It has been well documented in the literature that parental cognitions contribute in central ways to child development and adjustment. Nevertheless, there are no other questionnaires in the Spanish context that measure parents’ perceptions toward their adolescent children’s efficacy. This study aims to develop and validate a new scale to measure parents’ perceptions toward their adolescent children’s efficacy. A total of 594 Spanish parents and their children aged between 11 and 16 years completed the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), the Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p), and the Adolescent Future Expectations Scale for Parents (AFES-p). Non-probability convenience sampling was used. We kept similar proportions in our sample when selecting participating schools (75.90% State schools and 24.10% private schools). The psychometric properties of the AGES-p scale were examined using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. We obtained a unidimensional factor structure, which explains 66.77% of the variance. This means that most of the observed variance in item responses is explained by a single latent construct. The reliability (α = 0.926) and convergent validity of the scale were found to be high. It can be observed that there are positive and significant correlations between AGES-p and the questionnaires used: GSE (r = 0.268) and AFES-p (r = 0.508).The AGES-p has the potential for evaluating parents’ perception toward their children’s efficacy. This scale in the Spanish context provides a new measurement instrument to the field of family evaluation, applicable both to research and psychoeducational, clinical, and social interventions.
Opmerkingen
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Self-perceptions of one’s abilities have a great impact on personality development, motivation, and behavior (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, 2007; Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). In educational settings, students’ perceptions of their abilities to regulate and evaluate their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions have been shown to influence their social and emotional development (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Paananen et al., 2019). Competence beliefs have been conceptualized in different ways and from different theoretical perspectives (for example, self-efficacy, self-concept, self-esteem, expectations of success, competence, etc.) (Marsh et al., 2017). This article focuses on self-efficacy and parental perception as a source of self-efficacy. More specifically, we validate a questionnaire of parents’ perception of their children’s efficacy.
Self-efficacy has been defined as an individual’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute their actions to attain desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Its study has aroused great interest in psychological research due to its impact on human functioning. Positive associations were found between self-efficacy and optimism, self-regulation, self-esteem, and academic performance, whereas negative associations were observed with depression and anxiety (Luszczynska et al., 2005; Medina & Medina, 2007). Previous studies identify two different ways to measure this construct: specific self-efficacy, referring to the sense of competence in certain situations and domains (Cid et al., 2010), and general self-efficacy, defined in a holistic sense, as self-confidence to cope with stressors in everyday life (Espada et al., 2012; Sanjuán et al., 2000). Most studies focus on measuring self-efficacy, explicitly limiting it to a particular task (Galleguillos-Herrera and Olmedo-Moreno, 2019; Nierman et al., 2020; De Oliviera et al., 2021). However, focusing on a general self-efficacy measure allows the analysis of perceptions of competencies to tackle novel tasks and cope with adversity in a broad range of situations and contexts (Bandura, 1997; Luszczynska et al., 2005).
The development of beliefs about one’s competence is the result of the interrelation of four variables: individual experience, observation of others’ experiences, physiological and affective state, and social persuasion (Bandura, 2012). The last variable, which refers to the influence of other people in the development of self-efficacy, will be the subject of this study. Following Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory, the role of significant others’ perceptions of the individual’s competence and their influence on the formation of self-efficacy have been highlighted (Bandura, 2012; Branje et al., 2010; Caligiore & Ison, 2018; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, 2007; Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011).
Although several settings influence the formation of perceived efficacy (school, friends, and family) (Caligiore & Ison, 2018; Galicia-Moyeda et al., 2013), this article will focus on parental beliefs about their adolescent children’s coping skills.
