for nursing students (DiMichael & Raynor

SCIE110 SCIE1111988, Cree & Rishmiller 1989, Marieb 1992).(n=64) (n=60)

Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of one(not confident) to five (very confident), their confidence in Mean 69·01 66·03their ability to successfully perform each of the tasks. SD 9·40 17·00Scoring for the SEFS was based on the method used by Median 68·00 69·50Betz and Hackett (1983) and other researchers (Lent et al.1984, 1986, 1987, Phillips & Russell 1994, Harvey & * Statistically significant.

598 © 1998 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 596–603

Self-efficacy

Table 2 Science subjects studied in final year of high school (%) could explain 12% of the variance. Factor three, calledand relationship between students’ science background and the lifestyle (LS), could also explain 12% variance and con-SEFS tained two items, one each from MS and FS. Factor four,

termed science principles (SP), contained four items oneScience subjects (%) each NS, MS and two FS items. It could explain 11% vari-

ance. Factor five, labelled practical science (PS), containedChemistry Physics Biology General science

three items, one each M, F and N items. It could explain10% of the variance. Finally, factor six explained 9% vari-

Females (n=70) 26 5 37 3ance and contained three items, two MAS and one MS.Males (n=11) 45 18 18 0These items were related to knowledge of physics conceptsCohort (n=81) 28 7 35 2applied to the home and bioscience and hence was termedphysics applied (PA).SEFS

t-Test results, shown in Table 5, indicate that there wasSciencebackground (%) Mean SD t-test: P only a statistically significant gender difference for the

PA sub-section; however, there were no gender differ-No science 43 3·90 0·64 ences for the remaining sub-sections, or for the SEFSDid science 57 4·14 0·61 0·09 overall.

Predictor validity of SEFSschool are shown in Table 2. For the cohort, students aremore likely to have studied biology than chemistry or As the SEFS was devised specifically for the prediction of

academic performance in the first year of an undergraduatephysics. Students were divided into two groups accordingto whether they had studied science (chemistry, physics, nursing course, it therefore required prediction validation

with the SEFS regarded as the predictor variable, and aca-biology or general science) in their final year of highschool. Students who had not studied science had a lower demic performance the criterion. Predictor validation

involves correlation analysis to establish the relationshipmean SEFS score than those who did do science. A t-testindicated that, although close, this difference was not stat- between the predictor variable and the criterion (Kaplan

& Saccuzzo 1993).istically significant (P=0·09).Hence, a Spearman correlation was performed, and

results shown in Table 4 indicate that the SEFS was indeedSelf-efficacy

statistically significantly correlated with academic per-formance in the two bioscience subjects SCIE110 (r=0·49,A Spearman correlational analysis to assess the relation-

ship between the SEFS and its hypothesised sub-sections P=0·0001) and SCIE111 (r=0·43, P=0·0005).was performed with all results being found to be statisti-cally significant at the P=0·0001 level. The mean, median Reliabilityand standard deviation (SD) of all items and correlationbetween items and SEFS score were also calculated. The The Cronbach alpha, a measure of the internal consistency

reliability of the SEFS was 0·9. The Cronbach alphas’ formeans for the SEFS items are given in Table 3.To assess the construct validity of the SEFS, all items the SEFS sub-sections as shown in Table 5 were: MAS

0·80, DA 0·74, LS 0·83, SP 0·74, PS 0·73 and PA 0·66.were subjected to principal component factor analysiswith varimax rotation, based on factors with an eigenvaluegreater than 1. Instead of four factors the SEFS was found

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCHto contain six factors with items from the FS, MS and NSprimarily loading onto five of these factors. The MAS As this was the first test of a newly-developed research

instrument, generalizations to other cohorts of nursing stu-remained largely unchanged and loaded onto factor one.These six factors could explain 70% of the total variance dents may not be applicable. In this respect, the study

represents a pilot test of the SEFS. Further validation stud-in students’ self-efficacy for science. The six factors andtheir factor loadings are shown in Table 3. ies of the SEFS, with other cohorts of undergraduate nurs-

ing students from several educational institutions, areFactor one, MAS, was reduced from six to five itemswith four of the original items still loading on to this sub- being conducted. It is anticipated that this will lead to the

development of expectancy tables, subsequently indicat-section. One NS item was found to load into this factor.The factor could explain 15% of the variance. Factor two ing whether a particular SEFS score will lead to success

or failure in a science subject, hence enabling educatorswas named domestic applications (DA) because it con-tained items relating to science in the home. With four to plan appropriate educational strategies.

