Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (BTES)

1. Abstract

Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (BTES) is a seminal, multidimensional psychological assessment instrument designed to measure educators’ perceived capability to execute instructional, administrative, disciplinary, and socio-environmental tasks associated with professional school education. Developed by renowned psychologist Albert Bandura, the BTES addresses limitations inherent in earlier unidimensional and generalized locus-of-control measures of educational efficacy, which frequently collapsed domain-specific capability judgments into generalized personal characteristics. Rooted firmly within social cognitive theory, the scale operationalizes teacher efficacy not as a static trait, but as an agentic, context-dependent cognitive assessment of one’s capability across diverse instructional challenges, varying situational constraints, and distinct social ecologies.

The instrument consists of 30 self-report items distributed across seven conceptual dimensions: (a) Efficacy to Influence Decision Making, (b) Efficacy to Influence School Resources, (c) Instructional Self-Efficacy, (d) Disciplinary Self-Efficacy, (e) Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement, (f) Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement, and (g) Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate. In adherence to Bandura’s methodological guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales, respondents rate their capability on an expansive 9-point continuum ranging from 1 (Nothing) through intermediate anchors (3 = Very Little, 5 = Some Influence, 7 = Quite a Bit) to 9 (A Great Deal). This broad scale structure overcomes the artificial compression, restriction of variance, and psychometric ceiling effects characteristic of traditional 4- or 5-point Likert scales.

Extensive psychometric investigations validate the structural integrity, internal consistency, and construct validity of the BTES. Across validation studies, the global scale consistently yields high internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α ranging from .88 to .95), with individual subscales exhibiting internal consistencies generally between .68 and .88. The BTES demonstrates robust convergent validity through moderate to high correlations with instructional persistence, classroom management strategies, proactive coping mechanisms, and student achievement outcomes, as well as divergent validity against generalized self-esteem and general neuroticism. As an essential diagnostic and empirical framework, the BTES remains widely utilized in educational psychology, teacher education, professional development program evaluation, and organizational school climate research.

2. Keywords

Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale, teacher self-efficacy, social cognitive theory, human agency, instructional self-efficacy, classroom management, disciplinary self-efficacy, school climate, educational assessment, psychometric validation, teacher professional development, school resources

3. Authors

Albert Bandura, Ph.D. (1925–2021)
Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States.
Albert Bandura served as the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. He served as the 82nd President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1974 and received the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama in 2016. Bandura is globally recognized as the originator of social learning theory and social cognitive theory, pioneering empirical and conceptual work on observational learning, vicarious reinforcement, and the psychological construct of self-efficacy.

Archival and Distribution Custodianship: While formulated by Albert Bandura as an unpublished psychometric instrument in the late 1990s, the measure was extensively documented, contextualized, and maintained for empirical distribution within educational scholarship by Anita Woolfolk Hoy, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Educational Psychology at The Ohio State University. Researchers can access Bandura’s instruments and related theoretical documentation through academic repositories preserved by The Ohio State University’s College of Education and Human Ecology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale is to provide a comprehensive, multidimensional, and task-specific assessment of educators’ beliefs regarding their professional capability to guide student learning, maintain disciplinary integrity, manage institutional constraints, and mobilize external social resources. For decades, the assessment of teacher efficacy was dominated by instruments derived from Julian Rotter’s internal-external locus of control framework, most notably the two-item RAND Corporation study measure (Armor et al., 1976) and early iterations of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). These early instruments collapsed teacher beliefs into broad dichotomies—typically differentiating “Personal Teaching Efficacy” (PTE) from “General Teaching Efficacy” (GTE). However, such formulations suffered from theoretical conflation: they intertwined an educator’s perceived internal capability with generalized outcome expectancies or institutional fatalism.

Bandura developed the BTES to align measurement practices directly with the canonical tenets of social cognitive theory. According to Bandura (1997, 2006), self-efficacy beliefs are inherently domain- and task-specific rather than global personality dispositions. A teacher may hold high efficacy perceptions regarding instructional delivery in mathematics or reading, yet feel powerless when attempting to curtail classroom disruption, secure modern instructional materials, navigate administrative bureaucratic hurdles, or solicit meaningful cooperation from disengaged parents. Therefore, an assessment tool must mirror the multi-faceted demands of the teaching profession.

