Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment
Volume 25 Number 4
December 2007 341-355
Evaluation of the Self-Efficacy © 2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/0734282907300636

Questionnaire for Children in http://jpa.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Two Samples of American
Adolescents
Shannon M. Suldo
Emily J. Shaffer
University of South Florida, Tampa

Two studies addressed the psychometric properties of the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for
Children (SEQ-C) when used in studies with American youths. A sample of 697 middle and high
school students completed the SEQ-C along with measures of life satisfaction and psy-
chopathology. Exploratory factor analysis procedures supported the existence of three factors
representing emotional, social, and academic self-efficacy. Criterion-related validity was estab-
lished through correlations, in the expected directions, between the domains of self-efficacy and
psychological functioning. The study was repeated with a sample of 318 high school students.
Both studies provide support for use of the SEQ-C with early and late American adolescents
from the Southeast.

Keywords: self-efficacy; life satisfaction; psychopathology; adolescents; validity

S elf-efficacy is defined as one’s sense of competence and confidence in performing

behaviors to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy beliefs are
among the most important determinants of behavior, as the incentive to take action is
diminished if one does not believe that he or she has the capability to perform and coor-
dinate the actions necessary to produce results. The significance of self-efficacy is
underscored by research that identifies strong links between efficacy beliefs and impor-
tant domains of human functioning, including mental and physical health outcomes
(Maddux, 2002).
More than the ability to perform an isolated behavior, self-efficacy reflects perceived
competence about one’s abilities to enact and coordinate related skills under certain con-
ditions, which can be challenging and diverse (Maddux, 2002). Efficacy beliefs are best
understood as domain-specific, such that feelings of competence tied to task demands of
a given situation have greater predictive utility than a global self-evaluation (Bandura,
1997). Saliency of specific domains to one’s total efficacy beliefs varies by life stage
(Berry & West, 1993).

Authors’ Note: Address correspondence to Shannon Suldo, Department of Psychological and Social
Foundations, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 162, Tampa, FL, 33620; phone:
(813) 974-2223; e-mail: suldo@coedu.usf.edu.

341
342 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Regarding domains of competence most salient to youths, academic self-efficacy refers

to beliefs regarding academic competence. Social self-efficacy involves beliefs regarding
competence in developing and maintaining social relationships. Recent research points to
the importance of emotional self-efficacy, that is, beliefs regarding competence in con-
trolling negative emotions. Beliefs in one’s ability to cope contribute to experiences of
distress and psychopathology (Bandura, 2000). Emotional self-efficacy is posited to be a
component of the broader construct of emotion regulation, the ability to regulate affec-
tive responses in response to specific environmental demands (Suveg & Zeman, 2004).
Extant research supports gender differences in mean levels of self-efficacy during
youth. For instance, adolescent boys report higher average levels of emotional self-efficacy
than girls (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Findings regarding the role of gender in percep-
tions of academic abilities are contradictory, with some studies suggesting girls have higher
academic self-efficacy (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003; Saunders, Davis, Williams, &
Williams, 2004) and one failing to detect a significant difference between gender groups
(Usher & Pajares, 2006). Whereas a study of 10- to 12-year-old children found girls
reported higher social self-efficacy than boys (Coleman, 2003), research with adolescents
found no differences between gender groups (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003).

Outcomes of Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence

High beliefs of self-efficacy enhance children’s confidence, which in turn enables them
to embrace challenging goals; to sustain effort longer; and, consequently, to succeed in
school (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Domain-specific self-efficacy during adolescence is
related to numerous psychosocial adjustment indicators, including negative indicators of
functioning (e.g., psychopathology) and indicators of mental health that assess beyond the
pathological or neutral point of functioning, such as subjective well-being.
Regarding psychopathology, low social self-efficacy is linked with social phobia and
depression (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Muris, 2002). Low acade-
mic self-efficacy is associated with school phobia, depression, and delinquent behavior
(Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli, 2003; Muris, 2002). Emotional
self-efficacy is especially predictive of psychopathology (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003), par-
ticularly anxiety (e.g., panic, generalized anxiety) (Muris, 2002; Suveg & Zeman, 2004).
Fewer studies have examined self-efficacy relative to positive indicators of adaptive
functioning in youth. Although some research has found inconsistent associations between
total self-efficacy and children’s quality of life by ethnic group (Bradley & Corwyn, 2004),
research examining specific domains of self-efficacy relative to children’s life satisfaction
has confirmed moderate associations. For example, adolescents’ social self-efficacy and
academic self-concept (i.e., perceptions of academic abilities) have been linked to their life
satisfaction (Fogle, Huebner, & Laughlin, 2002; Huebner, Gilman, & Laughlin, 1999).
Research is needed to understand if and how life satisfaction relates to perceived emotional
competence. Saarni (2000) hypothesized that emotional self-efficacy, conceptualized as
viewing one’s emotional experiences as justified and worthy, is a key facilitator of subjec-
tive well-being in youth.
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 343