Given the number of males in the cohort, interpretationsitems, two from NS and one each from the FS and MS, it


S. Andrew

Table 3 Factor loadings of items from the Self-Efficacy for Science Scale

FactorItem Mean loading

Factor 1: mathematics scienceConvert John’s dietary intake of 2500 cal to kJ given that 1 calorie=4·185 kJ. 4·20 0·82Calculate how much water you will need to make a 600 ml 1520 solution of diisinfectant for your toilet. 4·00 0·52Suck some water up in a straw and work out how to keep in in the straw. 4·74 0·58Convert a pressure reading of 120 mmHg int kPa given that 660 mmHg=87·9 kPa. 3·51 0·71Estimate the cost of running a 800 W radiator for 6 hours a charge of 14 cents/KW. 4·02 0·76% variance 15

Factor 2: domestic applicationsDissolve sugar in a drink by changing the drink’s temperature. 4·44 0·64Read a cake recipe and decide what the raising agents are. 4·27 0·86Determine why the rake you left out in the rain has gone rusty. 4·37 0·51Decipher a can labelled ‘contains baked beans, sucrose and sodium chloride’ to see if it contains salt and 4·39 0·56sugar.

% variance 12

Factor 3: lifestyleDecide whether oiling your bicycle will make it go slower or faster. 4·54 0·83Choose whether it would be sensible to wear smooth soled or ripple soled shoes to a wet football oval. 4·65 0·76% variance 12

Factor 4: science principlesWork out if a white spot on your overalls, caused by splashing it with bleach can be removed by machine 4·23 0·77washing.

Give examples of an electrical conductor and insulator. 4·33 0·59Figure out why the aircraft moving away from you has a lower frequency compared with its frequency when 3·26 0·69overhead.

Decide whether covering a water filled saucepan with a lid will increase or decrease the time it will take to 4·52 0·44boil.

% variance 11

Factor 5: practical scienceMake a paper dart and choose a shape that will make it fly faster. 3·51 0·70Decide whether a still or windy day is better for drying your clothes. 4·43 0·69Understand why water droplets are running down the inside of a misty window pane on a cold day. 4·28 0·71% variance 10

Factor 6: physics appliedWork out if a 120 V electric razor (bought in the USA) would work if plugged into your electrical powerpoint. 3·69 0·51Calculate whether the 4 kW electrical circuit in your kitchen will enable you to run a 2·4 kW space heater, 2·90 0·68600 W toaster and a 1200 W kettle.

Calculate the changes in the thoracic cavity if the pressure in the lung changes from +1 mmHg to −8 mmHg 2·46 0·61with respect to normal atmospheric pressure of 760 mmHg.

% variance 9

of gender differences should be treated with caution.DISCUSSION

Nevertheless, it should be stated that with 14% male stud-ents, this cohort could be considered representative of the The hypothesis regarding the SEFS and academic perform-

ance can be accepted, as, results for the newly-developedproportion of males entering nursing courses (DEET 1991),and until these numbers increase significantly this SEFS indicate that it has predictive validity for academic

performance in the science-based areas of a first-year bach-research limitation will persist.Finally, whilst the internal reliability of the SEFS and elor of nursing course. The SEFS could predict 24% of

students’ academic performance in SCIE110 and 18·5% inits sub-sections were computed, further reliability meas-ures, specifically stability of the SEFS, needs investigation. SCIE111. These results are higher than anticipated, as a


Self-efficacy

Table 4 Spearman correlation between academic score in students (Gillies & Soars 1993, H’eng 1993). AlthoughSCIE110 and SCIE111 with the SEFS having already completed a subject containing physics, the

nursing students in the study were still not confident inSpearman correlation this area of science.

The utilization of self-efficacy seems to be a particu-SCIE110 SCIE111 larly salient means of measuring students’ expectations(n=64) (n=60)

about science, particularly as these personal judgementswill ultimately influence their motivation and academic

SEFS 0·49 0·43performance in this subject area (Bandura 1977, 1986).P 0·0001* 0·0005*The ability then, to measure students’ self-efficacy to

Males (n=11) science, may make it possible to identify students at riskof failing or withdrawing from a course. Research indi-

SEFS 0·79 0·75 cates that the relationship between self-efficacy and aca-P 0·01* 0·03*

demic performance is stronger for students who areachieving below average academically (Multon 1991). By* Statistically significant.using the SEFS therefore, students with low self-efficacycould be identified and measures be instituted to increasetheir science self-efficacy expectations. Due to nature ofmeta-analysis research has shown that self-efficacy can

generally be expected to account for approximately 14% self-efficacy and academic performance, an improvementin self-efficacy may result in a subsequent improvementof the variance in academic performance (Multon et al.

