Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
Despite its popularity in practice, the Grit-O Scale has shown inconsistent factorial structures and differing levels of internal consistency in samples outside the USA. The validity of the Grit-O Scale in different contexts is, therefore, questionable. As such, the purpose of this paper was to determine whether the Grit-O Scale could be used as a valid and reliable measure to compare grit across different nations. Specifically, the aim was to investigate the factorial validity, reliability, and concurrent validity of the Grit-O Scale and to investigate measurement invariance across three national cohorts (Europe, the USA, and Hong Kong). Data were gathered from 1888 respondents stemming from one USA- (n = 471), two Hong Kong- (n = 361) and four European (n = 1056) universities. A series of traditional CFA and less restrictive ESEM models were estimated and systematically compared to determine the best factorial form of the Grit-O Scale. The results showed that a bifactor ESEM model, with one general factor of overall grit and two specific factors (consistency of interest and perseverance of effort), fitted the data best, showed strong measurement invariance across the three samples, and showed itself to be a reliable measure. Furthermore, concurrent validity was established by showing that the three grit factors were directly and positively related to task performance. Meaningful latent comparisons between the three cultural cohorts could therefore be made. The results imply that cross-national comparisons of grit may only be problematic when traditional CFA approaches are favoured. In contrast, ESEM modelling approaches may compensate for cross-national differences in understanding grit and control for differences in the interpretation of the scale’s items. Therefore, the bifactor ESEM approach may be more appropriate for cross-cultural and cross-national comparison studies, as it allows for these differences to be meaningfully captured, modelled, and controlled for.
Academic self-efficacy (ASE) refers to a student’s global belief in his/her ability to master the various academic challenges at university and is an essential antecedent of wellbeing and performance. The five-item General Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (GASE) showed promise as a short and concise measure for overall ASE. However, of its validity and reliability outside of Scandinavia is limited. Therefore, this paper aimed to investigate the psychometric properties, longitudinal invariance, and criterion validity of the GASE within a sample of university students (Time 1: n = 1056 & Time 2: n = 592) in the USA and Western Europe. The results showed that a unidimensional factorial model of overall ASE fitted the data well was reliable and invariant across time. Further, criterion validity was established by finding a positive relationship with task performance at different time stamps. Therefore, the GASE can be used as a valid and reliable measure for general ASE.