Parents play a fundamental role in developing their children’s motivations and achievement expectations. This influence works through their beliefs about their children’s abilities and the actions to achieve them (Simpkins et al., 2015). A reciprocal relationship between parents’ and children’s expectations has been found, affecting their successful outcomes, such as academic achievement (Zhang et al., 2011). As proposed by the parental socialization model (Eccles, 2007), there are different mechanisms through which parents can transfer their beliefs to their children. On the one hand, parents are transmitting their beliefs and values by providing their children with different opportunities and experiences and performing different practices and behaviors. On the other hand, parents act as “interpreters of reality” for their children through their perceptions of the world and their children’s capabilities or competencies, perceptions that parents transmit to the children in their messages. Both through direct instruction and modeling participation in various activities, parents can share those beliefs (Hammer et al., 2021). Caligiore and Ison’s (2018) review particularly supports the contribution of parental cognitions about their children’s behavior to the children’s sense of competence. These authors hold that parents’ perceptions influence their children’s self-efficacy and executive control. Parents’ feedback about their children’s behavior contributes to the children’s formation of self-efficacy beliefs.
In adolescence, parents continue to play this role. Adolescents’ confidence in their coping skills can be altered during this stage (Espada et al., 2012). In a time as vulnerable as adolescence, high levels of self-efficacy have typically been considered a protective factor against the onset of depressive symptoms (Bandura, 1995; Ma et al., 2018), as well as a predictor of resilient (Schwarzer & Warner, 2013) and prosocial behaviors (Bandura et al., 2003). However, low perceptions of self-efficacy have been linked to lower self-esteem and confidence in one’s abilities (Sanjuán et al., 2000). People who feel less effective tend to perceive everyday challenges as more threatening (Schwarzer & Warner, 2013).
Most of the studies that measure parental perceptions were carried out with school-age children, for example, The Motivation Scale towards Child Learning measures the perspective of parents of second-cycle-kindergarten children on motivation towards learning (Navas Fernández, 2017) or the Scale of Parental Expectations about the Prosociality of Children, which measures parents’ expectations of their children’s prosocial behaviors (Rubilar et al., 2020). There are fewer scales to measure parental perceptions about their adolescent children. Among them are the Adolescent Future Expectations Scale for Parents (AFES-p), which assesses what parents think their children’s future will be like in a few years (Sánchez-Sandoval et al., 2019) or the Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory (Parent/Child) (ASRI-PC), which evaluates parental perception of their child’s self-regulation (Moilanen, 2007). In terms of efficiency concerning a specific task, Falanga et al. (2022) adapted the Self-Efficacy Scale from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) for parents’ use to evaluate parental beliefs about their child’s efficacy to do well in mathematics. However, there is no validated measure that assesses parents’ perception of their adolescent children’s general efficacy.
Current Study
The present work was carried out in the context of a larger longitudinal project on the psychological well-being and expectations of the adolescent population and their families in Andalusia (Southern Spain). On the one hand, the geographical areas of Southern Europe are more economically disadvantaged than other European areas, jeopardizing the well-being and future prospects of our young people. At the same time, at present, and under the auspices of the European Recommendations, social policies that support families, particularly strengthening parental competences, are being developed. In other published works in this broader project, progress has been made on the role of personal and school adjustment, as well as socio-familial risk, in the future expectations of these students (Sánchez-Sandoval & Verdugo, 2016, 2021; Verdugo, et al., 2018; Verdugo & Sánchez-Sandoval, 2022). With this paper, the aim is to create an instrument to measure positive cognitions of parents toward their children.
Concerning the effect of self-efficacy on human adjustment and functioning, and the conjoint influence of parental cognitions on children’s confidence in their abilities, this study aims to develop and validate a new scale to measure parent’s expectations of their adolescent children’s efficacy. For this purpose, we adapted the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Baessler & Schwarzer, 1996). This instrument measures a self-confident view of one’s abilities to deal with stressors in daily life. This scale has shown good psychometric properties in the Spanish population, both in university students (α = 0.87) (Sanjuán et al., 2000) and adolescents (α = 0.89) (Espada et al., 2012)
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were posited: We expect that the factor structure will be similar to the one proposed in the original paper (Baessler & Schwarzer, 1996); that is, a single-factor structure. We also expect that scores on the novel measure will positively correlate with other measures that evaluate parental perceptions (parental expectations of their children’s future) and with other adolescents’ self-perception variables (self-efficacy).
