Self-Efficacy and Externality Scales (I-SEE)

Abstract

The Self-Efficacy and Externality Scales (I-SEE) is an internationally recognized, 32-item psychometric instrument designed to evaluate multidimensional generalized control and competence expectancies in adolescents and adults. Originating from the German Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrollüberzeugungen (FKK) developed by Günter Krampen (1991) and adapted into English by Werner Greve, Ann Anderson, and Günter Krampen (2001), the instrument operationalizes Krampen’s integrative action-theoretical model of personality. The I-SEE systematically distinguishes between outcome expectancies (locus of control) and competence expectancies (self-efficacy). It comprises four primary subscales of eight items each: Internal Control (I), Own Competence (C), Powerful Others Control (P), and Chance Control (Z/Ch). These primary subscales combine into two orthogonal, higher-order macro-dimensions: Generalized Self-Efficacy (aggregating Internal Control and Own Competence) and Generalized Externality (aggregating Powerful Others and Chance Control). Items are scored on a six-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Across cross-cultural validation cohorts in Germany and New Zealand, the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties, with subscale internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) typically ranging from .72 to .86, and composite macro-scale reliabilities exceeding .84. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate its hypothesized four-factor first-order and two-factor second-order latent architectures across diverse linguistic and developmental populations. The scale provides critical utility for educational, clinical, developmental, and personality research by disentangling an individual’s perceived agency from perceived environmental contingencies.

Keywords

Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, Externality, Internality, Action Theory, Competence Beliefs, Psychometrics, Assessment, Powerful Others, Chance Control, Personality Assessment, Cross-Cultural Measurement

Authors

The theoretical architecture and empirical operationalization of the Self-Efficacy and Externality Scales represent decades of collaborative psychometric scholarship spanning Germany and New Zealand:

• Günter Krampen, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany; former Director of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID). Conceptualized the overarching action-theoretical model of personality and authored the original German standard questionnaire (Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrollüberzeugungen, FKK).
• Werner Greve, Ph.D. — Professor of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany. Co-developed the cross-cultural adaptations and structural validity investigations of the scale in youth populations.
• Ann Anderson, Ph.D. — Senior Lecturer / Researcher in Educational Psychology, School of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Led the linguistic translation, adaptation, and psychometric validation of the English version among secondary school cohorts.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Efficacy and Externality Scales (I-SEE) is to provide an empirically validated, theoretically coherent assessment of how individuals perceive their ability to direct life events and attain desired outcomes. While psychological research historically conflated self-efficacy and locus of control under overarching umbrella concepts of agency, modern cognitive and action theories demonstrate that feeling capable of performing an action (competence expectancy) is conceptually and functionally distinct from believing that an action will yield a predictable contingency in the external world (control expectancy).

In applied research, the I-SEE was developed to address critical limitations observed in traditional unidimensional instruments, such as Julian Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) scale, which forced respondents into a single continuum of internality versus externality. The I-SEE resolves this by assessing independent dimensions: a person can simultaneously acknowledge that systemic external forces (e.g., societal hierarchies, powerful others) influence life trajectories while maintaining high personal competence and problem-solving determination. Its clinical, developmental, and educational applications include:

• Adolescent Developmental Tracking: Evaluating the maturation of personal agency, autonomy, and identity formation during transitional developmental phases.
• Educational and Academic Motivation: Diagnosing learned helplessness, academic disengagement, and attributional deficits in secondary and tertiary students.
• Clinical and Health Psychology: Assessing cognitive vulnerabilities associated with depression, generalized anxiety, and maladaptive coping. The scale includes specific indicators addressing health maintenance, illness susceptibility, and accident vulnerability.
• Cross-Cultural Comparative Research: Comparing cross-national configurations of agency across individualistic and collectivistic sociocultural environments.

Psychological Construct

The I-SEE assesses human control beliefs across four distinct first-order constructs and two higher-order secondary dimensions, each rooted in action-theoretical paradigms:

1. Internal Control (I) — Contingency Expectancy

The Internal Control subscale (8 items: 1, 5, 6, 11, 23, 25, 27, 30) measures generalized action-outcome expectancies. It reflects the respondent’s conviction that life events, personal successes, and failures are contingent upon their own deliberate decisions and actions rather than arbitrary external dynamics. High scorers believe that outcomes are predictable and determined by behavioral investment (e.g., Item 30: “My life is determined by my own actions”; Item 27: “When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it”).

2. Own Competence (C) — Self-Efficacy Expectancy

The Own Competence subscale (8 items: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32) measures generalized action-competence expectancies, mirroring Albert Bandura’s construct of generalized self-efficacy. It reflects an individual’s confidence in their behavioral repertoire, cognitive problem-solving flexibility, and capacity to initiate actions even in complex, ambiguous, or demanding situations. This subscale contains positively keyed items assessing strategic resourcefulness (e.g., Item 32: “I can usually think of many ways of solving my problems”) and negatively keyed items reflecting decision paralysis or helplessness (e.g., Item 24: “Sometimes I just don’t know at all what to do in a given situation”).

