Introduction

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s perceived ability to perform tasks and achieve goals that result in favorable outcomes as job performance (Ferrari, Nunes, & Marín, 2018; Roman, 2017; Wang, Chang, Yao, & Liang, 2016). Self-efficacy impacts thinking, feelings, effort, and motivational behavior contributing significantly to the attainment of achievements in different areas of life such as work, family, social interactions, thus people with high self-efficacy believe in their own abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and the necessary course of action, to exert control over the events of their lives (Ferrari et al., 2018; Pereyra Girardi et al., 2018). According to Bandura (1997) the efficacy beliefs system is not a global trait but a diverse set of specific beliefs according to different functioning areas. Self-efficacy impacts on the choice and selection of reactions, as well as on the effort and perseverance of people when coping adverse situations (Llorens, García-Renedo, & Salanova, 2005; Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008). Specifically, within the professional work context, self-efficacy is one of the most important psychological resources (Heuven, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Huisman, 2006; Judge & Bono, 2001; Loeb, Stempel, & Isaksson, 2016; Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008; Sadri & Robertson, 1993; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) impacting on the type of coping strategy used to deal with labour demands (Salanova, Grau, & Martínez, 2006), on the motivation, work engagement and work satisfaction (Bargsted, Ramírez-Vielma, & Yeves, 2019; Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova 2007; Salanova, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2011; Spontón et al., 2018).

Given the crucial role of self-efficacy beliefs on the health, well-being and performance at workplace, the use of reliable and valid measures of this construct is required, taking into account not only the recent changes in the labor market but also the cultural diversity (Loeb, 2016; Rigotti et al., 2008). On one hand, more diverse skills are required involving not only generalized cognitive abilities but also emotional and relational skills (Pepe, Farnese, Avalone & Vecchione, 2010). On the other hand, globalization and migration movements between close Latin-countries demands validation of integrative measures which should take into account all these aspects. In addition, a previous study demonstrated that self-efficacy beliefs are differentiated as the professional acquires better skills and as he/she is able to distinguish between abilities demanded by the task and those required in the interaction with others (Dominguez-Lara, Fernández-Arata, Merino-Soto, Navarro-Loli, & Calderón-De la Cruz, 2019). Although some self-efficacy measures have been adapted in Argentinian population to be applied in specific jobs or areas (e.g. “Brief version of the Questionnaire Labor Self-efficacy”: Maffei, Spontón, Spontón, & Medrano, 2010; “Professional self-efficacy”: Maffei, Spontón, Spontón, Castellano, & Medrano, 2012; “Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale”: Menghi, Oros, & Abreu Marinho, 2015), they don't analyze the occupational task, social and emotional dimensionality of self-efficacy at work at the same time. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to translate and validate the three Occupational scales of Loeb et al. (2016): Emotional, Social and Task Self-efficacy scales in a sample of Argentinean employees.

Original scales were developed for Loeb et al. (2016) as brief measures for a wide range of workplaces. The authors included items to measure occupational task (Rigotti et al., 2008), and they developed items to address social, and emotional self-efficacy. Loeb et al. (2016) found social and emotional self-efficacy to be well differentiated from the cognitive task-oriented self-efficacy scale. The confirmatory factor analysis results have found four correlated self-efficacy dimensions at work: (1) occupational task, (2) social, (3) self-oriented emotional and (4) other-oriented emotional. Subsequently, two-group comparisons of invariance between the Swedish (n = 226) and German (n = 591) language versions were carried out to check for differences in measurement. On one hand, predictive validity was found for the social sub-scale predicting team climate over and above the occupational Task scale. On the other hand, self-oriented emotional self-efficacy showed a unique significant contribution of the variance in emotional irritation and emotional exhaustion beyond occupational self-efficacy (Loeb et al., 2016). Criterion validity was analyzed considering country and gender differences: women score greater than men in the other-oriented emotional self-efficacy scale but only in German employees. The same factorial structure and reliability were demonstrated for both Swedish and German language versions. Therefore, according to the specific domain of self-efficacy, there are three occupational dimensions: Task self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and emotional self-efficacy.