Measurement of Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1997) asserted that measures of self-efficacy should “measure people’s beliefs
in their abilities to fulfill different levels of task demands within the psychological domain
selected for study” (p. 44). Thus, self-efficacy in a specific domain, such as academic
achievement, must be assessed through multiple items that tap the comprehensive set of
skills necessary for academic achievement such as abilities to study, maintain attention, and
complete homework. Moreover, items should assess what a person can do versus will do.
Assessment of self-efficacy in youths has ranged from adapting scales originally intended
for use with adult populations (e.g., Stewart et al., 2004) to developing scales of general-
ized self-efficacy specific for use with children (e.g., Cowen, Work, & Hightower, 1991).
Some researchers have used multidimensional self-concept scales that tap perceived social
and academic competence (e.g., Fogle et al., 2002). Bandura and colleagues (1999) noted
the importance of assessing ability to regulate affect (i.e., emotional self-efficacy) in the
study of children’s depression. The research group later published a study that included a
measure of “affective self-regulatory efficacy,” which tapped children’s perceived ability to
manage the expression of positive affect and negative affect.

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C)

In 2001, Muris published the first study of the SEQ-C. The SEQ-C purports to measure
adolescents’ beliefs about their competencies in social, academic, and emotional domains.
One of the only self-report instruments appropriate for youths to include a measure of emo-
tional self-efficacy, this subscale contains seven items that pertain “to the perceived capa-
bility of coping with negative emotions” (Muris, 2001, p. 146).
Developed in the Netherlands, extant evaluations of the SEQ-C are limited to samples of
European youths. The first validity study involved 330 Dutch students ages 14-17 (Muris,
2001). Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with a 21-item version of the SEQ-C supported the
existence of three factors that accounted for 56.7% of total variance. Intercorrelations among
the three factors ranged from .17 (social and academic self-efficacy) to .41 (emotional and
academic self-efficacy). The SEQ-C was also administered to 596 students, ages 12-19, from
Belgium (Muris, 2002). The EFA supported a three-factor solution, which accounted for
52.3% of variance. Cronbach’s alphas for the 21-item version of the scale were .82 (social
self-efficacy), .84 (academic self-efficacy), and .86 (emotional self-efficacy).
The purpose of the current study was to assess the utility of the SEQ-C in research with
American youths. First, the factor structure of the SEQ-C was explored using two conve-
nience samples of American adolescents. A second purpose was to explore the construct
validity of the SEQ-C by assessing the relationships between domain-specific self-efficacy
and psychological functioning, including traditional negative indicators such as psy-
chopathology as well as an indicator that measures beyond the neutral point of functioning
(i.e., life satisfaction). This study also looked for gender differences in mean SEQ-C scores
(anticipating boys would report higher emotional self-efficacy) and in associations between
self-efficacy and psychological functioning.
344 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Study 1

Method
Participants
Participants were 697 students (64% female students) from three middle schools and two
high schools in a rural school district in a southeastern state of the United States. The data
set analyzed in the current study was collected during a larger study of the development of
life satisfaction in adolescents (see Suldo & Huebner, 2006). Only students who provided
complete data on the SEQ-C were included in the current study. Participants were in grade
levels 7-12, with a mean age of 14.79 (SD = 1.82). The sample was predominately African
American (58%) and Caucasian (36%). Fifty-seven percent received free or reduced-cost
school lunches (low−socioeconomic status [SES] group).

