The Indonesian Version of the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE): Differential Item Functioning Analysis Using a Mediated MIMIC Model

Rahmat S. Bintang; Burhan Burhan; Anhar Dana Putra

doi:10.22146/gamajop.107088

The Indonesian Version of the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE): Differential Item Functioning Analysis Using a Mediated MIMIC Model

https://doi.org/10.22146/gamajop.107088

Rahmat S. Bintang⁽¹⁾, Burhan Burhan^(2*), Anhar Dana Putra⁽³⁾

(1) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Bosowa, Makassar, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Education and Literature, Universitas Bosowa, Makassar, Indonesia
(3) Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Melbourne Australia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Self-efficacy refers to an individual's optimistic belief in their own capabilities—the belief that they can perform difficult tasks and overcome challenges effectively. One commonly used instrument for measuring self-efficacy is the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). This study aimed to examine the factor structure and differential item functioning (DIF) of the Indonesian version of the GSE. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the factor structure, whereas the Mediated MIMIC model was applied to assess DIF. The participants were 534 undergraduate students (102 males and 432 females) aged 17–25 years (M = 20.06, SD = 1.34). A non-probability sampling method with a convenience sampling technique was used. The findings indicated that CFA supported a one-factor (unidimensional) model with a good fit to the data. At the item-parameter level, all 10 items of the Indonesian version of the GSE showed statistically significant factor loadings. However, gender-related DIF was detected in Item 3. These findings suggest that although the Indonesian version of the GSE demonstrates a unidimensional measurement structure, researchers and practitioners should interpret gender-based comparisons cautiously because Item 3 may function differently across male and female respondents.

Keywords

CFA; DIF; Mediated MIMIC model; Self-efficacy

Full Text:

PDF

References

Adriansyah, M. A., Rahayu, D., & Prastika, N. D. (2015). Pengaruh terapi berpikir positif, Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), Mengelola Hidup dan Merencanakan Masa Depan (MHMMD) terhadap penurunan kecemasan karir pada mahasiswa Universitas Mulawarman. Psikoislamika: Jurnal Psikologi dan Psikologi Islam, 12(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.18860/psi.v12i2.6403

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 and Company.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.

Bonsaksen, T., Kottorp, A., Gay, C., Fagermoen, M. S., & Lerdal, A. (2013). Rasch analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in a sample of persons with morbid obesity. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, Article 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-202

Bosscher, R. J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(3), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00025-4

Britner, S., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 15–? https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.v7.i4.10

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.

Chan, R. C. H. (2022). A social cognitive perspective on gender disparities in self-efficacy, interest, and aspirations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM): The influence of cultural and gender norms. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00352-0

Cheng, Y., Shao, C., & Lathrop, Q. N. (2016). The mediated MIMIC model for understanding the underlying mechanism of DIF. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415576187

Espinosa, T., Araújo, I., & Mazur, E. (2019). Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team- and project-based introductory physics class. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), Article 010132. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.010132

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Filho, N. H., Machado, W. D. L., & Damásio, B. F. (2014). Effects of statistical models and item difficulties on making trait-level inferences: A simulation study. Psychology/Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(4), 670–678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201427407

Finch, H. (2005). The MIMIC model as a method for detecting DIF: Comparison with Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST, and the IRT likelihood ratio. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29(4), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605275728

Gómez-Benito, J., Sireci, S., Padilla, J. L., Hidalgo, M. D., & Benítez, I. (2018). Differential item functioning: Beyond validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 30(1), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.183

Hagquist, C. (2019). Explaining differential item functioning focusing on the crucial role of external information: An example from the measurement of adolescent mental health. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19, Article 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0828-3

Hayat, B., Rahayu, W., Putra, M. D. K., Sarifah, I., Deviana, T., Puri, V. G. S., & Isa, K. (2023). Metacognitive skills assessment in research-proposal writing (MSARPW) in the Indonesian university context: Scale development and validation using multidimensional item response models. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 12(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v12i1.31679

Holter, M., Avian, A., Weger, M., Strini, S., Michelitsch, M., Winkler, V., Kloft, A. M., Groß, J., Falb, T., Gabriel, M., Großpötzl, M., Wedrich, A., & Berghold, A. (2025). Uncovering potential interviewer-related biases in self-efficacy assessment: A study among chronic disease patients. BMC Psychology, 13, Article 299. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02579-2

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

Husain, U. (2014). Relationship between self-efficacy and academic motivation. https://doi.org/10.15242/icehm.ed1214132

Ibrahim, A. W. (2018). Differential item functioning: The state of the art. Jigawa Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 37–50.

Kutuk, G. (2025). Understanding gender stereotypes in the context of foreign language learning through the lens of social cognitive theory. TESOL Journal, 59, 1081–1105. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3267

Martinková, P., Drabinová, A., Liaw, Y. L., Sanders, E. A., McFarland, J. L., & Price, R. M. (2017). Checking equity: Why differential item functioning analysis should be a routine part of developing conceptual assessments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), Article rm2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0307

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30

Mulu, M. (2023). Self-efficacy: A view from junior high school students and its gender interaction. Journal of Educational Science and Technology, 9(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.26858/est.v9i1.48373

Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2020). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

Penfield, R. D., & Camilli, G. (2006). Differential item functioning and item bias. In Handbook of statistics. Elsevier Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26005-X

Robinson, K. A., Perez, T., White-Levatich, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2022). Gender differences and roles of two science self-efficacy beliefs in predicting post-college outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90(2), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1808944

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15–31). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). General Self-Efficacy Scale (General Self-Efficacy) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1292–1306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1292

Suseno, M., Hayat, B., Putra, M. D. K., Bien, J. K., Rachmawati, R., & Hartanto, H. (2022). A differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of the Mobile Phone Problem Use Scale in Indonesian schools with and without smartphone banned policy. Cogent Psychology, 9(1), Article 2137306. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2137306

Umar, J., & Nisa, Y. F. (2020). Uji validitas dengan CFA dan pelaporannya. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v9i2.16964

Wahyudi, H. (2019). Pengaplikasian multiple indicator multiple causes (MIMIC) model dalam mendeteksi differential item functioning (DIF) pada alat ukur social quality of life. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 8(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v8i1.12581

Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2020). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Wang, W.-C., Shih, C.-L., & Yang, C.-C. (2009). The MIMIC method with scale purification for detecting differential item functioning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332228

Woods, C. M., & Grimm, K. J. (2011). Testing for nonuniform differential item functioning with multiple indicator multiple cause models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 35(5), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621611405984

Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.

Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/gamajop.107088

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 12 |

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Recent Issues

Explore the latest publications of Gadjah Mada Journal of Psychology (GamaJoP)

Vol. 11, Issue 1 (2025)

Pages 1–69

View Issue →

Vol. 10, Issue 2 (2024)

Pages 79–161

View Issue →

Vol. 10, Issue 1 (2024)

Pages 1–78

View Issue →

Vol. 9, Issue 2 (2023)

Pages 163–292

View Issue →

Published by

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

Address
Building D 6^th Floor (606), Faculty of Psychology,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jl. Sosio Humaniora No. 1,
Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia

Email
gamajop.psikologi@ugm.ac.id

Phone / WhatsApp
+62 811-2521-0175