Occupational Task Self-efficacy

This concept refers to the belief and confidence in the own abilities to perform tasks involved in his or her job (Schyns & von Collani, 2002; Rigotti et al., 2008). People with high occupational task self-efficacy believe in their ability to move their cognitive resources and the course of action necessary to take control over the events of their lives (Bandura, 1977). They feel capable of performing tasks and perform them better. People with high occupational task efficacy persist in it, even in adversity, and they tend to interpret the problems more as challenges than threats. They increase their effort in the face of possible failures, and in case this happens they quickly recover their sense of effectiveness. Likewise, they face threats with the assurance that they can control those (Martínez & Salanova, 2006).

Occupational Social Self-efficacy

This factor involves “employee’s confidence in his/her ability to engage in the social interactional tasks necessary to initiate, maintain and develop interpersonal relationships at work” (Smith & Betz, 2000, p. 286). Employees with high social self-efficacy can complete effective social tasks at the workplace, as well as develop and maintain good relationships with others in the organization. They are probably going to like their co-workers and get help from them (Fan et al., 2013). In addition, social self-efficacy can be essential for building a team climate (Loeb et al., 2016)

Occupational Emotional Self-efficacy

Bandura (1997) defines emotional self-efficacy as an employee’s confidence in his or her ability to perceive, understand, regulate and use emotional information at work. Emotional self-efficacy includes a network of beliefs regarding one's ability to achieve results at different levels of specificity of emotional functioning (Schutte, 2018). Thus, these employees are able to recognize emotions and help to modify the emotions of others (Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008, 2011). However, several studies have shown the importance of differentiating two dimensions: self- and other-oriented emotional self-efficacy (Choi, Kluemper, & Sauley, 2013; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Eklund, Loeb, Hansen, & Andersson-Wallin, 2012; Loeb et al., 2016). Self-oriented dimension focuses on personal development, and the other-oriented dimension aims to the relationships, interaction, and group dynamics (Loeb et al., 2016). Self-oriented emotional self-efficacy may be relevant for reducing emotional irritation and exhaustion (Fan et al., 2013; Loeb et al., 2016). Other-oriented emotional self-efficacy could be more relevant for leaders because they have to care and understand their staff (Deschênes, Dussault, & Fernet, 2016; Loeb, 2016; Loeb et al., 2016).

Professional self-efficacy

According to Cherniss (1993), professional self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs in the ability to correctly fulfil their professional role. This construct involves workers’ beliefs about their own abilities to carry out successfully activities related to their profession (Maffei et al., 2012). These beliefs affect the choice and development of new activities. People tend to avoid activities that they think exceed their capabilities and perform those they consider capable of mastering. It has been observed that the beliefs of professional self-efficacy determine the amount of time that workers spend solving problems (Salanova, Bresó, & Schaufeli, 2005). Based on this concept we expect:

Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy at work will be positive correlated with professional self-efficacy.

Gender differences

Several studies suggest that gender roles can affect self-efficacy scores. In terms of occupational self-efficacy, previous research shows that men report higher occupational self-efficacy than women (Abele & Spurk, 2009; Deschênes et al., 2016; Loeb et al., 2016; Williams & Betz, 1994). However, these differences vary according to the work domain: men have high scores in business and logical skills while women reported high self-efficacy in social and artistic domains (Feehan & Johnston, 1999; Koumoundourou, 2004; Lucas, Wanberg, & Zytowski, 1997).

Although the role of the female gender is associated with a social nature and it is expected that women report greater social self-efficacy than men (Eagly & Wood, 2011), Loeb et al. (2016) report no differences in gender for social self-efficacy. For emotional self-efficacy, previous research indicates that women are generally perceived to be better identifying and dealing with emotions of others, and understanding their own emotions (Deschênes et al., 2016; Loeb et al., 2016). Based on these previous studies, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2a. Men will report higher task self-efficacy than women.

Hypothesis 2b. Women will report a higher social self-efficacy than men.

Hypothesis 2c. Women will report higher self-oriented and other-oriented emotional self-efficacy than men.