Procedure
A parent information letter that described the study and requested consent was distrib-
uted to all students in regular education classes (because of the reading ability needed to
complete instruments, participation was not sought from students in self-contained special
education classes). Incentives such as gift certificates were provided through a raffle eligi-
ble to all students who obtained informed consent to participate. Approximately 30% of the
student population participated. The demographic characteristics (i.e., race, age, SES) of
the students who returned consent forms were comparable with those of the entire school
population (information ascertained from the participating school district’s Web site). In the
fall of 2002, students with parent consent and student assent provided demographic infor-
mation (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and eligibility for free or reduced-cost lunch) and com-
pleted the self-report instruments described below. Instruments were administered in
alternating sequence to prevent ordering effects.

Instruments
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C; Muris, 2001). The SEQ-C is com-
posed of 21 items designed to measure children’s perceptions of their social self-efficacy
(ability to relate and get along with other peers), emotional self-efficacy (ability to regulate
unpleasant emotions), and academic self-efficacy (ability to succeed in school and display
appropriate learning behaviors). The three subscales each contain seven items in which par-
ticipants rate their competence level on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very
well). Scores are summed to yield a measure of self-efficacy for each domain. Validity of
the SEQ-C is reviewed earlier in this article.
The SEQ-C was administered with slight modifications. Following informal consultation
with multiple members of the first author’s university-based research team, consensus was
reached regarding minor wording changes to several items to maintain consistency with
colloquial American speech and to increase readability of these items. Specifically, the
phrases “can you” and “are you able to” were substituted for the phrase “do you succeed
in.” A phrase in the item “how well can you prevent to become nervous” was changed to
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 345

“ . . . prevent becoming. . . .” In the item that asked “how well do you succeed in passing
all subjects?,” the word school was included before subjects. The words hold back were
substituted for suppressing in the item “how well do you succeed in suppressing unpleas-
ant thoughts?”

Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS; Huebner, 1991). The SLSS is a seven-item scale
designed to assess the level of satisfaction children and adolescents have with their life over-
all. Responses to each item are given on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Two items are reverse-
scored and responses are averaged. Higher mean scores indicate more global life satisfaction.
Convergent validity for the SLSS is supported by positive correlations with similar mea-
sures of self-reported and parent-reported life satisfaction (Dew & Huebner, 1994).
Discriminant validity for the SLSS has been established through weak or nonsignificant
relationships with academic performance and social desirability (Huebner, 1991). In the
current study, coefficient alpha was .88.

The Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). The
YSR is composed of 118 items designed to measure eight dimensions of psychopathology.
Responses are given on a 3-point Likert-type scale in which respondents indicate the degree
to which a feeling or behavior is true within the past 6 months. Only five of the eight sub-
scales (61 items) pertaining to the focus of the study were included. These subscales
assessed internalizing (Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, and Anxious/Depressed sub-
scales) and externalizing (Delinquent Behavior and Aggressive Behavior subscales) behav-
iors. Regarding construct validity, the YSR is commonly used in clinical practice to identify
youths at risk for psychopathology (Achenbach, 1991). The YSR yields significant corre-
lations with both parent and teacher reports of adolescents’ problem behavior (Achenbach,
1991). In the current study, alpha coefficients for the Internalizing and Externalizing Scales
were .91 and .88, respectively.

Results
Factor Structure
After detection of univariate outliers (respondents whose mean score on a SEQ-C scale
was more than three standard deviations from group means), 687 respondents were
retained for further analyses of factor structure. An EFA (principal components with
oblique rotation) was conducted with SAS 9.1. The scree plot suggested either a one- or
three-factor solution; two factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the eigenvalue for
a third factor was close (.91). One-, two-, and three-factor solutions were considered and
accounted for 74.5%, 90.8%, and 100% of the variance, respectively. Examination of the
rotated factor pattern revealed that the three-factor solution provided the most interpretable
results; the content of factors is consistent with that reported by Muris (2001, 2002).
Correlations between subscales were significant, positive, and moderate in magnitude
(range = .46 to .49).
Factor loadings for all factors are shown in Table 1. All items loaded adequately
(i.e., ≥ .30) on their intended factor. However, Items 3 and 10 also yielded loadings at or
346 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Table 1
Factor Structure of the SEQ-C Obtained via Exploratory Factor Analysis
Study 1 Study 2