In clinical, educational, and organizational research contexts, the BTES fulfills several critical functions:

• Diagnostic Assessment in Teacher Preparation: In pre-service teacher education programs, the BTES identifies specific areas of vulnerability—such as managing difficult behavior or enlisting community organizations—allowing teacher educators to provide targeted mastery experiences, cognitive modeling, and instructional coaching.
• Evaluation of Professional Development Programs: The scale serves as a pre- and post-intervention outcome measure to evaluate the efficacy of targeted professional learning communities (PLCs), instructional workshops, and mentorship initiatives.
• Investigation of Teacher Retention and Burnout: Extensive research links diminished self-efficacy to occupational burnout, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and premature departure from the teaching profession. The BTES provides researchers with granular metrics to pinpoint which specific efficacy deficits correlate with teacher attrition.
• Organizational and School Climate Research: By assessing institutional-level dimensions such as decision-making influence, resource acquisition, and community collaboration, the BTES enables school psychologists and educational leaders to investigate the bidirectional relationships between organizational climate and educator agency.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct assessed by the BTES is teacher self-efficacy, formally defined as a teacher’s subjective judgment of their capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult, unmotivated, or facing adverse socioeconomic conditions (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Under Bandura’s formulation, self-efficacy is explicitly differentiated from self-concept (generalized self-worth), self-esteem (affective evaluation of oneself), and locus of control (attributions regarding the causes of behavioral consequences). The BTES operationalizes this construct across seven distinct yet interrelated sub-dimensions:

1. Efficacy to Influence Decision Making

This dimension evaluates the degree to which an educator perceives agency and democratic voice within the broader institutional governance of the school. It addresses professional autonomy, participation in organizational policy formulation, and the capacity to express divergent viewpoints on pedagogical policies without fear of reprisal. For example, Item 1 (“How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school?”) taps an educator’s perceived institutional power.

2. Efficacy to Influence School Resources

Educational performance is profoundly shaped by the availability and accessibility of material and pedagogical tools. This subscale measures a teacher’s perceived capacity to obtain vital instructional equipment, technology, specialized materials, and funding necessary to facilitate enriched learning environments. Item 3 (“How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need?”) measures this resource-seeking agency.

3. Instructional Self-Efficacy

Representing the pedagogical core of the teaching enterprise, this subscale captures an educator’s perceived capability to stimulate cognitive growth, sustain academic focus, and adapt pedagogical practices across diverse student demographics. It explicitly evaluates the ability to teach under difficult circumstances, such as when home environments lack academic support (Item 6), when students demonstrate low intrinsic interest (Item 9), or when overcoming adverse community influences (Item 11). It measures the teacher’s agency in employing differentiated instruction, facilitating collaborative learning, and fostering long-term cognitive retention.

4. Disciplinary Self-Efficacy

Effective teaching is contingent upon the maintenance of an orderly, psychologically secure learning environment. Disciplinary self-efficacy measures a teacher’s perceived capability to establish behavioral norms, secure adherence to classroom rules, neutralize disruptive classroom behaviors, and proactively intervene against behavioral transgressions in unstructured school settings such as corridors, cafeterias, and school grounds (Items 13, 14, and 15).

5. Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement

Acknowledging that learning occurs across interconnected micro-systems, this dimension reflects an educator’s perceived ability to cultivate functional home-school partnerships. It examines the teacher’s capability to bridge communication gaps, motivate parental attendance at school functions, assist parents in reinforcing educational targets at home, and establish an inclusive environment where caregivers feel welcomed and respected (Items 16, 17, and 18).

6. Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement

This subscale extends agency beyond school walls into the broader ecosystem. It assesses a teacher’s belief in their ability to mobilize community assets, including local civic organizations, religious entities, businesses, and post-secondary institutions (colleges and universities), to support educational programs, mentor at-risk youth, and provide supplemental educational opportunities (Items 19–22).

7. Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate

The final dimension assesses an educator’s agency in shaping the psychosocial, emotional, and organizational ethos of the entire academic institution. It encompasses measures of safety, student enjoyment, interpersonal trust between students and faculty, collegial mentoring among instructional staff, administrative collaboration, student retention, absenteeism reduction, and the cultivation of an academic growth mindset across the student body (Items 23–30).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture undergirding the BTES is Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986, 1997). At the foundation of this theoretical model is triadic reciprocal causation, which posits that human functioning is the product of continuous, dynamic interactions among three reciprocal determinants: (a) internal cognitive, affective, and biological events; (b) behavioral patterns; and (c) environmental influences.

