Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching

1. Abstract

The Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale is a psychometric assessment instrument developed by Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey and colleagues at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, designed to measure educators’ beliefs in their personal teaching efficacy and their agency regarding student academic achievement and motivation. Rooted conceptually in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory and adapting foundational paradigms established by the RAND Corporation and Gibson and Dembo, the scale operationalizes teacher efficacy within school and home-community ecologies. The instrument comprises 12 items evaluated along a 6-point Likert-type agreement continuum ranging from 1 (Disagree very strongly) to 6 (Agree very strongly). Structurally, the instrument captures two salient dimensions: Personal Teacher Efficacy (PTE), reflecting an individual instructor’s internalized confidence in their instructional capabilities, classroom management, and ability to reach difficult or unmotivated learners; and General Teacher Efficacy (GTE) or external environmental constraints, measuring beliefs regarding the extent to which external factors—predominantly the home environment, socioeconomic status, and peer group dynamics—limit or facilitate the reach of classroom instruction. Psychometric investigations across diverse cohorts of elementary and middle school educators demonstrate robust internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging between .76 and .84 across composite and subscale dimensions. Construct, convergent, and criterion validity have been substantiated through significant statistical associations with teacher instructional practices, classroom engagement strategies, parent involvement initiatives, and student developmental outcomes. As an integral component of the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler model of parental involvement, this scale provides researchers and educational diagnosticians with an empirically validated, succinct diagnostic tool to explore instructional psychology, professional burnout, pedagogical innovation, and family-school partnerships.

2. Keywords

teacher self-efficacy, personal teaching efficacy, general teaching efficacy, Hoover-Dempsey, parental involvement, social cognitive theory, instructional practices, teacher beliefs, psychometrics, academic achievement

3. Authors

The Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by researchers within the Department of Psychology and Human Development at Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University. The principal investigators responsible for the development, psychometric refinement, and longitudinal deployment of this instrument include:

• Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Nationally recognized for her seminal contributions to developmental psychology, school-family partnerships, and the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Model of the Parent Involvement Process.
• Otto C. Bassler, Ph.D. — Late Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Education and Educational Research, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Co-investigator on foundational investigations examining institutional climate, school socioeconomic composition, and educational efficacy.
• Jane S. Brissie, Ph.D. — Research Associate and quantitative methodologist at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, specializing in statistical modeling and measurement development in educational contexts.
• Joan M. T. Walker, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Education, School of Education, Pace University (formerly post-doctoral fellow and research collaborator at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University).
• Kristopher P. Jones, M.Ed., and Regina P. Reed, M.Ed. — Research scientists and collaborative developers associated with the Teachers Involving Parents (TIP) Project and the Family-School Partnership Lab at Vanderbilt University.

Institutional contact historically associated with the dissemination of the Peabody Involvement Project (PIP) Parent and Teacher Questionnaires: Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale is to quantify an educator’s subjective judgment regarding their capability to effect positive academic and motivational changes in students, particularly under adverse, complex, or challenging instructional circumstances. Historically, educational researchers observed wide variance in how teachers approached unmotivated learners, structured remediation, collaborated with families, and implemented curricular adaptations. Traditional measures often failed to disentangle a teacher’s personal confidence in their own pedagogical skills from fatalistic assumptions about broader socioeconomic and home environments. The Hoover-Dempsey instrument was purposefully constructed to measure these nuances, clarifying the psychological drivers of instructional behavior.

In educational research, the scale serves as a focal independent, mediating, or moderating variable. It is extensively applied to investigate how teacher efficacy correlates with classroom climate, differentiated instruction, student socio-emotional development, and standardized achievement outcomes. Importantly, within the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler theoretical framework, teacher self-efficacy serves as a major antecedent to teachers’ invitations for parent involvement. Teachers who endorse high levels of self-efficacy report active, varied, and welcoming practices to engage parents in collaborative educational activities, whereas teachers reporting low self-efficacy often perceive parental contact as contentious or ineffective.