Item 1 2 3 1 2 3

1. How well can you express your opinions .08 −.11 .61 .08 .14 .39
when other classmates disagree with you?
2. How well do you succeed in cheering −.01 .45 .26 −.01 .70 .03
yourself up when an unpleasant
event has happened?
3. How well can you study when there are .32 .32 .02 .46 .24 −.04
other interesting things to do?
4. How well do you succeed in becoming -.05 .53 .01 .01 .56 .03
calm again when you are very scared?
5. How well can you become friends .06 .04 .56 −.05 −.01 .70
with other young people?
6. How well can you study a chapter for a test? .48 .16 .04 .67 .03 .00
7. How well can you have a chat −.09 .04 .54 −.05 .10 .55
with an unfamiliar person?
8. How well can you prevent −.12 .50 .26 −.07 .60 .13
yourself from becoming nervous?
9. How well do you succeed in finishing .62 .05 −.06 .68 −.01 −.04
all your homework every day?
10. How well can you get along with your class- .31 .13 .30 .30 −.09 .39
mates while working together?
11. How well can you control your feelings? .12 .60 −.11 .14 .46 .04
12. How well can you pay attention .55 .25 −.11 .61 .17 −.10
during every class?
13. How well can you tell other young people that .03 .05 .45 .02 .18 .24
they are doing something you don’t like?
14. How well can you give yourself
a pep talk when you feel low? .04 .41 .23 .03 .66 −.01
15. How well do you succeed in .75 −.16 .04 .78 −.12 .10
passing all school subjects?
16. How well can you tell a funny story .02 .03 .47 −.07 .19 .45
to a group of young people?
17. How well do you succeed in satisfying .66 −.06 .09 .65 .01 .07
your parents with your schoolwork?
18. How well are you able to remain .24 −.03 .33 .10 −.04 .65
friends with other young people?
19. How well do you succeed in holding .11 .60 −.15 .07 .42 .05
back unpleasant thoughts?
20. How well do you succeed in passing a test? .65 .01 .05 .71 .02 .01
21. How well do you succeed in not worrying −.04 .61 .08 .05 .56 −.03
about things that might happen?
Eigenvalue 5.38 1.18 .91 5.50 1.56 1.02

Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children.

 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 347

Table 2
Intercorrelations Between SEQ-C, YSR, and SLSS Subscales for Study 1 (N = 685)
Academic Emotional Social
Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy
(M = 23.65, (M = 24.84, (M = 23.51,
Variable M SD SD = 4.17) SD = 5.17) SD = 4.08)

Internalizing symptoms 11.15 8.92 −.24* −.44* −.25*

Externalizing symptoms 11.86 7.49 −.38* −.34* −.05
Global life satisfaction 4.38 1.09 .46* .43* .35*

Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children; YSR = Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior
Checklist; SLSS = Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale.
*p < .006.

above .30 on other scales, suggesting these items were not pure indicators of a factor. In
sum, the EFA suggested a three-factor solution in which 19 items were relatively pure indi-
cators of the constructs. This 19-item solution was retained for the remaining analyses.
Internal consistencies for each subscale were as follows: Academic α =.82, Emotional
α = .79, and Social α = .73.