Method
Participants
The study sample consisted of 594 parents (462 mothers (77.78%), M = 43.54 years old, SD = 4.99; 132 fathers (22.22%), M = 45.95 years old, SD = 5.1) and their children (aged 11–15 years, M = 12.33, SD = 0.64, 49.36% female). Concerning the parents’ education level, 26.48% had primary education, 54.95% had secondary education or vocational training, and 18.57% had a university degree, the differences in the education level were not significant between them. Consistent with other socio-family characteristics, 8.75% reported important unmet economic needs, and 13.82% received some economic or social benefit. That is, 25.48% of the parents had a household income of <€645 per month, 30.85% had an income between €645 and €1290 per month, and 43.67% had an income of more than €1290. Regarding the family structure, most parents reported being married (78.51%).
Procedure
We contacted the scale’s authors by email, obtaining their permission to adapt the questionnaire. Adolescents for the validation study were recruited from 11 different secondary schools of Andalusia (South of Spain). Non-probability convenience sampling was used (Otzen & Monterola, 2017). In order to respect the percentages of students in State schools (100% funded by Spanish state) and private schools (fee-paying, funded or co-funded by parents) in the province of residence, we kept similar proportions in our sample when selecting participating schools (75.90% State schools and 24.10% Private schools). The distribution as a function of the size of the locality where the schools were located (<90,000 inhabitants/>90,000 inhabitants) was also respected. For the selection of the sample, the (State/private schools) and (located in localities with <90,000 inhabitants/>90,000 inhabitants) criteria were combined. Moreover, it was considered that, for instrument validation, it is recommended to have between 5 and 10 people per administered item, or at least some 200 observations (Ferrando & Anguiano, 2010). We contacted these 11 schools to respond to these criteria, and they all agreed to participate. Once the necessary sample was obtained, no more schools were contacted.
Permission was obtained from the local educational authorities and each School Council. Consent for research participation was attained before parents and children participated in the survey. Data were gathered collectively in the school context. The schools informed the families. The parents were asked to retain a copy of the consent form and to return the other copy and completed questionnaires to the school. The students who were authorized by their families and agreed to participate in the study voluntarily completed the evaluation instruments during class times previously agreed on with the teachers, which did not interrupt their academic activity. Two research team members were in charge of visiting the schools, carrying out the evaluations, and resolving doubts or incidents during the students’ completion of the booklets. These researchers explained in each group that participation was voluntary and anonymous, and participants were encouraged to answer individually and as truthfully as possible. This project was reviewed and approved by the Doctoral Commission of the Department of Psychology of the University of Cadiz.
Measures
A sociodemographic questionnaire collected data about parents’ age and gender, academic studies, profession, family structure, and psychosocial family risk variables. It was completed by the parents.
The General Self-Efficacy Scale is a 10-item scale designed to assess self-beliefs about coping with various difficult life demands. The adolescents completed it. We used the Spanish version of Baessler and Schwarzer’s (1996) scale adapted by Sanjuán et al. (2000). The scale presents 10 items rated on a ten-point Likert-type response scale (item example: “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”). The summary score ranges from 10 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher self-efficacy. It showed adequate internal consistency in samples of university students (α = 0.87) (Sanjuán et al., 2000) and adolescents (α = 0.89) (Espada et al., 2012).
The Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p) is a 10-item self-report scale that assesses parental perception of their children’s efficacy. It is an adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Baessler & Schwarzer, 1996) to be completed by parents. Items are rated on a ten-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all like my child) to 10 (Exactly like my child). It was completed by the parents.