People in charge

Previous research has found that managers that have higher task self-efficacy are considered more reliable in their ability to complete work demands (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). In addition, solidarity behavior leadership and positive feedback are effective to the development of other's self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 1999; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Loeb et al. (2016) have found that social self-efficacy is an important predictor of team climate over and above occupational task self-efficacy. Luthans and Peterson (2002) reported positive correlations between self-efficacy and managers’ engagement with their work and ratings of managerial effectiveness. Furthermore, high self-efficacy has been found to relate to successful task leadership, higher levels of motivation, and the application of greater effort (Schyns & Sanders, 2005). Based on previous studies we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3. Employees with people in charge will report higher self-efficacy, social and emotional self-efficacy than employees without people in charge.

Method

Participants

A non-probabilistic sample of 771 employees was selected. 58% of the participants were female and 42% were male. Subjects ranged in age from 18 and 76 (M = 31.79; SD = 11.09). Regarding the level of education, 55% of the participants had an incomplete university education level, 24.8% had a complete university education level, 13.1% postgraduate level and 7.1% complete high school education level.

Employee’s affiliation institution was from private (n = 619) and public (n =152) organizations. Participants’ average experience in their current job was 5.28 years (SD = 6.78) and the overall job experience was 10.92 years (SD = 10.09). 65.2 % (n = 503) of employees reported no people in charge, the 23.1 % (n = 178) have between one and five, and 11.07% six or more people in charge.

Measures

A translated Spanish version of the Self-efficacy at work scale.

Occupational Emotional, Social, and Task Self-efficacy scales (Loeb et al., 2016) were administered in order to analyze the psychometric properties of this scale in Argentinian employees. The original scales (Loeb et al., 2016) includes 19 items that measure 4 factors: occupational task self-efficacy (items 1 to 6; α= 0.79) oriented to cognitive tasks in the workplace (e.g. item 2: “When I am confronted with a problem in my job, I can usually find several solutions”), occupational social self-efficacy (items 7 to 11; α = 0.87) (e.g. item 10 “...cooperate with people at work who see things differently than you”), occupational self-oriented emotional self-efficacy (items 12 to 15; α = 0.71) (e.g. item 13 “...know what causes you to feel a negative emotion at work”) and other-oriented emotional self-efficacy (items 16 to 19; α = 0.86) (e.g. item 19 “... help other people at work get into the mood that best suit the situation”). It consists of two parts. Part 1) occupational task self-efficacy 1-6 items and were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and part 2) items 7-19, participants were asked to evaluate how capable they felt in carrying out the described action or behavior on a Likert scale, from 1 (Not well at all) to 5 (Very well).

Professional Self-efficacy (Maffei et al., 2012).

It was used an Argentinian version of AU-10 scale (Maffei et al., 2012) adapted from the original Spanish AU-10 scale (Salanova, 2004). AU-10 is a 10-items self-report measure addressing the workers’ beliefs about their own abilities to successfully carry out activities associated with their profession (for example, "I am sure that I will be able to reach my goals at work"). Participants were asked to rate how often each situation occurred using a 7-points scale, from 0 (never or never) to 6 (always or every day). In this sample the reliability as internal consistency was adequate (α = .93) similar values reported by Maffei et al., (2012) (α = .81).

Additionally, the participants complete a Sociodemographic questionnaire. It includes questions about age, sex, educational level, job position and if they have people in charge or not, tenure in their current job position and overall job tenure, public or private organization.

Procedure and analyses

Firstly, the English version was translated into Spanish. It was used a back-translation method by three independent translators taking into account the guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC). The translators were bilingual in both English and Spanish languages, with experience in the content of the test, and with knowledge of assessment principles. Two self-efficacy experts evaluated the relevance, conceptual, and cultural equivalence of each item’s content using a three-option graduated scale (acceptable, not clear, not relevant). Subsequently, a pilot study was carried out whereby the selected items were administered to 10 workers of the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires (Argentina) over the age of 18.

