Self-Efficacy for Public Engagement with Science (PES)

This scale documents scientists' self-efficacy in their ability to conduct reciprocal public engagement activities. The scale can provide baseline data to describe the range of self-efficacy found among a group of scientists. If embedded within the context of a scientist training program, the scale has the potential to serve as a reflection tool for scientists by providing data on the relative strengths and areas of improvement in their PES activities. The scale can also be used as a longitudinal measure to document changes in self-efficacy over time. Using the scale in this way is advisable only in situations that involve a sustained intervention with multiple interaction points that take place over weeks or months.

Average Review: 0 (not yet rated)

Supplemental Information:

Assessment Type:

13-item self-efficacy scale

Scale:

Multiple choice, point scale (e.g. Likert scale), or selected response

Publication Date:

Nov 21, 2017

Respondent:

Outreach or programs hosted/facilitated by STEM professionals

Domain(s) Evaluated:

Attitude / Behavior

Sample items:

N/A

Reliability:

Contained in the supplemental document

Validity:

Contained in the supplemental document

Frequency:

Sometimes

Administration time:

<15 minutes

Requires a Computer:

No

Requires Internet Access:

No

Primary reference:

Robertson Evia, J., Peterman, K., Cloyd, E., & Besley, J. (2017). Validating a scale that measures scientists’ self-efficacy for public engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education - Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21548455.2017.1377852.

Comments:

Twenty-five scientists participated in think aloud interviews to provide response process evidence to support the use of specific survey items (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014). Scientists were from a range of disciplines. All had been involved in PES within the past year. Most had recently engaged in some sort of public dialogue event (n=16), while others were involved with a university or cooperative extension activity (n=5), policy deliberation (n=2), or knowledge coproduction activity (n=2). The think-aloud interviews narrowed down the number of items from 30 to 19 that were intuitive to scientists and yielded a range of rating responses. These items were then administered to a test sample of 297 scientists who had conducted at least one PES activity in the past year.

STEM Criteria

Science

Yes

Technology

No

Engineering

No

Math

No
Contact

Karen Peterman
Karen Peterman Consulting, Co.
karenpetermanphd@gmail.com