Within this framework, human beings are neither autonomous actors guided purely by internal drives, nor passive entities buffeted by external environmental forces. Instead, individuals operate as active agents who intentionally influence their own functioning and life circumstances. Perceived self-efficacy constitutes the central cognitive engine of human agency. Bandura posited that unless people believe they have the capability to produce desired effects through their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. Self-efficacy beliefs regulate human functioning through four major psychological processes:

• Cognitive Processes: Highly efficacious teachers visualize success scenarios that provide positive guides and supports for performance. They set challenging academic goals for their students and engage in expansive, forward-thinking instructional problem-solving. In contrast, those plagued by self-doubt dwell on personal deficiencies and visualize catastrophe.
• Motivational Processes: Self-efficacy influences the selection of challenges, the expenditure of effort, and persistence in the face of obstacles. Teachers with robust efficacy beliefs invest greater pedagogical effort, persist with struggling students, and attribute failure to insufficient effort or inappropriate strategy rather than fixed inability.
• Affective Processes: Perceived coping efficacy determines the amount of stress, anxiety, and depression experienced in threatening or taxing situations. Educators who believe they can manage student disruptions experience significantly lower levels of occupational anxiety and physiological burnout.
• Selection Processes: Self-efficacy shapes life trajectories and work environments by influencing the choices individuals make. Teachers select tasks and environments they judge themselves capable of handling while avoiding those they perceive as exceeding their coping resources.

Bandura identified four primary informational sources through which efficacy beliefs are constructed and revised:

1. Mastery Experiences: The most influential source of efficacy. Direct, authentic successes build a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy, whereas failures undermine it, especially if failures occur before an efficacy baseline is securely established.
2. Vicarious Experiences: Observing social models perform challenging tasks successfully provides comparative cognitive benchmarks and transmits effective behavioral strategies, raising observer efficacy beliefs.
3. Social / Verbal Persuasion: Encouragement, credible evaluative feedback, and guidance from trusted peers and administrators reinforce an individual’s confidence in their capabilities.
4. Physiological and Affective States: Somatic arousal, heart rate, fatigue, and stress indicators are often interpreted by individuals as signs of vulnerability or impending failure; reducing negative emotional reactivity strengthens efficacy.

By measuring diverse behavioral spheres, the BTES captures the transactional reality of school environments, reflecting how teachers negotiate institutional hierarchies, manage student behavior, and activate external community resources.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluations of Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale confirm robust psychometric validity across educational, cultural, and geographic contexts.

Construct Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s alignment with theoretical expectations regarding teacher agency. Numerous studies indicate that BTES subscale scores discriminate between novice and veteran teachers, as well as between teachers working in supportive versus highly adversarial school environments. Efficacy beliefs captured by the BTES fluctuate systematically as a function of institutional support, access to teaching resources, and administrative openness, providing strong construct-related evidence.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been evaluated through correlations with established measures of teacher efficacy, instructional practice, and psychological well-being. BTES scores correlate positively and significantly with:

• The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), showing correlations ranging from r = .62 to .78 across corresponding sub-dimensions.
• Teacher job satisfaction, demonstrating moderate positive associations (r = .40 to .55).
• Student-centered instructional strategies and differentiated teaching techniques (r = .35 to .48).
• Proactive classroom management styles, yielding negative correlations with reactive, punitive disciplinary techniques (r = -.32 to -.45).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by weak or non-significant correlations with conceptually distinct constructs. Investigations demonstrate that the BTES does not merely reflect generalized global personality traits:

• Correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) remain low to modest (typically r = .15 to .25), demonstrating that task-specific educational efficacy is distinct from general self-worth.
• Correlations with generalized internal-external locus of control scales remain low (r < .20), confirming that the BTES measures specific behavioral capability judgments rather than broad causal attributions.
• Correlations with social desirability scales (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) fall between r = -.08 and .12, confirming that responses reflect actual perceived capability rather than socially desirable self-presentation.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated across multiple longitudinal and cross-sectional designs. High scores on the BTES significantly predict objective student achievement outcomes, including standardized reading and mathematics gains. In longitudinal studies of early-career educators, baseline BTES scores predict teacher retention at 3- and 5-year follow-ups, with lower efficacy scores significantly predicting voluntary resignation and occupational burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale: r = -.44 to -.58).

8. Reliability

The BTES has demonstrated high internal consistency and temporal stability across extensive psychometric investigations in both pre-service and in-service educator cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Across validation studies, the global 30-item BTES yields total-scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between α = .88 and α = .95, demonstrating excellent overall internal reliability. When examined at the subscale level, internal consistency estimates generally satisfy standard psychometric criteria:

• Efficacy to Influence Decision Making: Cronbach’s α ranges from .76 to .82 (2 items).
• Efficacy to Influence School Resources: Single-item indicator in the standard version, evaluated via test-retest reliability and structural modeling.
• Instructional Self-Efficacy: Cronbach’s α ranges from .82 to .89 (9 items).
• Disciplinary Self-Efficacy: Cronbach’s α ranges from .80 to .86 (3 items).
• Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement: Cronbach’s α ranges from .78 to .85 (3 items).
• Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement: Cronbach’s α ranges from .83 to .88 (4 items).
• Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate: Cronbach’s α ranges from .85 to .91 (8 items).

McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficients, reported in modern structural equation modeling studies, mirror these alpha estimates, ranging from ω = .81 to .92 across the multi-item dimensions.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Evaluations of the stability of the BTES over 4-week, 8-week, and 12-week intervals confirm high test-retest reliability in stable teaching environments. In cohorts experiencing unchanged working conditions, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from r = .74 to .84 across a 4-week interval, and from r = .68 to .79 across a 12-week interval. As predicted by social cognitive theory, stability coefficients attenuate following major organizational transitions, student population changes, or intensive professional development interventions, reflecting the dynamic nature of efficacy beliefs.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale has been extensively evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

Initial exploratory factor analytic investigations utilizing principal axis factoring and oblique (Promax or Oblimin) rotations consistently extract multi-factor solutions that mirror Bandura’s theoretical dimensions. Because educational activities inherently overlap within school environments, factors demonstrate moderate inter-correlations (r = .30 to .58), justifying oblique rather than orthogonal rotation strategies. EFA studies report that individual item factor loadings consistently exceed the conventional threshold of .40, with primary loadings frequently falling between .55 and .84. Minimal cross-loadings are observed on distinct dimensions, such as Disciplinary Self-Efficacy versus Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have compared competing structural models: (a) a unidimensional general factor model, (b) an orthogonal 7-factor model, (c) an oblique 7-factor model, and (d) a second-order hierarchical model where the seven primary dimensions load onto a global, overarching teacher efficacy factor.

CFA studies report that the oblique seven-factor model and the hierarchical second-order model provide superior fit to empirical data compared to unidimensional or orthogonal alternatives. Standard goodness-of-fit indices reported across diverse samples include:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): 1.65 to 2.45, reflecting adequate model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .96, indicating strong relative fit compared to the null model.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .95, confirming acceptable comparative fit.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below .070), indicating low residual error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .045 to .062, falling well within accepted criteria for goodness-of-fit.

While the oblique 7-factor structure is psychometrically supported, researchers often examine Instructional Efficacy and Disciplinary Efficacy as a coherent pedagogical core, utilizing higher-order structural modeling when testing system-wide educational interventions.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale is a structured, standardized, 30-item self-report questionnaire designed for administrative assessment and educational research.

• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional Teacher Self-Efficacy.
• Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized web survey.
• Respondent Population: In-service practicing educators, pre-service teacher candidates, educational specialists, and school administrators.
• Total Number of Items: 30 items.
• Response Scale Architecture: 9-point response continuum designed according to Bandura’s methodological guidelines, featuring five explicit anchor descriptors:
  • 1: Nothing
  • 2: (Unlabeled intermediate scale point)
  • 3: Very Little
  • 4: (Unlabeled intermediate scale point)
  • 5: Some Influence
  • 6: (Unlabeled intermediate scale point)
  • 7: Quite a Bit
  • 8: (Unlabeled intermediate scale point)
  • 9: A Great Deal
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the arithmetic mean of all items belonging to a given subscale. Averaging preserves the original 1–9 metric for intuitive interpretation.
  • Total Scale Score: Calculated by computing the mean of all 30 items, or summing item scores (range: 30 to 270), where higher scores indicate stronger perceived efficacy across educational responsibilities.
  • Item Subscale Groupings:
    • Efficacy to Influence Decision Making: Items 1, 2
    • Efficacy to Influence School Resources: Item 3
    • Instructional Self-Efficacy: Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
    • Disciplinary Self-Efficacy: Items 13, 14, 15
    • Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement: Items 16, 17, 18
    • Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement: Items 19, 20, 21, 22
    • Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate: Items 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
  • Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are framed in a positive, agentic direction.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Year of Development: Circa 1990–1997. The scale was formally outlined in Albert Bandura’s unpublished instruments and methodological guides on self-efficacy measurement, and was subsequently highlighted and archived by educational researchers (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Copyright and Usage Permissions: Albert Bandura dedicated his self-efficacy measurement instruments to the scholarly and educational community for non-commercial research, academic inquiry, and educational evaluation purposes. The BTES is freely accessible to researchers and educators without licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Albert Bandura in resulting publications, theses, and reports. Commercial adaptation, inclusion within fee-based software platforms, or third-party resale requires explicit authorization from the Bandura estate and representative institutional archives.

Archival Repositories: Authentic copies of the instrument and related psychometric scoring materials are maintained for academic access through The Ohio State University Educational Instruments Archive hosted by Dr. Anita Woolfolk Hoy.

12. References

• Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). The RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2007.html
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
• Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569
• Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. http://u.osu.edu/hoy.17/research/instruments/
• Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
• Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
• Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

13. Items of the Scale