The Adolescent Future Expectations Scale for Parents (AFES-p) (Sánchez-Sandoval et al., 2019) is a 14-item self-report scale that assesses parental expectations of their children’s future (what parents think their children’s future will be like in a few years). Higher scores indicate more positive expectations of the events occurring in the future. It was completed by the parents. It has shown acceptable reliability (α = 0.89).
Data Analysis
The sample was randomly divided into two halves to perform Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on one half, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the other, respectively. The descriptive analysis of the two samples was performed with the statistical program SPSS 24 (IBM Corp, 2016). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test and the contrast of the differences between the sociodemographic data (Mann–Whitney test and χ2) were performed to verify that the two subsamples were comparable. The item-total correlation was calculated in both subsamples.
Reliability was calculated through Cronbach’s standard alpha and the Omega coefficient. The requirements for the factor analysis (matrix determinant, Bartlett’s sphericity test, and the KMO) and the EFA were performed with the FACTOR program (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2006). The exploratory factor analysis was carried out without limiting the number of factors.
The CFA was calculated using the Bollen–Stine maximum likelihood estimation method of the SPSS AMOS 23 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). To evaluate the model, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals (CI), and the χ2 were used. After estimating the confirmatory model, an analysis of invariance by mothers and fathers was carried out to verify whether equivalent results could be obtained from both male and female respondents. Crapo et al. (2021) recommend analyzing the invariance according to the sex of the parents. Testing for invariance allows researchers to determine possible differences in some parenting aspects and to what extent motherhood and fatherhood can be directly compared. Configural, weak, strong, and strict invariance were calculated.
Results
Subsample 1
The items were analyzed, obtaining scores in the item-total correlation ranging between 0.468 and 0.828; in all cases, higher than the requirements established in the specialized literature (Ebel, 1965). Reliability according to the standard Cronbach alpha was 0.926, and to the Omega coefficient, 0.944, which are adequate for the use of the questionnaire both in research and clinical settings (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Bartlett’s sphericity test (2109.2, p = 0.000010), the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (0.91896), and the matrix determinant (0.00059247) confirmed the suitability of performing factor analysis. EFA was performed with the polychoric correlation matrix, as recommended in questionnaires with Likert-type responses (Flora & Curran, 2004). A single factor was extracted that explains 66.77% of the variance. The data of the items’ loading on the factor, together with the information of each item, are shown in Table 1. The exploratory factor analysis was carried out without limiting the number of factors.
Table 1
Loading on the factor, mean, variance, corrected item-total correlation (ri–t), and Cronbach’s alpha if the item is removed (n = 289)
Items
Factor
Mean
Variance
ri–t
α
1
0.571
65.57
203.47
0.468
0.934
2
0.731
64.40
201.46
0.653
0.921
3
0.706
64.77
199.59
0.628
0.923
4
0.868
65.23
196.89
0.752
0.917
5
0.909
64.98
191.07
0.828
0.912
6
0.817
65.67
191.51
0.732
0.917
7
0.903
65.38
190.67
0.801
0.914
8
0.822
64.21
199.22
0.725
0.918
9
0.879
64.93
192.25
0.811
0.913
10
0.897
65.00
190.21
0.814
0.913
Subsample 2
Item analysis (0.465–0.792) and reliability calculation of the scale (standard Cronbach α = 0.917; Omega index ώ = 0.935) were also performed in the second subsample, obtaining scores similar to Subsample 1.
