General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE) – Chen

Abstract

The New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE), developed by Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (2001), is an 8-item psychometric instrument engineered to assess generalized self-efficacy (GSE)—an individual’s overarching, trait-like belief in their aggregate capability to mobilize the motivational, cognitive, and behavioral resources needed to meet situational demands across a broad spectrum of contexts. Constructed directly to remediate the longstanding conceptual and psychometric deficiencies of legacy instruments—most notably the General Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Sherer and colleagues in 1982—the NGSE provides a brief, unidimensional, and methodologically robust measure tailored for both organizational and basic psychological research. The instrument utilizes a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Across multiple rigorous empirical validation studies, the NGSE has demonstrated superior psychometric properties compared to prior scales, exhibiting consistently high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically spanning .85 to .90), substantial temporal stability across diverse test-retest intervals (coefficients ranging from .62 to .74), and unequivocal unidimensionality validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Furthermore, the scale demonstrates robust convergent validity with task-specific self-efficacy, general cognitive ability, and related motivational constructs, while establishing distinct discriminant validity from theoretically adjacent traits such as self-esteem and generalized locus of control. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the NGSE, detailing its theoretical foundation within social cognitive theory, its structural formulation, empirical validity and reliability metrics, and practical administration procedures.

Keywords

New General Self-Efficacy Scale, NGSE, general self-efficacy, Gilad Chen, psychometrics, social cognitive theory, trait self-efficacy, self-esteem discriminant validity, unidimensional scale, scale validation, task performance, organizational behavior

Authors

The New General Self-Efficacy Scale was created and validated by a distinguished team of organizational psychologists and behavioral scientists:

• Gilad Chen, Ph.D. — Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States. Dr. Chen is the Robert H. Smith Chair in Organizational Behavior and an internationally recognized authority on work motivation, team dynamics, leadership, and multilevel psychometric modeling.
• Stanley M. Gully, Ph.D. (1965–2017) — Formerly of the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University and later the Smeal College of Business at Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Gully was a prolific researcher whose contributions spanned training systems, leadership development, organizational socialization, and statistical methodologies in organizational sciences.
• Dov Eden, Ph.D. — Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Professor Emeritus Eden is an international pioneer in organizational psychology, renowned for his seminal empirical research on the Pygmalion effect, self-efficacy dynamics, work stress, and managerial interventions.

Purpose

The core purpose of the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE) is to provide an efficient, psychometrically sound, and conceptually pure assessment of generalized self-efficacy that overcomes the notable psychometric and construct-validity liabilities observed in earlier measures. In historical organizational and clinical research, Albert Bandura’s classical conceptualization of self-efficacy was strictly task- and domain-specific (specific self-efficacy; SSE). However, organizational and personality researchers increasingly identified the theoretical and empirical utility of conceptualizing self-efficacy as a generalized, trait-like motivational orientation (GSE) that remains relatively stable across time, domains, and tasks.

Prior to the development of the NGSE, the most widely utilized instrument for capturing this generalized trait was the 17-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSES) introduced by Mark Sherer and colleagues (1982). Despite its pervasive adoption, the SGSES suffered from persistent psychometric flaws. Decades of empirical analyses revealed that the SGSES exhibited unstable multidimensional factor structures, contained numerous items with negligible or negative factor loadings, suffered from marginal internal consistency reliability within its secondary subscales, and displayed high, problematic contamination with self-esteem and neuroticism. In response, Chen, Gully, and Eden sought to design an instrument that possessed clear unidimensionality, high construct saturation, brevity, and maximal discriminant validity relative to neighboring affective-evaluative constructs like self-esteem.

In both research and practical organizational settings, the NGSE fulfills several distinct diagnostic and predictive functions:

• Baseline Motivational Profiling: It serves as an assessment of an individual’s enduring motivational baseline, capturing their subjective appraisal of competence before encountering novel, unstructured, or challenging work tasks.
• Predictor of Adaptation and Training Success: Research demonstrates that individuals entering novel occupational, educational, or athletic domains with higher NGSE scores exhibit superior adaptation, utilize more proactive self-regulation strategies, and translate training curricula into real-world task performance more effectively.
• Buffer Against Occupational Stressors: The NGSE enables organizational psychologists to evaluate psychological resilience, acting as a documented moderator that buffers against burnout, emotional exhaustion, and performance decrements under conditions of high role ambiguity or task complexity.
• Research Control Variable: It provides empirical researchers with a clean, low-burden control measure to isolate the specific incremental contributions of state-level interventions, motivational states, and situational demands without inflating participant survey fatigue.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the NGSE is generalized self-efficacy (GSE). Unlike state self-efficacy or task-specific self-efficacy (SSE)—which represent momentary, context-bound assessments of one’s capability to execute a particular task (e.g., solving a linear programming problem, delivering an oral presentation, or pitching a client)—GSE is conceptualized as an enduring, trait-like belief in one’s overall competence to perform successfully across diverse demanding situations.