Second, the employees were invited to participate in the research through social networks. Those interested in participating were contacted individually via email so that they could contact the experimenter if they wished. Each participant was informed of the objective of the investigation, the process and the commitment to confidentiality and anonymity of their participation. Participants recorded their voluntary participation agreement in an informed consent form, which also included the information that they could withdraw from the study at any point. The questionnaires were completed from February to September 2018. The instruments were administered online via Google Forms platform and the session lasted 20 to 30 minutes. There was no missing data because online forms used forced response options. The datasets analyses during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The following descriptive measures were calculated for each item: mean, standard deviation, asymmetry, and kurtosis. The compliance with the statistical assumptions of univariate normality, linearity of the relationships, and absence of multicollinearity, were evaluated. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out with a subsample of 198 employees in order to explore the factor structure of the self-efficacy construct. Confirmatory Factor Analyses with a new sample (n = 470) were also carried out to test the model. Data analysis was performed using JASP-Stats 14.01 (The JASP Team, 2020). The goodness of fit was evaluated using the Chi-square, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Total reliability and reliability of each factor as internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

Finally, Pearson correlations (n = 103) were calculated between factors of Self-efficacy at work scales and Professional Self-efficacy to provide evidence of convergent validity of the first scales. In addition, to analyze the concurrent validity, t-student tests (n = 771) were conducted for sociodemographic characteristics (gender: two categories; people in charge: two categories) and self-efficacy scales.

Ethical concerns

The study has been carried out considering the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013) and following the professional guidelines produced by American Psychological Association (APA, 2022). One of the principal concerns on online research is maintaining the anonymous and confidential information, protecting the vulnerability of participants. Therefore, the authors are reliant on participants' understanding and using privacy settings informed in the consent to prevent unintended sharing of personal information and research involvement. The consent was obtained electronically due to the risks for the subjects were low.

Results

Descriptive analyses

No atypical cases were identified. The analysis of multicollinearity shows that there were no inter-item correlations equal to or greater than .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In addition, all the asymmetry and kurtosis values are less than ± 2, within the normality parameters based on the criteria reported by George and Mallery (2019). However, Shapiro-Wilk Tests show non-normal distributions (p < .001).

Exploratory factor analyses

The distributions Kaiser Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .79 indicating that the data were appropriate for EFA (Kaiser, 1974). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (X² = 1206.649, p < .001). Based on these results, the matrix data were considered suitable for a factor analysis (EFA). Following the recommendations of Lloret-Segura, Ferreres-Traver, Hernández-Baeza and Tómas-Marco (2014), Weighted Least Square estimation method was used taking into account the ordinal data, non-normality distribution of the data, and the input for each analysis was the covariance matrix of the items. Parallel analysis was used as extraction method, suggesting a three-factor solution that explained the 38% of the variance of Self-efficacy at work. We adopted an oblique rotation method because there was a substantial theoretical basis to expect correlation among common factors (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Three items loading under cut-off point .40 (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014) were removed due to the cross-loading criteria (items 4, 8, 15). Table 1 shows the matrix of factor loadings for the solution of factors. Based on the content of the items and the original dimensions, we decided to name the three factors as it follows: 1) Social Self-efficacy, 2) Occupational task Self-efficacy, and 3) Self-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy (See Table 1).

Confirmatory factor analyses

Factorial Confirmatory Analyses (CFA) were conducted to test two different factor solutions (A) the original structure (four-factor solution) using all 19 items, and (B) three-factor solution without items 4, 8, 15, (version of 16 items). In all models’ solutions, the factors were allowed to correlate with one another and were analyzed using the estimator Diagonally Weighted Least Squares, Robust Method (Li, 2016). All fit statistics listed in Table 2.

Indicative criteria of very good fit as the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; with a confidence interval of 90%, and adequate values < .07), and the comparative fit index (CFI > .90) were used to analyze model fit and for comparison of the models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In the table 2, the fit indices revealed that both models have shown good fit index. Therefore, the four-factors of the original scale with 19 items solution have shown a better fit to the observed data compared with the three-factor solution (Model B, 16 items). The four-factors model involved the following dimensions: 1) Occupational task Self-efficacy (6 items), 2) Social Self-efficacy (5 items), 3) Self-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy (4 items) and 4) Other-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy (See Figure 1).

