Premium
Huber Inventory of Trainee Self‐efficacy: Assessment of measurement models
Author(s) -
Lockwood Adam B.,
Gross Thomas J.,
Farmer Ryan L.,
Loke Stephen W.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/pits.22230
Subject(s) - psychology , factor analysis , structural equation modeling , extant taxon , set (abstract data type) , self efficacy , reliability (semiconductor) , clinical psychology , psychometrics , applied psychology , developmental psychology , social psychology , statistics , power (physics) , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , evolutionary biology , computer science , biology , programming language
The purpose of this study was to further examine the factor structure of the Huber Inventory of Trainee Self‐Efficacy (HITS), a measure of school psychology trainee self‐efficacy. Lockwood et al. (2017, Psychol. Sch., Vol. 54, pp. 655–670) extant data set, collected from 520 school psychology trainees, was utilized. Four measurement models were examined for model fit and factor loadings. Of the four models, a bifactor model with a single latent general self‐efficacy (GSE) and latent domain‐specific factors (i.e., Multidimensional Assessment Skills, Counseling Skills, Professional Interpersonal Skills, and Research Skills) was the most parsimonious. However, standardized loadings indicated that all practice‐related items loaded more significantly onto GSE than their domain‐specific factors, indicating the utility of GSE for practice‐related skills. Of note, the Research Skills factor displayed greater domain‐specific loadings than general loadings. These findings suggest that GSE may be the best indicator of trainee self‐efficacy, though a two‐factor model that represents practical skills versus research skills may also be appropriate. Additionally, reliability scores indicate that subscale interpretation may also be reasonable. Limitations, implications for trainers of school psychologists, and for future research directions are discussed.