Generalized self-efficacy emerges through the cognitive aggregation and developmental synthesis of an individual’s lifelong history of mastery and failure experiences across diverse life challenges. Over time, as individuals encounter success and adversity across academic, social, occupational, and personal spheres, they synthesize these episodic state-efficacy appraisals into an overarching self-competence schema. When confronted with novel, ambiguous, or highly demanding environments where no specific performance track record exists, individuals rely on this generalized cognitive appraisal to guide their initial effort expenditure, persistence, and affective reactions.

Construct Distinctions: GSE vs. Related Constructs

To accurately understand the psychological construct captured by the NGSE, it must be delineated from conceptually proximal constructs within personality and motivational psychology:

• GSE vs. Self-Esteem (SE): As articulated by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) and further validated by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002), self-esteem represents an affective, evaluative judgment of overall self-worth (“How do I feel about myself as a person?”). In contrast, GSE is fundamentally cognitive, motivational, and competence-oriented (“What am I capable of accomplishing?”). While an individual with low self-esteem may possess high GSE in technical execution, older scales conflated these dimensions; the NGSE purges affective self-worth content in favor of pure competence-expectancy items.
• GSE vs. Generalized Locus of Control (LOC): Locus of control, stemming from Julian Rotter’s (1966) social learning framework, concerns causal attribution regarding whether outcomes are contingent upon internal behavior versus external forces (e.g., luck, fate, powerful others). GSE, however, assesses the subjective conviction regarding whether one can execute the required behaviors, irrespective of whether external conditions are benevolent or punitive.
• GSE vs. Specific Self-Efficacy (SSE): While GSE represents a stable, cross-situational trait, SSE is highly dynamic, sensitive to immediate feedback, and restricted to bounded performance domains. Longitudinal modeling indicates that GSE serves as an antecedent to SSE: high baseline GSE bolsters an individual’s initial SSE when approaching an unfamiliar task, sustaining task-specific motivation until direct experiential feedback is acquired.

The 8 items of the NGSE systematically sample this generalized competence construct by evaluating perceived goal attainment capability, resilience in the face of difficult tasks, confidence across varied and unpredictable challenges, and perceived relative effectiveness under conditions of strain.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework undergirding the New General Self-Efficacy Scale is rooted in Social Cognitive Theory, originally formulated by Albert Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997), integrated with contemporary trait-activation and self-regulation paradigms in organizational psychology. Bandura posited that self-efficacy beliefs function as the primary cognitive mechanism through which human agency is exercised. Self-efficacy governs the choices people make, the goals they construct, the amount of effort they expend in a given enterprise, how long they persevere in the face of obstacles and failure, and the resilience they demonstrate when confronted with adversity.

Sources of Efficacy and the Generalization Process

According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs are cultivated through four primary informational channels:

1. Enactive Mastery Experiences: Authentic personal successes that serve as tangible evidence of capability.
2. Vicarious Experiences: Observing social models perform challenging tasks, which provides social comparative validation.
3. Verbal / Social Persuasion: Evaluative feedback, coaching, and encouragement from credible others.
4. Physiological and Affective States: Somatic cues, stress arousal, and emotional states interpreted during task preparation and execution.

Although Bandura emphasized that efficacy beliefs are primarily task-specific cognitive mechanisms, he acknowledged the reality of cross-domain generalization. Efficacy beliefs generalize across distinct domains when individuals identify commonalities across behavioral competencies (e.g., self-regulatory skills, critical thinking, stress tolerance), when transformational mastery experiences shatter personal limitations, or when general problem-solving heuristics prove universally applicable.

Building on these theoretical tenets, Eden (1988, 2001) formalized generalized self-efficacy as a motivational trait reflecting an integrated aggregate of lifetime mastery experiences. Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) operationalized this framework into the NGSE, proposing that while state-level self-efficacy directly determines performance on an immediate, designated task, generalized self-efficacy functions as an enduring motivational resource that buffers psychological well-being, stimulates initial challenge-seeking, and structurally facilitates the generation of positive state-efficacy perceptions when novel challenges are introduced.

Integration with Core Self-Evaluations (CSE)

The NGSE also holds a central position within the Core Self-Evaluations (CSE) theory formulated by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997). CSE posits that individuals hold fundamental, subconscious appraisals of their own worth, competence, and agency that comprise four foundational traits: generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, internal locus of control, and low neuroticism (emotional stability). Within this higher-order structural framework, the NGSE provides the pure, unadulterated measurement of the competence and agency pole, separating it cleanly from the evaluative self-regard characterized by self-esteem scales.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the New General Self-Efficacy Scale has been extensively evaluated across diverse academic, corporate, laboratory, and cross-cultural samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

In their landmark validation study, Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) examined the psychometric behavior of the NGSE across three independent empirical cohorts comprising university students, corporate employees, and executive management trainees. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated robust structural validity, showing that the single-factor model exhibited superior fit relative to alternative specifications. Crucially, the 8 items demonstrated homogeneous, uniformly high standardized factor loadings ranging from .65 to .83, indicating that all items function as strong indicators of the latent generalized self-efficacy construct without content redundancy.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

A primary objective in constructing the NGSE was achieving high discriminant validity against self-esteem, an objective where previous scales had systematically failed. Chen et al. (2001) conducted extensive multi-trait, multi-method, and CFA structural comparisons:

• Convergence with Existing GSE Scales: The NGSE correlated strongly with the legacy Sherer et al. (1982) General Self-Efficacy Scale (sample correlations ranging from r = .78 to .88), indicating that it captures the identical broader conceptual domain.
• Discriminant Distinctiveness from Self-Esteem: Utilizing the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), the authors demonstrated that the NGSE displayed substantially greater discriminant validity from self-esteem than did Sherer’s scale. In confirmatory models, a two-factor model separating NGSE and RSES yielded an exceptional fit, whereas constraining NGSE and RSES into a single latent factor produced a severe, statistically significant decrement in model fit (Δχ² values exceeding critical thresholds at p < .001).
• Independence from Generalized Locus of Control: Correlations between the NGSE and generalized locus of control measures were moderate (consistently r = .25 to .35), confirming that subjective agency in behavioral execution is empirically non-redundant with beliefs regarding environmental determinism.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The NGSE has demonstrated robust predictive and criterion-related validity across a spectrum of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral performance outcomes:

• Task-Specific Self-Efficacy (SSE): Longitudinal and experimental studies have established that baseline NGSE significantly predicts task-specific self-efficacy when individuals are placed in unfamiliar or stressful problem-solving settings (path coefficients frequently exceeding β = .30, p < .01).
• Learning and Academic Performance: In classroom and corporate training environments, NGSE significantly predicts learning performance, mastery goal orientation, and final examination performance, explaining incremental variance beyond cognitive aptitude measures alone.
• Job Performance and Leadership Emergence: Meta-analytic and field studies in industrial/organizational psychology confirm that employees exhibiting elevated NGSE scores demonstrate higher organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), adapt more readily to technical restructurings, and exhibit elevated leader emergence in initially leaderless group discussions.

Reliability

The New General Self-Efficacy Scale exhibits exemplary reliability across internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability metrics.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the three original validation samples reported by Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001), the internal consistency of the NGSE was uniformly high:

• Sample 1 (Undergraduate Management Students, N = 316): Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was α = .86.
• Sample 2 (University Students across Two Longitudinal Waves, N = 323): Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was α = .88 at Time 1 and α = .89 at Time 2.
• Sample 3 (Management Trainees in Corporate Settings, N = 218): Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was α = .90.