3. Powerful Others Control (P) — Social Externality

The Powerful Others Control subscale (8 items: 3, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 26, 29) evaluates the degree to which an individual perceives their outcomes, well-being, and autonomy as being subordinated to the discretion, authority, or interference of other people (e.g., parents, teachers, employers, societal institutions). Elevated scores on this scale signify social fatalism or dependency (e.g., Item 14: “My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others”; Item 19: “Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me”).

4. Chance Control (Z / Ch) — Fatalistic Externality

The Chance Control subscale (8 items: 2, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 21, 31) captures fatalistic attribution patterns. Individuals with high scores believe that outcomes are dominated by randomness, good or bad luck, fortune, or uncontrollable coincidence, rendering personal planning futile (e.g., Item 2: “To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings”; Item 18: “It’s not wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad luck”).

Secondary Higher-Order Dimensions

The four primary scales are empirically aggregated into two broad macro-dimensions:

• Generalized Self-Efficacy (Internal Control + Own Competence): Reflects an integrated sense of self-determination, behavioral confidence, and internal attribution.
• Generalized Externality (Powerful Others Control + Chance Control): Reflects an overarching orientation that the world is either unpredictable or managed by forces beyond personal influence.

Theoretical Framework

The structural design of the I-SEE is grounded in action-theoretical models of personality, synthesized primarily by Günter Krampen (1988, 1991). Krampen bridged classical cognitive learning paradigms with modern action theory by drawing upon three foundational frameworks:

1. Rotter’s Social Learning Theory

Julian B. Rotter (1954, 1966) conceptualized behavior as a function of the expectancy that an action leads to a reinforcement, coupled with the value of that reinforcement. Rotter posited a generalized expectancy concerning whether reinforcers are internally or externally controlled. However, Rotter’s bipolar continuum failed to differentiate distinct varieties of external forces (chance versus social authority) and assumed that outcome expectations were synonymous with behavioral competence.

2. Levenson’s Tripartite Locus of Control Model

To overcome Rotter’s bipolar limitation, Hanna Levenson (1974) introduced the multidimensional locus of control model, decomposing externality into Powerful Others and Chance, while retaining Internality. Levenson highlighted that individuals who perceive external control as ordered by powerful human agents maintain different psychological dynamics than individuals who perceive life as governed by chaotic randomness. The I-SEE integrates Levenson’s tripartite division into its external dimensions and internal control subscale.

3. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Albert Bandura (1977, 1997) distinguished between outcome expectancies (the belief that a given behavior will produce a specific outcome) and efficacy expectancies (the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes). Krampen incorporated Bandura’s distinction into his action theory: an individual might recognize that diligent study yields high grades (high outcome expectancy / Internal Control), yet simultaneously feel incapable of sustaining the focus required to study (low efficacy expectancy / Own Competence). By separating Internal Control from Own Competence, the I-SEE formally measures both branches of Bandura’s cognitive motivational matrix.

Validity

The validity of the I-SEE has been evaluated through convergent, discriminant, criterion, and factorial studies across varied cultural and clinical contexts.

Convergent Validity

The I-SEE subscales exhibit strong, theoretically consistent correlations with established psychometric benchmarks:

• Correlations with General Self-Efficacy: The Own Competence subscale correlates positively with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), with coefficients consistently ranging between r = .58 and .71, confirming that it captures generalized self-efficacy beliefs.
• Correlations with Multidimensional Locus of Control: The Powerful Others and Chance subscales correlate strongly with Levenson’s IPC scales (correlations ranging from r = .62 to .78), establishing construct concurrence with established measures of externality.
• Correlations with Self-Esteem: Both Own Competence and Internal Control correlate moderately to strongly with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .45 to .62).

Discriminant and Criterion-Related Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by differentiated associations with clinical and emotional distress indicators:

• Negative Affect and Depression: The Chance Control and Powerful Others subscales demonstrate significant positive correlations with depressive symptomatology on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and state-trait anxiety measures (STAI), typically in the r = .35 to .50 range. Conversely, Own Competence is negatively correlated with depressive affect (r = −.42 to −.58).
• Academic and Coping Behavior: In cross-cultural adolescent studies (Greve et al., 2001), New Zealand and German secondary students who scored higher on Internal Control and Own Competence exhibited active, problem-focused coping strategies, whereas those scoring higher on Chance displayed avoidant, palliative coping mechanisms.