Reliability analyses

The results indicate an appropriate internal consistency for overall self-efficacy at work (α = .85) and for each factor (Occupational task Self-efficacy α = .73; Social Self-efficacy α = .71; Self-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy α = .75; Other-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy α = .79).

Convergent validity

Convergence studies consist of evaluating the extent to which correlations are observed between the scores of instruments that evaluate theoretically related or similar constructs. The scores obtained on the Self-efficacy at work scale were correlated with those obtained in the AU-10 questionnaire. As expected, all three dimensions were positively associated with professional self-efficacy. A strong correlation between “Total self-efficacy at work score” and “professional self-efficacy” was observed (r = .648; p < .001), which suggests that both instruments measure similar constructs. In addition, positive correlations were found between professional self-efficacy score and each dimension: Occupational task Self-efficacy (r = .607; p < .001), Social Self-efficacy (r = .423; p < .001), Self-orient Emotional Self-efficacy (r = .565; p < .001) and Other-oriented Emotional Self-efficacy (r = .358; p < .001) (See Table 3).

Sociodemographic differences

Analysis of t-student tests was conducted for occupational task, social, and emotional self-efficacy. There were differences of gender on task self-efficacy men reported higher task self-efficacy (M = 4.19; SD = .56) than women (M = 4.08; SD = .60). There were no gender differences for social self-efficacy (t₍₇₆₉₎ = -1.30; p = .195; Cohen's d = -.096) and self-oriented emotional self-efficacy (t₍₇₆₉₎ = .260; p = .795; Cohen's d =.019). However, there is differences of gender on task self-efficacy (t₍₇₆₉₎ = 2.258; p = .024; Cohen's d =.165): women reported higher Other-oriented emotional self-efficacy (M = 3.94; SD = .74) than men (M = 3.82; SD = .75).

Results indicated differences between employees with/without people in charge. Employees with people in charge have more occupational task self-efficacy (M = 4.19; SD = .60) than employees without people in charge (M = 4.09; SD = .58; t₍₇₆₉₎ = -2.196; p = .028; Cohen's d = -.166). For social self-efficacy there was significant difference (t₍₇₆₉₎ = -2.284; p = .023; Cohen's d = -.173): employees with people in charge (M = 4.15; SD = .59) reported higher social self-efficacy than employees without people in charge (M = 4.05; SD= .62). No differences for self-oriented and other-oriented emotional self-efficacy dimensions were found.

Discussion

The main purpose of the present study was to validate the three Occupational scales of Loeb et al. (2016): Emotional, Social and Task Self-efficacy scales in a sample of Argentinean employees. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have shown that the validated Spanish version has the same original structure, and it measures four dimensions of self-efficacy at workplace. Thus, this version is a reliable and valid measure for Argentinian workers. Although the exploratory factor analysis suggested a different model of three factors (with three excluded items due to their factorial load below >.40), and this model fit to the data, the original four-factor structure has a better fit index.

These four dimensions are related to self-efficacy to perform in an efficacious way in the work context, to manage interpersonal relationships, to perceive, use, understand, and regulate emotions and to achieve assigned goals. These results support the idea that self-efficacy is a highly contextualized construct, and it can be defined as the degree of employees' confidence in their ability to reach a specified level of achievement in a particular context (Bandura, 2001). According to Bandura, self-efficacy plays a significant role facilitating desirable behaviors and overcoming adversities, and it helps individuals of any culture to achieve their personal goals (Bandura, 2000; Scholz, Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). Previous research supports the use of specific measures of efficacy beliefs in specific domains. These specific measures allow more robust results, and they have greater predictive power than general measures of self-efficacy (e.g., Grau, Salanova, & Peiró, 2012; Lindley & Borgen, 2002; Pepe et al., 2010; Salanova, Peiró, & Schaufeli, 2002).

Findings of the present study confirm our hypothesis that self-efficacy at work has a positive and significant correlation with professional self-efficacy, providing convergent validity to the Spanish version scale. A Moderate correlation between both total scores (self-efficacy at work scale and AU-10 questionnaire) suggests that the construct examined by both instruments is similar, but not the same. Specifically, task self-efficacy factor has the strongest correlation with professional self-efficacy, indicating that this dimension focuses on workers' beliefs about their effectiveness on the task. However, the Spanish self-efficacy at work scale adds other non-cognitive dimensions that were less correlated with AU-10 questionnaire, such as emotional and social factors.

Results show a significant difference by gender in occupational task self-efficacy: men have higher scores than women. These results may be due to gender roles in the work context, consistently with previous studies (Abele & Spurk, 2009; Loeb et al., 2016; Williams & Betz, 1994). However, our hypothesis that women would report greater social self-efficacy have not found evidence. In this regard, Loeb et al. (2016) state that interactions in the work context are not exclusive to women. Finally, emotional self-efficacy results show that there are no gender differences in the confidence to recognize and manage one's own emotions. However, there are differences in the “other-oriented emotional self-efficacy”. These results are consistent with Deschênes et al. (2016) study, where women were able to identify the emotions of others. Scholz et al. (2002) state that men and women respond similarly, although there may be slight differences in average scores that do not imply a particular psychological significance.

The findings of the present study indicated differences in self-efficacy among employees who have and do not have personnel in charge. People with staff have more occupational task self-efficacy and social self-efficacy than employees without staff in charge, supporting partially our Hypothesis 4a. These results are consistent with previous studies where the beliefs about own social skills influence on team climate (Loeb et al., 2016). A role of leader demands not only occupational task self-efficacy but also certain confidence to manage, in a good mood, problematic social interactions at work. This finding provides evidence of discriminant validity to the scale between different demands of the task. However, no differences were found in emotional self-efficacy as we expected. Further studies should be carried out to analyze if these emotional dimensions are more relevant for leaders performing a specific type of tasks or professional roles which were not included in the present study.

Fan et al. (2013) state that self-efficacy is a dynamic and malleable resource depending on external influences such as training and coaching. Therefore, understanding self-efficacy at work can be essential for building a team climate and especially self-oriented emotional. In addition, this resource could be useful for reducing emotional irritation and exhaustion (Loeb et al., 2016). Thus, self-efficacy is a key factor to facilitate optimal human working within labor organizations (Maffei et al., 2012; Salanova et al., 2005; Spontón et al., 2018).

Limitations.

One of the limitations is that a non-probabilistic sampling could produce some bias effects in the data set. Therefore, future studies should try to obtain a stratified random sample. In addition, self-efficacy is a construct that varies with age and experience; given that it ranges in age from 18 to 76 years old, these characteristics could have influenced the present results. Therefore, future research could consider a balanced age and experience group ratio.

Conclusion

The Spanish version of Self-efficacy at work Scales has adequate psychometric properties. Results demonstrated that this version has an adequate internal consistency, construct, and convergent validity to use in Argentinian employees. In addition, this adapted version maintains the original internal structure for Argentinian workers (four-factor model). Future studies should analyze the predictive validity of this instrument on job performance in different tasks according to their cognitive/personality demands. In addition, it could be interesting to study similar and different constructs related to outcomes at workplace for different professions. One promising area for future research is the integration of individual differences into existing models of performance. We agree with Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott and Rich (2007) that future research should analyze the joint effect of self-efficacy at work with personality traits on work behaviors.

Acknowledgments

We want to express our acknowledgements to Carina Loeb for all her predisposition and for providing us with the information about the original scale.

References

Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.005

American Psychological Association (2022). APA Professional Practice Guidelines. Recuperado de: https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. En L. Pervin, & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality (pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bargsted, M., Ramírez-Vielma, R., & Yeves, J. (2019). Professional self-efficacy and job satisfaction: The mediator role of work design. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(3), 157-163. doi: 10.5093/jwop2019a18

Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of burnout. En W. Schaufeli, & C. Maslach (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research (pp.135-149). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Choi, S., Kluemper, D. H., & Sauley, K. S. (2013). Assessing emotional self‐efficacy: Evaluating validity and dimensionality with cross‐cultural samples. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 97-123. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00515.x

Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2012). The dimensional structure of the emotional self‐efficacy scale (ESES). Australian Journal of Psychology, 64(3), 147-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00039.x