Initially, the one-factor solution did not fit the questionnaire, so the modification indices were checked for significant residual correlations that could bias the method. As a result, the residues of Items 2–3, 6–7, and 9–10 were allowed to correlate. After these adjustments, the model’s overall fit improved, confirming the unifactorial structure of the questionnaire, and yielding the following global fit indices: CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.049, TLI = 0.979, NFI = 0.971. Figure 1 shows the final model of the CFA. Factorial invariance was calculated for mothers and fathers. The results showed that the same factorial structure was preserved in both mothers and fathers (see Table 2). The data presented in Table 2 show that the transfers from an invariance model to another are lower than 0.01. Observing the configural invariance (which verifies that the same latent variables are specified by the same variables observed in the two subpopulations) and comparing it with the weak invariance (which compares the factor variances and the regression slopes), the difference in CFI is 0.001. The difference in CFI between weak invariance and strong invariance (comparing the intercepts) is 0.006. Lastly, the difference between strong invariance and strict invariance (analyzing the variance and covariance of the errors) is 0.012. The same goes for RMSEA, where the differences between an invariance model and another are lower than 0.01. These data support the existence of factor invariance.
Fig. 1
Final model obtained by CFA. Factorial loads are shown on the arrows, communalities are displayed next to the items. Residues from items 2–3, 6–7, and 9–10 were allowed to correlate
Table 2
Invariance analysis
Level of invariance
χ2
df
p
CFI
ΔCFI
TLI
RMSEA
Configural invariance
91.561
60
0.005
0.979
–
0.969
0.046
Weak invariance
99.440
69
0.010
0.980
0.001
0.974
0.042
Strong invariance
102.469
79
0.039
0.985
0.006
0.982
0.035
Strict invariance
144.666
95
0.001
0.967
0.012
0.969
0.046
df degrees of freedom, CFI Comparative Fit Index, TLI Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
×
For convergent validity verification, information on the correlation between the various questionnaires used in the study is included (Table 3). It can be observed that there is a positive correlation between the questionnaires used, which is considered a test of the instrument’s convergent validity (Argibay, 2006; Moral, 2019).
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between questionnaires
Variables
1
2
3
1. AGES-p
1
2. AFES-p
0.508**
1
3. GSE
0.268**
0.266**
1
M
7.35
4.07
7.32
SD
1.49
0.56
1.38
AGES-p Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents, AFES-p Adolescent Future Expectations Scale for Parents, GSE General Self-Efficacy Scale
**p < 0.01
Normative Data
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that the sample did not fit the normality criterion (Z = 0.066, p < 0.000). As there were no differences between mothers and fathers, as shown through the Mann–Whitney test (p = 0.727) and the factorial invariance, standard norms were calculated for the total sample. The average score obtained was 7.35 (SD = 1.49), with a maximum score on the scale of 9.90 and a minimum of 1.60. To facilitate the comparison of scores with other populations, a table with percentiles is also included (see Table 4).
Table 4
Norms in percentiles
Percentile
Raw score
1
3.29
5
4.80
10
5.40
20
6.00
25
6.30
30
6.60
40
7.20
50
7.50
60
7.90
70
8.30
75
8.50
80
8.70
90
9.20
95
9.50
99
9.80
Discussion
Parental cognitions contribute in central ways to child development and adjustment (Bornstein et al., 2018). Although the influence of parental cognitions on children’s confidence in their abilities is known (Branje et al., 2010; Caligiore & Ison, 2018; Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011), we could find no scale that directly measures paternal perception of their adolescent children’s effectiveness. This work aims to provide a scale validated in the Spanish context to measure this concept.
The objective of this study was to adapt General Self-Efficacy Scale (Baessler & Schwarzer, 1996) to Spanish for use with the parents and to analyze its psychometric properties. While the original scale is a self-report of one’s efficacy, applicable to adolescents, the new scale (Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p) is completed by the adolescents’ parents regarding their perception of their children’s effectiveness. The same strategy of adapting a questionnaire for use by parents has been used by other authors (Falanga et al., 2022).
For this purpose, two hypotheses were proposed: the first was that the factorial structure of the adapted questionnaire would be similar to the structure of the original questionnaire (Sanjuán et al., 2000), with a single factor. To verify this, an initial EFA was carried out, yielding a result of one factor, explaining 66.77% of the variance. This confirmed a factorial structure similar to that of the original questionnaire. The evidence of reliability was found through the Cronbach alpha and the Omega coefficient. In both cases, the results show values that indicate that the questionnaire can be used both in research and in works that involve making decisions about specific subjects (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Similar reliability data were found in the second subsample, which confirms the aforementioned conclusions. Likewise, the fit indices calculated from the CFA show a good fit to a unifactorial model.