1991). Whilst gender differences should be interpreted in academic performance. This could be achieved byconducting sessions where the application of science tocautiously, the SEFS demonstrated that it was highly pre-

dictive of male students’ academic performance in the sci- every-day tasks is presented, before students are taughtabout those aspects of science relevant to nursing prac-ence-based areas of the curriculum in the first year of an

undergraduate nursing course. The SEFS was able to pre- tice. Students may then perceive science as relevant totheir everyday life, reducing their anxieties and changingdict 62% of male students’ academic performance in

SCIE110 and 56% for SCIE111. their perceptions of it as difficult. This may increasestudents’ academic performance and reduce the attritionThe internal consistency reliability of the SEFS was

high (Kaplan & Saccuzzo 1993) and five of the six factors of students from a nursing course.In self-efficacy theory, a students’ academic backgroundalso had very satisfactory reliability. The reliability of the

PA factor, requires improvement, although it is in the serves as an influential source of efficacy information(Bandura 1977, 1986). It was therefore unexpected to findrange considered satisfactory for research purposes

(Kaplan & Saccuzzo 1993). The establishment of the fac- in this study, that students’ self-efficacy expectationswere not influenced by their science background. Ittors contained in the SEFS enable the researcher to ident-

ify specific areas of concern to the student; however, as should be noted however that results were close to reach-ing statistical significance (P=0·09) and with a largershown in this study, the SEFS can be used to predict

academic performance without the need to refer to these sample it may in fact be significant. Support for thisstatement is found in the gender difference in the PAfactors.

Nursing students were not confident in performing many factor of the SEFS, and the fact that male students weretwice as likely as females, to have studied physics inof the SEFS science tasks particularly those involving

physics (PA) or mathematics (MAS). Mathematics is an their final year at high school. There were no furtherstatistically significant gender differences in the SEFS orintegral component of science and researchers have com-

mented on the inadequate mathematics skills of nursing its sub-sections.

Table 5 Summary statistics for the SEFS

SEFS sub-sections

Statistics (n=81) SEFS MAS DA LS SP PS PA

Mean 4·03 20·43 17·48 9·20 16·34 12·22 9·05SD 0·63 4·24 2·93 1·37 3·32 2·52 3·11Cronbach alpha 0·90 0·80 0·74 0·83 0·74 0·73 0·66t-test by gender, P 0·54 0·35 0·56 0·36 0·57 0·66 0·01


S. Andrew

Courtenay M. (1991) A study of the teaching and learning of theConclusions biological sciences in nurse education. Journal of Advanced

Nursing 16(9), 1110–1116.Whilst nursing continues to attract and admit students toCree L. & Rischmiller S. (1989) Science in Nursing 2nd edn. W.B.an undergraduate nursing course with a limited science

Saunders/Balliere Tindall, Sydney.background, it requires means for identifying students whoDepartment of Employment, Education and Training (1991)

are likely to be academically unsuccessful in the course.Female Students. Higher Education Series Update No 1.

By using the SEFS to assess a student’s science self- Canberra, Australia.efficacy, it may be possible to identify these students, and DiMichael T. & Raynor J. (1988) Introduction to Physical Sciencedevelop educational strategies to assist them to improve 1988. CCAE Canberra, Australia.their academic performance in the science-based areas of Gillies R. & Soars L. (1993) A pilot nursing preparatory program:

basic mathematics and science skills for mature-age students.their nursing course.In COSINE 92 Conference Proceedings (Degabriele R. ed.),2–4 December 1992, Australian Catholic University, Sydney,

Acknowledgements pp. 55–59.Harvey V. & McMurray N. (1994) Self-efficacy: a means of ident-The author wishes to thank Dr W. Vialle, Faculty of

ifying problems in nursing education and career progress.Education, University of Wollongong for her valuable con-International Journal of Nursing Studies 31(5), 471–485.

tribution to the study. Thanks are also extended to DrH’eng S.H. (1993) Numerical skills in nursing. In COSINE 92

D. Steel, Statistical Consulting Service, University of Conference Proceedings (Degabriele R. ed.), 2–4Wollongong and to Ms V. Blanch for her computing December 1992, Australian Catholic University, Sydney,assistance. pp. 107–110.