In clinical and professional development contexts, the scale functions as an evaluative and diagnostic instrument. School psychologists, instructional coaches, and administrative leadership utilize the tool to evaluate the efficacy of professional development programs—such as the Teachers Involving Parents (TIP) in-service program. By administering the scale longitudinally, interventionists can monitor changes in teacher confidence, mitigate professional isolation and emotional exhaustion, and tailor targeted coaching interventions to instructors who exhibit elevated external fatalism or diminished personal pedagogical confidence.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale is Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE), conceptualized as a multi-layered cognitive-motivational belief system. Bandura defines self-efficacy as individuals’ convictions in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over task-specific performance demands. Transposed into educational environments, TSE reflects a teacher’s belief in their ability to orchestrate instructional tasks, cultivate pupil engagement, and facilitate intellectual progress across diverse classroom populations.

The scale captures this construct through two theoretical sub-dimensions:

• Personal Teacher Efficacy (PTE): This internal dimension assesses the teacher’s subjective evaluation of their own teaching capability, instructional mastery, and persistence. It reflects an internal locus of control regarding student learning. Items operationalizing this dimension (e.g., Item 1: “I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students”; Item 2: “If I try really hard, I can get through to the most difficult and unmotivated students”; and Item 7: “I am successful with the students in my class”) measure the teacher’s confidence that their pedagogical efforts directly cause academic breakthrough. Conversely, reverse-scored items (such as Item 8: “I am uncertain how to teach some of my students”; and Item 9: “I feel as though some of my students are not making any academic progress”) measure cognitive uncertainty, feelings of inadequacy, and pedagogical helplessness.
• General Teacher Efficacy (GTE) / Environmental Attributional Constraints: This external dimension measures beliefs regarding the structural constraints imposed on education by external ecological systems, specifically the home environment, socioeconomic disparities, and peer social networks. Rather than indexing personal competence, it assesses whether an educator believes that the power of teaching can overcome adverse background influences. Items indexing this dimension (e.g., Item 5: “Most of student’s school motivation depends on the home environment, so I have limited influence”; Item 10: “My students’ peers influence their motivation more than I do”; and Item 11: “Most of a student’s performance depends on the home environment, so I have limited influence”) capture an externalized attributional pattern. High agreement with these reverse-scored statements indicates an educational fatalism that limits the perceived utility of pedagogical intervention.

Collectively, these dimensions capture the interactive tension between an educator’s personal mastery beliefs and their perceptions of external educational boundaries, providing a comprehensive assessment of overall teacher agency.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning the Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale draws from two prominent lineages in educational psychology: Social Cognitive Theory and the Ecological Model of Family-School Systems.

Albert Bandura’s (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theory constitutes the primary cognitive foundation. Bandura posited that efficacy beliefs are formed via four principal informational sources: enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological or emotional arousal states. Within the classroom, mastery experiences (e.g., observing a struggling student master an abstract concept following targeted scaffolding) serve as the strongest contributors to efficacy. Bandura distinguished between two critical cognitive constructs: efficacy expectations (the belief that one has the requisite skills to execute an action) and outcome expectations (the judgment that a given behavior will yield a specific outcome). In educational measurement, Gibson and Dembo (1984) translated these into Personal Teaching Efficacy (efficacy expectation) and Teaching Efficacy (outcome expectation / GTE). Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1987) aligned their instrument with this paradigm, contextualizing outcome expectations around the systemic friction between school instruction and familial socioeconomic environments.