Both factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were conducted as a consolidated statistical strategy, in which we verified, in a single sample (divided into two subsamples), the factor structure of the questionnaire, from an exploratory and confirmatory perspective. Therefore, we consider that not being limited to one of these points of view is a strength of this work. This is an accepted practice, even requested, in other scientific journals (Alfaro et al., 2016; Cabello-Santamaría et al., 2020; González-Gijón & Soriano-Díaz, 2021; Jiménez-Luque & Sánchez-Sandoval, 2023; Valdés et al., 2017). Lastly, it is important to highlight that, in previous studies, this factor analysis was performed on self-efficacy and not on the perception toward self-efficacy, which is a novelty in this work.
In addition, the analysis of factorial invariance shows that the questionnaire is useful both for fathers and mothers and does not present any bias as a function of parents’ sex. This is clear evidence of the convergent validity of this instrument for evaluating the perception of the effectiveness of their children both in fathers and mothers. Thus, Crapo et al.’s (2021) suggestion about the need to analyze invariance according to the sex of the parents is verified.
The second hypothesis of this work stated that we expected to find a positive relationship between the scores of the parental perception scale and the self-perception scale of the adolescents themselves. The results revealed this positive correlation between adolescents’ perception of their effectiveness and what both their father and mother think of them. Specifically, when youth reported higher levels of self-efficacy, their parents also tended to report better perceptions of their children’s efficacy. Hence, the correlation analysis of the two scales shows that the parents and adolescents of this study tend to evaluate the adolescents’ efficacy in the same direction. This analysis provides external convergent validity to the instrument. As Eccles has indicated, one of the sources of the perception of one’s competence is the perception that others have about it. This scale can be used to study the direction of the relationship between them. In any case, it should be noted that this correlation, albeit positive, is not very high. Other studies analyzing some adolescent dimensions from the parents’ perception and from the adolescents themselves have also found positive and moderate correlations; for example, Sánchez-Sandoval et al. (2019) regarding future expectations, and Moilanen (2007) referring to self-regulation. However, the correlation between AGES-p and AFES-p is higher (r = 0.55). In this case, both are parental perceptions about their children, the AGES-p about the current efficacy that parents attribute to their children, and the AFES-p regarding expectations about their children’s future. They correlate positively. This close relationship suggests that parents’ perceptions present an organized system of beliefs about their children, which go beyond the present moment. As other authors highlight (Eccles, 2007; Hammer et al., 2021; Simpkins et al., 2015), this may have significant consequences both in the messages that parents transmit to their children and in the way in which they organize their daily activities.
In the applied field, the validation of this scale in the Spanish context provides a new measurement instrument to the field of family evaluation, applicable both to research and psychoeducational, clinical, and social interventions. It will be useful to know the effectiveness and chances of success that parents attribute to their children at different times of development. It is interesting to have measures that evaluate the same construct or competence with several informants (in this case, parents and children). This scale can identify discrepancies between parents’ perceptions of their children’s competencies, their children’s perceptions, and their children’s current competencies. For example, if parents overestimate their children’s competencies, this could lead to high demands being placed on their children, producing feelings of stress and failure if they fail. Conversely, if parents convey messages of low confidence in their children’s competencies, this may undermine their children’s self-esteem and lead them to take on less complex challenges. As mentioned, from the educational point of view, this scale identifies high discrepancies between the perceptions of parents and children, and guide the work of adjusting the perspectives and expectations of parents and children. As the scaffolding perspective indicates, the goals set (in this case, both by parents and children) need to be somewhat higher than current competencies, so that, with sufficient guidance, the challenges can be met.