Higgins L.C. & Leelarthaepin B. (1986) Selecting students: anevaluation of an interview based ranking procedure. Forum ofReferencesEducation 45(2), 18–27.

Kaplan R.M. & Saccuzzo D.P. (1993) Psychological Testing 3rdAkinsanya J.A. & Hayward J.C. (1980) The biological sciences innursing education: the contribution of bionursing. Nursing edn. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove,

California.Times 76(10), 427–432.Andrew S.J. (1995) Non-academic factors as predictors of success Kershaw D.M. (1989) Student selection for tertiary nursing

courses: efficacy of the Anderson score as a performancein the first year of an undergraduate nursing course.Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia. predictor. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 6(3),

34–39.Bandura A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory ofbehavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2), 191–215. Lent R.W., Brown S.D. & Larkin K.C. (1984) Relation of self-

efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence.Bandura A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action.Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Journal of Counseling Psychology 31(3), 356–362.

Lent R.W., Brown S.D. & Larkin K.C. (1986) Self-efficacy in theBarclay L. & Neill J. (1987) An integrated biophysical science cur-riculum: design and development. The Australian Journal of prediction of academic performance and perceived career

options. Journal of Counseling Psychology 33(3), 265–269.Advanced Nursing 4(2), 29–38.Betz N.E. & Hackett G. (1983) The relationship of mathematics Lent R.W., Brown S.D. & Larkin K.C. (1987) Comparison of three

theoretically derived variables in predicting career and aca-self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based col-lege majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 23, 329–345. demic behaviour: self-efficacy, interest congruence, and conse-

quence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology 34(3),Bishop P. (1990) Science background of nursing students: effecton performance in science courses. In SINE 90 Conference 293–298.

Marieb E.N. (1992) Human Anatomy and Physiology 2nd edn.Proceedings (Piller N.B. & Venning M.G. eds), S.A. Institute ofTechnology, South Australia, pp. 58–61. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc., Redwood

City, California.Brown S.D., Lent R.W. & Larkin K.C. (1989) Self-efficacy as amoderator of scholastic aptitude-academic performance Mills A.C., Sampel M.E., Pohlman V.C. & Becker A.M. (1992) The

odds for success on NCLEX-RN, by nurse candidates from arelationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior 35, 64–75.Caon M. & Treagust D. (1992) Passing school biology: a predictor four year baccalaureate nursing program. Journal of Nursing

Education 31(9), 403–408.of success in nursing science courses? The Australian Journalof Advanced Nursing 9(4), 26–30. Moore E.J. (1990) Using self-efficacy in teaching self-care to the

elderly. Holistic Nursing Practice 4(2), 22–29.Caon M. & Treagust D. (1993) Why do some nursing students findtheir science courses difficult? Journal of Nursing Education Mowat J. & Laschinger H.K.S. (1994) Self-efficacy in caregivers of

cognitively impaired elderly people: a concept analysis. Journal32(6), 255–259.Chacko S.B. & Huba M.E. (1991) Academic achievement among of Advanced Nursing 19(6), 1105–1113.

Multon K.D., Brown S.D. & Lent R.W. (1991) Relation of self-undergraduate nursing students: the development and test of acausal model. Journal of Nursing Education 30(6), 267–273. efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investi-

gation. Journal of Counseling Psychology 38(1), 30–38.Chapple M., Allcock N. & Wharrad H.J. (1993) Bachelor of nursingstudents’ experiences of learning biological sciences alongside Philips J.C. & Russell R.K. (1994) Research self-efficacy, the

research training environment and research productivity amongmedical students. Nurse Education Today 13(6), 426–434.


Self-efficacy

graduate students in counseling psychology. The Counseling Walpole B. (1990) Fun with Science. Kingfisher Books, Grisewood& Dempsey Ltd, London.Psychologist 22(4), 628–641.

Redman B.K. (1985) New areas of theory development and prac- Wharrad H.J., Allcock N. & Chapple M. (1994) A survey of theteaching and learning of biological sciences on undergraduatetice in patient education. Journal of Advanced Nursing 10(5),

425–428. nursing courses. Nurse Education Today 14(6), 436–442.SAS Institute Inc. (1988) SAS/STATTM User’s Guide, Release 6·03

Edition. Cary, North Carolina.


Download - Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science

Top Related