IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0314879.html

The English Debating Self-Efficacy Scale: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties

Author

Listed:
  • Fanghua Liu
  • Yanchao Yang
  • Feng (Robin) Wang
  • Wangze Li

Abstract

The importance of English debate in fostering critical thinking and the role of self-efficacy in enhancing confidence and performance in this domain are widely acknowledged. However, a significant gap exists in the literature regarding the measurement of self-efficacy specifically within English debate. This research seeks to fill this gap by developing and validating an English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale (EDSS). Using a sample of 1,259 participants from an independent college in Hebei Province, China, the study divided participants into two groups: 613 for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and 646 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with convenience sampling as the chosen methodology. EFA revealed three core dimensions of debate-related self-efficacy: Language proficiency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .894), Debating skills (Cronbach’s Alpha = .861), and Team collaboration (Cronbach’s Alpha = .831). Subsequent CFA validation with an independent sample confirmed the scale’s structure, demonstrating strong structural, convergent, and discriminant validity. Additionally, significant correlations between the English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale and the English Proficiency Self-Efficacy Scale supported the scale’s criterion validity. These findings underscore the scale’s potential as a reliable tool for assessing self-efficacy in English debate contexts, offering valuable insights for research, teaching, and training in educational settings. Limitations related to sample representativeness and research design were also discussed, providing a foundation for future studies to expand upon. In conclusion, the English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale (EDSS) is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring self-efficacy in the context of English debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanghua Liu & Yanchao Yang & Feng (Robin) Wang & Wangze Li, 2025. "The English Debating Self-Efficacy Scale: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314879
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314879
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314879&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0314879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.