This study has several limitations. First, data were collected solely through self-applied questionnaires, so the participants’ responses may be influenced by social desirability. In this sense, and as a strength, the work has two sources of information (parents and adolescents) about the same reality: the adolescents’ efficacy. Although the sample size is adequate for the validation of this instrument, the psychometric properties of the scale could be confirmed in other samples (e.g., at other ages or in other Spanish-speaking countries). In addition, the proportion of mothers who completed the questionnaire was higher than that of fathers because we preferred to collect the information from the parent who spent more time with the child. Furthermore, an in-depth analysis of the possible differences concerning the evaluated child’s gender was not included in this work. Future research could analyze the possible repercussions and differences concerning the adolescent’s sex.
As future lines, we recommend validating this scale with other professionals who work with adolescents, such as high school teachers. It would be very valuable to determine the opinion of agents who are external to the family. Although they may have less information about a specific student, teachers can be more objective, since their criterion is the comparison with the student’s peer group. This project did not receive external funding, thus it was not possible to extend the recruitment of schools to other provinces and countries. As a future line of research, it is expected that funding will be available to be able to increase the sample and to adapt and validate the instrument in other countries.
In conclusion, the study assesses the reliability, convergent validity, and dimensionality of the scale. It shows that the Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p) has good psychometric properties and can be used objectively with parents of adolescents in the Spanish population. In the long term, this scale is expected to promote research on the role of parents’ cognitions, their relationship with their educational practices, and the outcomes in their adolescent children’s development and adjustment.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.
Appendix. Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p). English version
Think about your child and rate from 1 to 10 each of the following sentences; the higher the score you assign, the better the item describes your child.
Score: 1 = Not at all like my child to 10 = Exactly like my child.
Items
1.
He/she [My child] can find a way to get what he/she wants, even if someone opposes him/her.
2.
He/she can solve difficult problems if he/she tries hard enough.
3.
It is easy for him/her to persist in what he/she has set out to do until he/she reaches his/her goals.
4.
He/she is confident that he/she could effectively handle unexpected events.
5.
Thanks to his/her qualities and resources, he/she can overcome unforeseen situations.
6.
When he/she is in trouble, he/she can remain calm because he/she has the necessary skills to handle difficult situations.
7.
Whatever comes, he/she is usually able to handle it.
8.
He/she can solve most problems if he/she tries hard.
9.
If he/she finds himself/herself in a difficult situation, he/she usually comes up with what to do.
10.
When having to deal with a problem, he/she usually comes up with several alternatives of how to solve it.
Adolescent General Efficacy Scale for Parents (AGES-p). Spanish version.
Piense en su hijo/a y puntúe de 1 a 10 cada una de las siguientes frases, cuando mayor puntuación le dé más parecido a su hijo/a será.
Siendo: 1 = Nada parecido a mi hijo; 10 = Totalmente parecido a mi hijo.
Ítems
1.
Puede encontrar la forma de obtener lo que quiere, aunque alguien se le oponga.
2.
Puede resolver problemas difíciles si se esfuerza lo suficiente.
3.
Le es fácil persistir en lo que se ha propuesto hasta llegar a alcanzar sus metas.
4.
Tiene confianza en que podría manejar eficazmente acontecimientos inesperados.
5.
Gracias a sus cualidades y recursos puede superar situaciones imprevistas.
6.
Cuando se encuentra en dificultades puede permanecer tranquilo/a porque cuenta con las habilidades necesarias para manejar situaciones difíciles.
7.
Venga lo que venga, por lo general es capaz de manejarlo.
8.
Puede resolver la mayoría de los problemas si se esfuerza lo necesario.
9.
Si se encuentra en una situación difícil, generalmente se le ocurre qué debe hacer.
10.
Al tener que hacer frente a un problema, generalmente se le ocurren varias alternativas de cómo resolverlo.
