Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 107–120 | Cite as

Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance

  • Scott Meier
  • Patricia R. McCarthy
  • Ronald R. Schmeck


This exploratory field study examined Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy model to determine how well efficacy expectations predicted writing performance, and whether cognitive (deep processing) and affective (anxiety) variables were related to efficacy expectations. Other variables assessed with respect to efficacy and writing performance were race, sex, an English entrance exam (ACT) score, and locus of control. Subjects were college freshmen enrolled in introductory writing courses. The major findings were that (a) efficacy expectations predicted writing on phase 1 (beginning of writing course) data, but not phase 2 (end of course); (b) depth of processing, locus of control, and anxiety were related in varying degrees to amount of efficacy and to the accuracy of efficacy predictions of writing; (c) subjects significantly overestimated their writing performance, the discrepancy being even larger at phase 2. These results provide partial support for the construct validity of self-efficacy and suggest that cognitive and affective variables influence efficacy.


Cognitive Psychology Field Study Construct Validity Partial Support Entrance Exam 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84 191–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A., & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 297–304.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  4. Chambliss, C., & Murray, E. (1979a). Cognitive procedures for smoking reduction: Symptom attribution versus efficacy attribution.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3 91– Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Chambliss, C., & Murray, E. (1976). Efficacy attribution, locus of control, and weight loss.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3 349–353.Google Scholar
  6. Denman, M. (1975). I got this here hang-up: Non-cognitive processes for facilitating writing.College Composition and Communication, 26 305–309.Google Scholar
  7. Denman, M. (1978). The measure of success in writing.College Composition and Communication, 29 42–46.Google Scholar
  8. Einhorn, J. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity.Psychological Review, 85 395–416.Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, A. (1976). Utilization of positive feedback in a classroom environment of acceptance to promote enhanced learned self-concept and improved written performance.Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,36, 6550A.Google Scholar
  10. Harmon, P. (1980). Holistic performance analysis: It's time for an updated technology of instruction.Educational Technology, 11 5–13.Google Scholar
  11. Kazdin, A. E. (1979). Imagery elaboration and self-efficacy in the covert modeling treatment of unassertive behavior.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 725–733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kendall, P. C., & Korgeski, G. P. (1979). Assessment and cognitive-behavioral interventions.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3 1–21.Google Scholar
  13. Lalonde, B. D. (1980). The construction and validation of a measure of academic self-efficacy.Dissertation Abastracts International, 40 4510.Google Scholar
  14. Maddux, J. E., Sherer, M., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy: Their relationship and their effects on behavioral intentions.Cognitive Therapy and Research. Google Scholar
  15. Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgment.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29 261–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ribich, F. D., & Schmeck, R. R. (1981). Multivariate relationships between measures of learning style and memory.Journal of Research in Personality, 3 515–529.Google Scholar
  17. Rimm, D., & Masters, J. (1979).Behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rinderer, R. (1979, April).Writing and psychology: Wedding the cognitive and the noncognitive. Paper presented at the College Conference on Composition and Communication Annual Convention, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  19. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  20. Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.),Individual differences in cognition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schmeck, R., & Grove E. (1979). Academic achievement and individual differences in learning processes.Applied Psychological Measurement, 3 43–49.Google Scholar
  22. Schmeck, R. R., & Ribich, F. D. (1978). Construct validation of the Inventory of Learning Processes.Applied Psychological Measurements, 2 551–562.Google Scholar
  23. Schmeck, R., Ribich, R., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes.Applied Psychological Measurement, 1 413–431.Google Scholar
  24. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. (1970).State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Meier
    • 1
  • Patricia R. McCarthy
    • 1
  • Ronald R. Schmeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations