Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI)

Abstract

The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI), originally developed by Iris M. Riggs and Larry G. Enochs in 1990, represents a foundational psychometric assessment engineered to measure elementary school teachers’ beliefs regarding their capability to teach science effectively and their expectations regarding student learning outcomes. Grounded in Albert Bandura‘s theoretical framework of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy, the STEBI operationalizes teacher efficacy as a two-dimensional construct comprising Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE). The scale consists of 25 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response continuum ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, with an intermediate uncertain option.

During its initial psychometric evaluation with in-service elementary instructors (commonly designated as STEBI Form A), the instrument established robust psychometric integrity. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were documented at .92 for the 13-item PSTE subscale and .77 for the 12-item STOE subscale. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation confirmed the orthogonal separation of the two theoretical dimensions, affirming that a teacher’s personal confidence in their pedagogical skills operates independently from their belief that effective teaching can overcome demographic or socioeconomic limitations on student achievement. Since its inception, the STEBI has served as an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool across international educational research, professional development initiatives, and curriculum reform evaluations.

Keywords

Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument, STEBI, Personal Science Teaching Efficacy, Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Science Education, Elementary Teacher Pedagogy, Bandura Social Cognitive Theory, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis

Authors

The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument was created and validated by:

• Iris M. Riggs, Ph.D. — Professor of Science Education and Educational Leadership, Department of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, California State University, San Bernardino, California, United States.
• Larry G. Enochs, Ph.D. — Late Professor of Science Education, School of Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States; formerly of Kansas State University and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations, including the preservice elementary version (STEBI-B), were developed collaboratively by Enochs and Riggs (1990), with further extensions to chemistry, mathematics, and secondary science domains executed by associated educational measurement researchers.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) is to quantify and evaluate elementary educators’ belief structures regarding the instruction of natural, physical, and life sciences within primary instructional settings. In the late 20th century, reform-minded science education researchers recognized that widespread elementary student underachievement in science was deeply interconnected with elementary teachers’ pervasive anxiety, conceptual discomfort, and pedagogical avoidance of science topics. While generalized teacher efficacy scales existed, such as those derived from the RAND Corporation evaluations or Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale, empirical inquiries indicated that self-efficacy beliefs are highly domain-specific and situation-dependent. An educator possessing exemplary self-efficacy when teaching reading or social studies may simultaneously experience debilitating self-doubt when required to conduct inquiry-based science lessons or laboratory investigations.

Consequently, the STEBI was engineered to achieve several specific clinical, diagnostic, and academic research purposes:

• Diagnostic Baseline Profiling: To evaluate in-service teachers’ baseline confidence in their personal science content knowledge and instructional strategies prior to the implementation of district-wide science curricula or state-mandated science standards.
• Formative Program Evaluation: To monitor the developmental trajectory of pedagogical shifts during teacher professional development institutes, master’s degree coursework, or sustained coaching interventions.
• Research on Instructional Behaviors: To examine empirical links between teacher cognitive-affective profiles and observable classroom practices, such as the allocation of instructional minutes to science, reliance on hands-on discovery versus lecture-driven textbook reading, and persistence when working with struggling learners.
• Investigation of Student Outcomes: To establish predictive models connecting teacher efficacy sub-dimensions with elementary student science achievement, scientific curiosity, gender-equity engagement, and subsequent interest in STEM career pathways.

By differentiating personal capability from systemic expectancy, the instrument provides teacher educators and school administrators with granular insights into whether teacher hesitancy stems from personal knowledge deficits or defeatist assumptions regarding the educability of diverse student cohorts.

Psychological Construct

The STEBI operationalizes teacher efficacy within science education as a bifurcated, multidimensional psychological construct consisting of two distinct latent traits:

1. Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE)

The Personal Science Teaching Efficacy dimension measures an individual educator’s internal self-appraisal of their personal skills, content mastery, and pedagogical competence required to teach science successfully. PSTE represents the self-efficacy expectations construct conceptualized by Bandura. A teacher scoring high on PSTE possesses confidence in their capacity to monitor laboratory safety, answer spontaneous student scientific queries, guide conceptual understanding through scientific inquiry, and design multimodal instructional interventions.

Conversely, an educator exhibiting low PSTE harbors persistent self-doubt, experiences heightened anxiety when manipulating scientific equipment or leading discovery activities, and fears pedagogical failure during science instruction. In the STEBI instrument, PSTE is measured through 13 items capturing both positive declarations of competence (e.g., “I know the steps necessary to teach science concepts effectively”; “I understand science concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary science”) and reverse-scored expressions of pedagogical apprehension (e.g., “Even when I try very hard, I don’t teach science as well as I do most subjects”; “I find it difficult to explain to students why science experiments work”; “Given a choice, I would not invite the principal to evaluate my science teaching”).

2. Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE)

The Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy dimension reflects an educator’s broader conviction that student academic performance in science can be meaningfully influenced by effective pedagogical interventions, regardless of external, structural, or environmental barriers such as socioeconomic status, parental education, or historical underachievement. In Bandura’s cognitive model, outcome expectancy refers to the judgment of the likely consequence that a given performance will produce.

Teachers exhibiting elevated STOE believe that competent instructional design, differentiated support, and persistence can overcome cognitive deficits and motivational deficits in student populations. They view student failure as a pedagogical challenge rather than an innate inevitability. Low STOE, in contrast, manifests as instructional fatalism, characterized by beliefs that external socioeconomic factors, inherent student aptitude, or lack of home reinforcement render pedagogical efforts largely inconsequential. Within the STEBI, STOE is evaluated through 12 items addressing instructional causality (e.g., “The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be overcome by good teaching”; “When the science grades of students improve, it is most often due to their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach”) as well as reverse-scored fatalistic premises (e.g., “Increased effort in science teaching produces little change in some students’ science achievement”; “Even teachers with good science teaching abilities cannot help some kids learn science”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the STEBI is firmly anchored in Albert Bandura’s (1977, 1986, 1997) Social Cognitive Theory, with specific reliance on his dual-component model of human agency. Bandura posited that human psychological functioning, motivation, and goal-directed actions are driven by two fundamentally distinct cognitive appraisals:

1. Efficacy Expectations (Self-Efficacy): A judgment of one’s personal capability to execute designated levels of performance and successfully orchestrate the courses of action required to produce specific attainments.
2. Outcome Expectations: A judgment regarding the likely consequences, contingencies, or environmental reactions that will result from performing those behaviors at designated performance levels.

Bandura explicitly underscored that these two cognitive dimensions must remain theoretically and empirically uncoupled. An individual may possess high outcome expectations—fully recognizing that excellent science instruction produces remarkable gains in young children—yet exhibit profoundly low personal self-efficacy, doubting that they possess the intellect, motor coordination, or scientific reasoning to deliver such instruction. Conversely, an individual might exhibit towering self-efficacy regarding their science presentation skills while simultaneously maintaining low outcome expectations, believing that institutional neglect, student social disengagement, or standardized testing constraints will neutralize any educational benefit.

Prior to the development of the STEBI, generic teacher efficacy research struggled with construct ambiguity, often collapsing teacher agency into unidimensional measures or failing to control for subject-specific variances. Riggs and Enochs directly transposed Bandura’s dual-construct matrix to science education by demonstrating that:

• Efficacy beliefs are not monolithic; teachers hold divergent efficacy profiles across reading, mathematics, social studies, and natural sciences.
• Elementary instructors, having historically completed fewer collegiate laboratory science courses, disproportionately manifest low self-efficacy in science relative to other primary subjects.
• Behavioral engagement in the classroom—including the time devoted to science instruction, willingness to tolerate classroom disarray during student inquiry, and patience with student misconceptions—is directly dictated by the reciprocal interplay between PSTE and STOE.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the STEBI have been rigorously scrutinized and substantiated across decades of empirical investigation.

Construct & Factorial Validity

Riggs and Enochs (1990) established initial construct validity through a systematic item development pipeline involving an expert panel of seven science educators who categorized candidate statements based on theoretical alignment with Bandura’s definitions. Items exhibiting construct divergence or semantic ambiguity were removed. Factor analytical verification demonstrated that items cleanly segregated into the two hypothesized constructs without significant cross-loadings, demonstrating factorial validity for in-service teachers.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was documented through systematic correlations between STEBI subscale scores and validated external criteria. Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) scores correlated positively and significantly with:

• The frequency and total weekly instructional minutes teachers allocated to hands-on science activities (r = .43 to .51, p < .001).
• Teacher voluntary enrollment in science-oriented continuing education and master’s level STEM coursework.
• Principal ratings of teacher science instructional competence (r = .38, p < .01).

Discriminant validity was established by comparing STEBI subscale correlations against generalized teaching efficacy instruments, such as the Gibson-Dembo Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). While PSTE correlated moderately with generic personal teaching efficacy (r = .42), it correlated insignificantly with generalized outcome expectancy (r = .11), proving that science-specific self-efficacy operates as a distinctive psychological entity distinct from general pedagogical confidence.

Criterion & Predictive Validity

Decades of subsequent educational studies have affirmed the predictive capacity of the STEBI. Educators demonstrating elevated PSTE scores are significantly more likely to utilize inquiry-based, constructivist learning cycles, promote student questioning, and foster open-ended laboratory explorations. In longitudinal field trials, students instructed by teachers with higher baseline PSTE scores demonstrated statistically significant gains in standardized science concept mastery and showed marked reductions in stereotypical gender biases regarding scientists.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument have been confirmed across a broad range of national and international samples.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the pioneering validation study conducted by Riggs and Enochs (1990) with an initial sample of 331 in-service elementary teachers, internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha:

• Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE) Subscale (13 items): Yielded an alpha coefficient of α = .92, indicating exemplary internal consistency and minimal measurement error.
• Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE) Subscale (12 items): Produced an alpha coefficient of α = .77, denoting acceptable and solid psychometric reliability for an affective outcome-expectancy dimension.
• Item-to-total correlations ranged from .48 to .73 for the PSTE subscale and from .28 to .56 for the STOE subscale, with all items contributing positively to scale cohesion.

Replication and Temporal Stability

Subsequent psychometric replication studies have consistently mirrored these reliability thresholds. Studies evaluating preservice cohorts (using the parallel STEBI-B) regularly observe alpha coefficients between .87 and .90 for PSTE and between .72 and .78 for STOE. Test-retest reliability evaluations conducted across 4- to 6-week baseline periods prior to training interventions have documented stability coefficients exceeding r = .82 for PSTE and r = .71 for STOE, demonstrating the instrument’s robustness as a stable measurement tool capable of capturing real developmental shifts over time.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the STEBI was established through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the original psychometric construction, Riggs and Enochs administered a 36-item experimental questionnaire to 331 elementary instructors. The data matrix was subjected to a principal components analysis (PCA) followed by an orthogonal varimax rotation based on Bandura’s premise that efficacy expectations and outcome expectancies represent orthogonal constructs. The eigenvalues and scree plot examination decisively justified a two-factor extraction:

• Factor 1 (Personal Science Teaching Efficacy): Accounted for the largest proportion of total scale variance (approximately 28.6%), with 13 cleanly loading items exhibiting primary factor loadings ranging from .51 to .79. All items on this factor reflected internal beliefs of personal skill, instructional competence, and subject mastery.
• Factor 2 (Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy): Accounted for approximately 9.3% of total variance, with 12 retained items demonstrating primary loadings between .36 and .68. These items centered on student achievement as a function of teacher input versus external impediments.
• Eleven items from the preliminary 36-item pool were eliminated due to inadequate factor loadings (< .30), severe cross-loadings across both components (> .35 on both factors), or semantic ambiguity, resulting in the final 25-item version.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analyses in diverse educational contexts have supported the two-factor orthogonal or correlated model over alternative unidimensional configurations. Typical goodness-of-fit indices reported across modern literature demonstrate acceptable model parameters: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .91, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values consistently falling between .048 and .065. While some researchers have identified minor covariance among specific reverse-coded STOE items, the foundational two-factor latent structure remains the definitive standard.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Designation: Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI), also commonly referenced as STEBI Form A (for in-service teachers).
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; domain-specific teacher efficacy inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digitized online survey administration.
• Target Population: In-service elementary, primary, and middle school educators responsible for science instruction. (A companion version, STEBI-B, exists specifically for preservice teachers).
• Total Item Count: 25 distinct declarative statements.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Personal Science Teaching Efficacy (PSTE): 13 items (Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24).
  • Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy (STOE): 12 items (Items 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 25).
• Response Continuum: 5-point Likert scale formatted with standard anchors:
  • SA: Strongly Agree
  • A: Agree
  • UN: Uncertain
  • D: Disagree
  • SD: Strongly Disagree
• Scoring Protocol and Directionality:
  • Positively phrased items are assigned values: SA = 5, A = 4, UN = 3, D = 2, SD = 1.
  • Negatively phrased (reverse-scored) items are inverted prior to composite calculation: SA = 1, A = 2, UN = 3, D = 4, SD = 5.
  • PSTE Positively Worded Items (Scored 5 to 1): 2, 5, 12, 18, 23.
  • PSTE Negatively Worded Items (Reverse-Scored, 1 to 5): 3, 6, 8, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24.
  • STOE Positively Worded Items (Scored 5 to 1): 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16.
  • STOE Negatively Worded Items (Reverse-Scored, 1 to 5): 10, 13, 20, 25.
  • Subscale scores are generated independently by summing the item point values within each construct. Total scores for PSTE range from 13 to 65; total scores for STOE range from 12 to 60. The subscales are designed to remain separate; calculating an aggregate combined composite score is theoretically contraindicated.
• Estimated Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument was formally published in 1990 by Dr. Iris M. Riggs and Dr. Larry G. Enochs within the peer-reviewed journal Science Education. The authors designed the instrument as an accessible public-domain measurement tool intended to support academic inquiry, educational accountability, and pedagogical advancement.

Licensing and Usage Permissions: The STEBI is free for academic, non-commercial research, dissertation investigations, and institutional program evaluation purposes. No monetary license fee is required to administer the instrument. Researchers and educational practitioners wishing to utilize the STEBI are granted open permission provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Riggs and Enochs (1990) in all associated presentations, publications, and dissertations. The instrument is widely archived through university research repositories, including the research instruments portal maintained by Anita Woolfolk Hoy at The Ohio State University.

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.
• Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x
• Enochs, L. G., Posnanski, T., & Hagedorn, E. (1999, March). Science teaching self-efficacy beliefs: Measurement, recent research, and directions for future research [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, United States.
• 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
• Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740605
• Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81

Items of the Scale