Deschênes, A. A., Dussault M. D., & Fernet, C. (2016). Développement et validation de l’échelle d’auto-efficacité émotionnelle chez les gestionnaires. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 22(4), 255-272. doi: 10.1016/j.pto.2016.10.001

Dominguez-Lara, S., Fernández-Arata, M., Merino-Soto, C., Navarro-Loli, J., & Calderón-De la Cruz, G. (2019). Escala de Autoeficacia Docente: análisis estructural e invarianza de medición en docentes peruanos de escuelas públicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 11(3), 61-72. doi: 10.32348/1852.4206.v11.n3.24624

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2011). Feminism and the evolution of sex differences and similarities. Sex Roles, 64(9-10), 758-767. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9

Eklund, J., Loeb, C., Hansen, E. M., & Andersson-Wallin, A. C. (2012). Who cares about others?: Empathic self-efficacy as an antecedent to prosocial behavior. Current Research in Social Psychology, 20(3), 31-41.

Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory Factor Analysis Understanding Statistics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fan, J., Litchfield, R. C., Islam, S., Weiner, B., Alexander, M., Liu, C., & Kulviwat, S. (2013). Workplace social self-efficacy: Concept, measure, and initial validity evidence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(1), 91–110. doi: 10.1177/1069072712454702

Feehan, P. F., & Johnston, J. A. (1999). The Self-Directed Search and career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(2), 145-159. doi: 10.1177/106907279900700204

Ferrari, H., Nunes, M., & Marín, F. (2018). Autoeficacia en el trabajo: revisión bibliométrica entre 2004 y 2014 en la base de datos Ebsco - Academic Search. Psicología desde el Caribe, 34(3), 204- 218. doi: 10.14482/psdc.33.2.72788

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference (6th ed.). Routledge: IBM. doi: 10.4324/9780429056765

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211. doi: 10.5465/amr.1992.4279530

Grau, R., Salanova, M., & Peiró, J. M. (2012). Efectos moduladores de la autoeficacia en el estrés laboral. Apuntes de Psicología, 30(1-3), 311-321.

Heuven, E., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Huisman, N. (2006). The role of self-efficacy in performing emotion work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(2), 222-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.03.002

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107-127. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575

Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 432-436. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.010

Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2011). The Effect of an Expressive-Writing Intervention for Employees on Emotional Self-Efficacy, Emotional Intelligence, Affect, and Workplace Incivility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 179–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00708.x

Koumoundourou, G. A. (2004). The reliability and validity of the Greek version of the task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(1), 75-92. doi: 10.1080/03069880310001648067

Li, C. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936-949. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7

Lindley, L. D., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Generalized self-efficacy, Holland theme self-efficacy, and academic performance. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(3), 301-314. doi: 10.1177/10672702010003002

Llorens, S., García-Renedo, M., & Salanova, M. (2005). Burnout como consecuencia de una crisis de eficacia: un estudio longitudinal en profesores de secundaria. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 21(1-2), 55-70.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 825-841. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012

Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241-251. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241

Loeb, C. (2016). Self-efficacy at work: Social, Emotional and cognitive dimensions (Tesis Doctoral). Mälardalen University, Suecia.

Loeb, C., Stempel, C., & Isaksson, K. (2016). Social and emotional self‐efficacy at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 152-161. doi:10.1111/sjop.12274

Lucas, J. L., Wanberg, C. R., & Zytowski, D. G. (1997). Development of a career task self-efficacy scale: The Kuder Task Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 432-459. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.1548

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 376-387. doi: 10.1108/02621710210426864

Maffei, L., Spontón, C., Spontón, M., Castellano, E., & Medrano, L. A. (2012). Adaptación del Cuestionario de Autoeficacia Profesional (AU-10) a la población de trabajadores cordobeses. Pensamiento Psicológico, 10(1), 51-62.

Maffei, L., Spontón, C., Spontón, M., & Medrano, L. (octubre, 2010). Características psicométricas de la versión resumida del Cuestionario de Autoeficacia Laboral. Trabajo presentado en el Congreso Panamericano de Psicología, Universidad Católica de Salta. Salta, Argentina.