Reliability

The I-SEE shows consistent reliability across linguistic adaptations and demographically varied cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Across the primary 8-item subscales, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients meet or exceed standard psychometric requirements for psychological inventories:

• Internal Control (I): α = .72 to .80
• Own Competence (C): α = .76 to .84
• Powerful Others Control (P): α = .78 to .85
• Chance Control (Z / Ch): α = .74 to .82

The secondary aggregated macro-scales yield higher coefficients due to increased test length and shared variance: Generalized Self-Efficacy yields alphas between .84 and .89, while Generalized Externality yields alphas between .85 and .91.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments over varied test-retest intervals demonstrate that the instrument captures stable trait-like generalized expectancies rather than transient emotional states:

• 4-to-6-Week Interval: Stability coefficients range from r_tt = .76 to .85 across all four primary subscales in healthy adolescent and young adult populations.
• 6-Month Longitudinal Retest: Test-retest correlations remain robust, ranging from r_tt = .65 to .74, indicating enduring cognitive-personality patterns over developmental transitions.

Factor Analysis

The internal factorial validity of the I-SEE has been established through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

Principal Axis Factoring and Maximum Likelihood factoring with oblique (Oblimin / Promax) rotations consistently reveal four dominant eigenvalues exceeding the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (λ > 1.0) and confirmed by scree test evaluations. These four factors correspond to the hypothesized theoretical dimensions: Internal Control, Own Competence, Powerful Others, and Chance Control. Factor loadings for targeted items generally exceed .40, with primary loadings frequently falling in the .50 to .75 range, demonstrating minimal cross-loadings onto non-target factors.

Confirmatory Factor Models and Fit Indices

Structural equation modeling studies (e.g., Greve, Anderson, & Krampen, 2001) tested competing models:

• One-Factor Model: A global, undifferentiated agency factor yields poor fit (CFI < .70, RMSEA > .10), rejecting the notion that control beliefs are unidimensional.
• Correlated Four-Factor First-Order Model: Yields acceptable to good fit indices across cross-cultural adolescent samples: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .91 to .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .90 to .93, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .045 to .058.
• Hierarchical / Bifactor Model: Modeling the four first-order factors under two higher-order latent constructs (Generalized Self-Efficacy and Generalized Externality) reveals strong second-order factor loadings and stable cross-cultural measurement invariance across English-speaking (New Zealand) and German cohorts.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized / online self-administered assessment.
• Target Population: Adolescents (secondary school age, typically 12–19 years) and adults.
• Number of Items: 32 statements.
• Subscales & Item Composition:
  • Internal Control (I): 8 items (1, 5, 6, 11, 23, 25, 27, 30)
  • Own Competence (C): 8 items (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32)
  • Powerful Others Control (P): 8 items (3, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 26, 29)
  • Chance Control (Z / Ch): 8 items (2, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 21, 31)
• Response Scale: 6-point forced-choice Likert scale without a neutral midpoint:
  • “strongly agree”
  • “moderately agree”
  • “slightly agree”
  • “slightly disagree”
  • “moderately disagree”
  • “strongly disagree”
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Standard quantitative scoring assigns numerical values from 1 to 6 (or 6 to 1 depending on scoring direction). When scored such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of the construct:
    • “strongly agree” = 6, “moderately agree” = 5, “slightly agree” = 4, “slightly disagree” = 3, “moderately disagree” = 2, “strongly disagree” = 1.
  • Reverse-Scored Items: Items on the Own Competence scale that denote incompetence, ambiguity, or helplessness (specifically items 4, 8, 12, and 24) must be reverse-coded prior to computing composite scale scores (e.g., 6 becomes 1, 5 becomes 2, etc.).
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by summing or averaging the 8 item scores per scale (raw score range per scale: 8 to 48).
  • Composite Macro-Scale Scores:
    • Generalized Self-Efficacy = Internal Control + Own Competence (range: 16 to 96).
    • Generalized Externality = Powerful Others Control + Chance Control (range: 16 to 96).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The German foundation of the instrument (FKK) was published in 1991 by Hogrefe Verlag (Göttingen, Germany). The English-language adaptation and cross-national validation (I-SEE) was published in 2001 by Werner Greve, Ann Anderson, and Günter Krampen in the International Journal of Theory and Research. The instrument and research documentation were made accessible for empirical research and academic use through the University of Trier research repository.

For independent academic, non-commercial, and instructional research, the scale items may be utilized under standard scholarly fair-use conventions with appropriate attribution to the authors. For commercial diagnostic applications, institutional publishing, or inclusion in commercial test batteries, licensing permissions must be arranged with the authors or the respective test publisher.

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. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Greve, W., Anderson, A., & Krampen, G. (2001). Self-efficacy and externality in adolescence: Theoretical conceptions and measurement in New Zealand and German secondary school students. International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(4), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532706XIP0104_02
• Krampen, G. (1988). Toward an action-theoretical model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 2(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020104
• Krampen, G. (1991). Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrollüberzeugungen (FKK) [Inventory on competence and control beliefs]. Hogrefe.
• Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988
• 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
• Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON.

Items of the Scale