The secondary theoretical pillar is the Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler Model of the Parental Involvement Process (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002, 2005). This model conceptualizes educational outcomes as emerging from bidirectional interactions between families and educational systems, informed by Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Within this model, teachers’ operational practices are shaped by their psychological belief systems. When teachers maintain elevated self-efficacy, they perceive their pedagogical influence as expansive, resilient to external barriers, and synergistic with home environments. Consequently, efficacious teachers regularly formulate inviting, targeted, and reciprocal invitations for parents to engage in their children’s learning. In contrast, educators characterized by low self-efficacy view external home factors as deterministic deficits beyond their sphere of influence, leading to defensive pedagogical practices, reduced communication, and increased attribution of student failure to parental apathy.

7. Validity

The Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale has been examined across numerous empirical investigations to substantiate its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established through empirical factor analysis across multiple independent samples of public elementary school educators (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987, 1992). Factor loadings demonstrated clear structural delineation between items targeting personal instructional agency and items attributing performance limits to external environmental variables (such as home life and peer networks). In subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM) investigations conducted during the Peabody Involvement Project and the Teachers Involving Parents (TIP) evaluation (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002), confirmatory factor analyses supported a coherent higher-order or two-factor latent structure, yielding acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (CFI > .92, TLI > .90, RMSEA < .06).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been corroborated by substantial correlations between the Hoover-Dempsey scale and other established measures of teacher efficacy, such as the Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) and the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), with Pearson product-moment correlations ranging from r = .58 to r = .71 (p < .001). Furthermore, discriminant validity was demonstrated through moderate to non-significant correlations with general personality traits (e.g., neuroticism, extraversion) and general self-esteem, confirming that the scale captures domain-specific educational beliefs rather than global positive affectivity or self-worth.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive utility of the scale is documented in research on teacher behavior and student outcomes. Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1987) demonstrated that higher teacher self-efficacy scores significantly predicted the frequency and quality of teacher-initiated parental contact, including conferences, phone communications, and parent involvement in classroom instructional activities. Hierarchical regression models demonstrated that teacher efficacy explained unique variance in instructional involvement practices even after controlling for school-level socioeconomic status (SES) and years of teaching experience. Longitudinal studies (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2005) further verified criterion validity: teachers participating in targeted in-service efficacy training exhibited significant pre-to-post gains on the scale, which directly predicted subsequent student achievement indices and parent-reported school welcoming climates.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale has been substantiated through classical test theory metrics, specifically internal consistency and temporal stability evaluations.

Internal Consistency

In the foundational investigation by Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1987), which sampled teachers across diverse elementary school environments, the composite 12-item scale achieved an overall internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of α = .81. When evaluated as distinct subscales, the Personal Teacher Efficacy (PTE) dimension yielded alpha coefficients consistently ranging from α = .78 to α = .83, whereas the General Teacher Efficacy / Environmental Constraints subscale demonstrated alpha values between α = .72 and α = .77.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations conducted by the Vanderbilt Family-School Partnership Lab during Study 1 and Study 2 of the Peabody Involvement Project confirmed these estimates. Across a sample of elementary and middle school educators, the composite scale registered an internal consistency of α = .79 (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2005). Item-total correlations across the 12 items generally exceeded .35, indicating that each item contributed meaningfully to the latent construct without excessive redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was evaluated across control groups in longitudinal professional development interventions over periods ranging from 8 to 12 weeks. In the absence of targeted instructional interventions, test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from r = .74 to r = .82, indicating that the scale measures relatively stable cognitive schemas while remaining responsive to meaningful pedagogical interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the 12-item scale has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During early validation (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 1987), principal components analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation and principal axis factoring with promax oblique rotation were conducted on the 12 items. Eigenvalue-greater-than-one criteria combined with scree plot inspections consistently revealed a two-factor latent structure accounting for approximately 48% to 54% of the total item variance:

• Factor 1: Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE): Capturing items 1, 2, 4, and 7, alongside negatively keyed uncertainty items (such as items 3, 8, and 9). Factor loadings for positively worded mastery statements ranged from .62 to .78 (e.g., Item 2 loaded at .74; Item 7 at .71).
• Factor 2: Environmental Attributions / General Constraints (GTE): Capturing items 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, reflecting external limitations imposed by family ecology and peer dynamics. Loadings on this factor ranged from .54 to .76 (e.g., Item 5 loaded at .72; Item 11 loaded at .75; Item 12 loaded at .68).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In subsequent large-scale investigations under the Peabody Involvement Project, confirmatory factor analyses compared alternative structural models: a unidimensional model where all 12 items loaded onto a single latent efficacy factor, and a correlated two-factor model distinguishing PTE from GTE. The two-factor model demonstrated superior empirical fit over the unidimensional model:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .051 (90% CI [.038, .064])
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .942
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .926
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .048

Standardized factor loadings across items under this CFA model ranged between .46 and .81, with all loadings reaching statistical significance at p < .001. A moderate negative correlation (r = -.38 to -.45) was observed between Personal Teacher Efficacy and External Environmental Fatalism, supporting the theoretical distinction between personal agency and environmental attribution.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale is a self-administered, paper-and-pencil or digital psychometric questionnaire. Below is a structured summary of its technical design and operational specifications:

• Instrument Name: Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale
• Authors: Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey, Otto C. Bassler, and Jane S. Brissie
• Institutional Affiliation: Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
• Construct Assessed: Teacher Self-Efficacy (Personal Teaching Efficacy and General Teacher Efficacy / Environmental Attributions)
• Target Population: In-service pre-kindergarten, elementary, and middle/high school teachers
• Item Count: 12 items
• Response Format: 6-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Disagree very strongly
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Disagree just a little
  • 4 = Agree just a little
  • 5 = Agree
  • 6 = Agree very strongly
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Scoring and Scoring Rules:
  • Directly Scored Items: Items 1, 2, 4, and 7 are keyed in a positive direction (reflecting strong personal efficacy). These items are scored as marked (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5, 6 = 6).
  • Reverse-Scored Items: Items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 reflect either pedagogical uncertainty or fatalistic external attributions (home environment, peer influences). These items must be reverse-coded prior to composite score calculation (1 → 6, 2 → 5, 3 → 4, 4 → 3, 5 → 2, 6 → 1).
  • Composite Indexing: Scores across the 12 items are summed (or averaged) to produce an overall self-efficacy metric ranging from 12 to 72 (summed) or 1.0 to 6.0 (mean score). Higher composite scores indicate stronger personal agency and lower perceived limitation from external factors.
  • Subscale Disaggregation: Researchers often calculate a distinct Personal Teaching Efficacy (PTE) subscale (mean of items 1, 2, 4, 7, and reverse-coded 3, 8, 9) and an External Constraints / GTE subscale (mean of reverse-coded items 5, 6, 10, 11, 12).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Teacher Self-Efficacy for Teaching Scale was initially published in 1987 by Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey, Otto C. Bassler, and Jane S. Brissie in the American Educational Research Journal. Subsequent revisions and measurement adaptations were documented in 1992 and formalized under the Peabody Involvement Project (PIP) Parent and Teacher Questionnaires in 2002 and 2005 through the Family-School Partnership Lab at Vanderbilt University.

The scale was developed under university-sponsored research initiatives supported in part by the U.S. Department of Education and the Spencer Foundation. It is placed in the public domain for academic, clinical, and non-commercial educational research purposes. Researchers and educational practitioners may administer, reproduce, and adapt the instrument without royalty fees, provided proper academic attribution is credited to the original authors and Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Inquiries regarding formal licensing, collaborative interventions, or proprietary commercial usage can be directed through the Vanderbilt University Department of Psychology and Human Development or the Vanderbilt Center for Technology Transfer and Commercialization.

12. 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.

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

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of teacher efficacy, school socioeconomic status, and other school characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024003417

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school relations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941128

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700202

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers Involving Parents (TIP): An in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 843–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00047-1

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins, A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/499194

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

Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/499193

13. Items of the Scale