Martínez, I., & Salanova, M. (2006). Autoeficacia en el trabajo: el poder de creer que tú puedes. Estudios Financieros, 279, 175-202.

Menghi, M. S., Oros, L. B., & Abreu Marinho, R. (2015). Estudio psicométrico de la escala para evaluar Autoeficacia Docente de Albert Bandura en una muestra argentina. Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 61(1), 22-32.

Pepe, S. J., Farnese, M. L., Avalone, F., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Work Self-Efficacy Scale and Search for Work Self-Efficacy Scale: A Validation Study in Spanish and Italian cultural contexts. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(3), 201-210. doi: 10.5093/tr2010v26n3a4

Pereyra Girardi, C. I., Ronchieri Pardo, C. D., Rivas, A., Trueba, D. A., Mur, J. A., & Páez Vargas, N. (2018). Autoeficacia: Una Revisión Aplicada a Diversas Áreas de la Psicología. Ajayu Órgano de Difusión Científica del Departamento de Psicología UCBSP, 16(2), 299-325.

Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A Short Version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale: Structural and Construct Validity Across Five Countries. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 238–255. doi: 10.1177/1069072707305763

Roman, C. W. (2017). Using a model of emotional self-efficacy in predicting work outcomes. (Tesis Doctoral). San Diego, Alliant International University. Recuperado de: https://search.proquest.com/openview/64642a2f4b6637a63a8fe57704f70b3f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42(2), 139–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00728.x

Salanova, M. (2004). Prácticas de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. España: Editorial Sanz y Torres.

Salanova, M., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Hacia un modelo espiral de las creencias de eficacia en el estudio del burnout y del engagement. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11(2-3), 215-231.

Salanova, M., Grau, R. M., & Martínez, I. M. (2006). Job demands and coping behaviour: The moderating role of professional self-efficacy. Psychology in Spain, 10(1), 1-7.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). “Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology, 60(2), 255-285. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x

Salanova, M., Peiró, J., & Schaufeli, W. (2002). Self-efficacy specificity and burnout among information technology workers: an extension of the job demands-control-model. European Journal on Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000735

Scholz, U., Doña, B. S., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3), 242-251. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.18.3.242

Schutte, N. (2018). Emotional Self-Efficacy. En L. D. Pool, & P. Qualter (Eds.), An introduction to emotional intelligence (pp. 32-43). Lancashire: John Wiley & Sons.

Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2005). Exploring gender differences in leaders' occupational self-efficacy. Women in Management Review, 20(7), 513-523. doi: 10.1108/09649420510624747

Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219-241. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000148

Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived social self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 283–301. doi: 10.1177/106907270000800306

Spontón, C., Castellano, E., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Maffei, L., & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Evaluación de un modelo sociocognitivo de autoeficacia, burnout y engagement en el trabajo: análisis de invarianza entre Argentina y España. Psychologia, 12(1), 89-101. doi: 10.21500/19002386.3226

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240–261. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Principal components and factor analysis. En Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics, (pp. 582-633). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

The JASP Team (2020). JASP-Stats (version 0.14.01) [Software de computación]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Recuperado de: https://jasp-stats.org

Vancouver, J. B., More, K. M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 35–47. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.35

Wang, J. H., Chang, C. C., Yao, S. N., & Liang, C. (2016). The contribution of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. Higher Education, 72(2), 209-224. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9946-y

Williams, T. W., & Betz, N. E. (1994). The relationships among occupational and task-specific measures of career self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 2(4), 341-351. doi: 10.1177/10690727900200402

World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053

Notas de autor

Enviar correspondencia a: Robalino Guerra, P. E-mail: paulina.e.robalino@gmail.com

Información adicional

Citar este artículo como: Robalino Guerra, P. E., & Musso, M. F. (2022). Self-efficacy at Workplace: Validation of Spanish Versions of Occupational Emotional, Social, and Task Self-efficacy scales. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 14(1), 104-115

Enlace alternativo

https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/racc/article/view/30008/37572 (pdf)