Subsequent independent validation studies internationally have replicated these findings. For instance, psychometric evaluations across varied industrial sectors, healthcare providers, and cross-national translations (e.g., Chinese, Turkish, Spanish, and German adaptations) report internal consistency reliability coefficients routinely situated between α = .85 and .92. Furthermore, modern psychometric evaluations utilizing McDonald’s omega have reported composite reliability indices consistently exceeding ω = .87, confirming strong internal scale saturation free from tau-equivalence bias.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Because generalized self-efficacy is posited to be a trait-like motivational orientation, an authentic measure must demonstrate stable test-retest coefficients over time, while remaining appropriately responsive to major life developments. In the longitudinal investigations conducted by Chen and colleagues:

• Across a three-week interval between test waves under conditions without intense interventions, the test-retest reliability coefficient was r = .74 (p < .001).
• Across a longer seven-week interval spanning rigorous academic and testing milestones, the test-retest stability remained high at r = .67 (p < .001).

These temporal stability coefficients demonstrate that the NGSE measures a stable psychological disposition that does not fluctuate wildly due to transient mood states, while maintaining the capacity to reflect enduring developmental gains resulting from extensive skill acquisition.

Factor Analysis

The internal dimensionality and structural parameter estimates of the NGSE have been scrutinized via rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Chen, Gully, and Eden subjected the candidate pool of items alongside existing efficacy items to exploratory factor analysis utilizing principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood estimation with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The EFA results yielded an unambiguous single-factor solution for the 8 items retained in the NGSE:

• A single dominant factor emerged with an eigenvalue substantially exceeding unity (typically ranging from 3.8 to 4.5 across samples), explaining over 50% to 58% of the total variance.
• Scree plot inspections consistently confirmed an unmistakable inflection (“elbow”) immediately following the first factor, confirming the absence of secondary or parasitic sub-dimensions.
• Standardized factor pattern loadings across all 8 items were robust and uniformly distributed, ranging from .65 to .83, with negligible cross-loadings onto non-target factors when factored alongside self-esteem or locus of control items.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analyses across independent validation samples have consistently corroborated the unidimensional structure of the NGSE. When evaluating the single-factor structural equation model across diverse cohorts, researchers have achieved superior goodness-of-fit indices meeting or exceeding stringent psychometric thresholds:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranging from .95 to .98, well above the conventional .95 benchmark for superior model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI / NNFI): Values consistently situated between .94 and .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates spanning .042 to .063, indicating minimal residual error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently < .040.

Additionally, multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have substantiated metric and scalar measurement invariance across gender, professional tenures, and cultural contexts, verifying that respondents from diverse demographic classifications interpret the latent scale continuum identically.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration protocol, and scoring criteria for the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE) are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSE)
• Authors: Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully, and Dov Eden (2001)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological questionnaire
• Construct Assessed: Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE)
• Number of Items: 8 items
• Subscales / Dimensions: None; strictly unidimensional
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert response scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • There are no reverse-scored items; all 8 items are worded positively in the direction of high self-efficacy.
  • Composite Sum Score: Calculated by summing the numerical ratings across all 8 items. Total scores range from a minimum of 8 to a maximum of 40.
  • Composite Mean Score: Calculated by dividing the sum of all 8 items by 8. Mean scores range from 1.00 to 5.00, which preserves the original response scale metric and facilitates direct cross-sample comparisons.
  • Score Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores indicate a stronger generalized belief in personal agency, motivational resilience, and competence across diverse situational challenges.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The New General Self-Efficacy Scale was published in 2001 in the journal Organizational Research Methods. The scale was established as a standardized, non-commercial assessment tool designed to benefit scientific inquiry in industrial/organizational psychology, human resource development, education, and behavioral medicine.

Permissions and Usage Guidelines:

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: The NGSE is widely available in the public domain of peer-reviewed scientific literature and may be utilized by academic researchers, educators, and students for non-commercial scientific and scholarly research without financial cost or formal written permission, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001).
• Commercial and Organizational Applications: Practitioners seeking to incorporate the instrument into proprietary, fee-based commercial consulting platforms, proprietary employment screening batteries, or commercial software distributions should review institutional copyright policies and consult the authors or the publisher (SAGE Publications) regarding specific licensing agreements.

References

• 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.
• Chen, G., & Gully, S. M. (1997). The role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and self-efficacy in predicting work-related outcomes. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1997, No. 1, pp. 194–198). Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1997.4981358
• Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
• Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.251
• Eden, D. (1988). Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: Expecting excellence in organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 16(2), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90041-3
• Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External sources of general and specific efficacy. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 73–85). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693
• Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job and life satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.
• 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
• Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

Items of the Scale