The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
Assessing the Dimension of Magnitude in Computer Self-efficacy: An Empirical Comparison of Task-Based and Levels of Assistance-Based Methodologies
Abstract
Computer Self-efficacy (CSE) has been used in many studies as a predictor of individual competence or performance, usage behavior, and a variety of attitudes. Although CSE has been effective in explaining a variety of human computing interactions, there have been a number of studies in which the relationship was weak or nonexistent. One reason for such findings concerns how CSE is operationalized in extant instruments. Many (if not most) leading cognitive theorists (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Marakas et al., 1998) rather emphatically state that actual tasks must be used to most accurately determine an individual’s perception of ability (i.e., self-efficacy) for some task or domain. They suggest that using tasks, of incremental difficulty level within the intended domain, most accurately presents an individual’s self-efficacy and leads to stronger relationships with outcomes such as competence or performance. Yet one of the most utilized measures of self-efficacy uses levels of assistance (GCSE of Compeau & Higgins, 1995a), and not specific tasks. This study examines which methodology provides a stronger relationship with competence and performance. Using a sample of 610, self-efficacy (using both methodologies) and competence or performance were measured for six different computer application domains. Results indicate that for domains in which individual’s had lower ability, actual tasks were superior. For domains of higher ability, however, levels of assistance yielded stronger relationships. This study clarifies the relationship between self-efficacy and performance as an individual moves from low to high ability in a computing domain as a result of training or experience. Implications and suggestions for further study are included.
Related Content
|
Rod D. Roscoe, Russell J. Branaghan, Nancy J. Cooke, Scotty D. Craig.
© 2018.
34 pages.
|
|
Steve Ritter, R. Charles Murray, Robert G. M. Hausmann.
© 2018.
17 pages.
|
|
Yvonne S. Kao, Bryan J. Matlen, Michelle Tiu, Linlin Li.
© 2018.
24 pages.
|
|
Melissa L. Stone, Kevin M. Kent, Rod D. Roscoe, Kathleen M. Corley, Laura K. Allen, Danielle S. McNamara.
© 2018.
23 pages.
|
|
Elizabeth R. Kazakoff, Melissa Orkin, Kristine Bundschuh, Rachel L. Schechter.
© 2018.
24 pages.
|
|
Irfan Kula, Russell J. Branaghan, Robert K. Atkinson, Rod D. Roscoe.
© 2018.
17 pages.
|
|
Erin Walker, Ruth Wylie, Andreea Danielescu, James P. Rodriguez III, Ed Finn.
© 2018.
19 pages.
|
|
|