Criterion-Related Validity
With an alpha of .001 cutoff, 12 participants in the original sample produced Mahalanobis
distance scores that identified them as multivariate outliers; these cases were deleted from
correlational analyses. Values for skew and kurtosis for all instruments were within normal
limits (i.e., x < ±1.00) with the exception of internalizing behavior (skew = 1.18; kurtosis
= 1.36). Descriptive statistics for all instruments, and correlations between them, are pre-
sented in Table 2. Mean scores for boys (n = 244) and girls (n = 441) were similar for aca-
demic and social self-efficacy; boys reported significantly higher emotional self-efficacy
(M = 25.92, SD = 5.25) than girls (M = 24.24, SD = 5.03), t(683) = 4.11, p < .01. Participant
age was unrelated to emotional and academic self-efficacy but had a small, positive asso-
ciation with social self-efficacy (r = .10, p < .01).
Guidelines for small, medium, and large effect sizes described in Cohen (1992) were
used to interpret the magnitude of all correlations. Alpha was set at .006 to control for nine
comparisons. As shown in Table 2, global life satisfaction was moderately, positively cor-
related with all domains of self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy was not associated with exter-
nalizing behavior but yielded a small, significant inverse relationship with internalizing
behavior. Emotional self-efficacy was moderately, negatively correlated with both forms of
psychopathology. Academic self-efficacy was significantly associated with both forms of
psychopathology, but the larger correlation was with externalizing behavior. In sum, ado-
lescents who report more delinquent and aggressive behavior were more likely to perceive
lower academic and emotional self-efficacy. Anxiety, depression, withdrawal, and somatic
complaints were associated with reduced academic and social self-efficacy, and particularly
low emotional self-efficacy.
348 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Z-tests conducted to test the significance of the difference between correlation coeffi-
cients for gender groups revealed that the magnitude and direction of the associations
between self-efficacy domains and psychopathology were similar for boys and girls for seven
of nine correlations (z < ±1.96). Correlations between social self-efficacy and two indicators
of mental health, internalizing problems and global life satisfaction, were stronger among
boys (r = −.38, p < .01 and r = .45, p < .01, respectively) than girls (r = −.18, p < .01 and
r = .29, p < .01, respectively), z = −2.65 and z = 2.27, respectively.

Discussion
A 19-item version was supported for use with American youths. Additional research is
needed to confirm which items should be retained in the SEQ-C and appropriate wording
of items consistent with colloquial American speech.
This study supported links between psychopathology and self-efficacy as measured by
the SEQ-C. The current study was limited by the global measurement of internalizing and
externalizing psychopathology. To more fully study the associations between domains of
self-efficacy and specific manifestations of mental health problems, future studies should
isolate types of internalizing (e.g., depression vs. anxiety) and externalizing (e.g., noncom-
pliance vs. rule-breaking behavior) symptoms.
This study found a general association between global life satisfaction and self-efficacy;
additional research with a domain-specific measure of life satisfaction would help elucidate
the relationships between self-efficacy and satisfaction specific to theoretically important
domains of life. Research that includes academic achievement—a construct shown to medi-
ate the link between academic self-efficacy and psychological adjustment (Bandura et al.,
2003)—is needed.

Study 2
Method
Participants
Participants included 318 students from one high school in a rural public school dis-
trict in a different southeastern state in the United States. This database is part of an
ongoing longitudinal investigation of the mental health of students in various high school
curricula (see Shaunessy, Suldo, Hardesty, & Shaffer, 2006). Participants were ages 14-
19, with a mean age of 16.13 (SD = 1.18). The sample was 70% Caucasian, 9% African
American, 8% Asian American, 8% Hispanic, and 5% other ethnicities. Gender distribu-
tion was 68% female. Only 20% of participants reported receiving school lunch at a free
or reduced cost (low SES). Forty-five percent of the sample participated in the
International Baccalaureate (IB) Program (a university preparatory course of study con-
taining advanced coursework throughout high school); 55% were enrolled in the general
education curriculum.
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 349

Procedure
Procedures were similar to that described for Study 1. All students served in the general
education and IB curricula at the high school were recruited for participation through a let-
ter distributed to parents. Approximately 25% of the student population participated.
Comparisons to the demographic characteristics of the entire school population (according
to information listed on the state’s Web site) indicated that students who were male, African
American, and/or from low-SES backgrounds were underrepresented in the study (48.6%,
23.6%, and 32% of the student body, respectively). Self-report data were collected in the
fall of 2004. Participants’ grade point averages (GPAs) were ascertained from school
records. Typically, GPA ranges from 0 (F) to 4 (A); however, students in the current study
received additional points for grades in advanced courses, so actual GPAs ranged from 1.28
to 4.73 (M = 3.52, SD = .78).

Instruments
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children (SEQ-C; Muris, 2001). The SEQ-C was admin-
istered with the slight wording revisions detailed in Study 1. In addition, the term young
people was substituted for children in all items in line with the older adolescent age-group
to which the scale was administered. Item 10, which did not load satisfactorily on a single
scale in Study 1, was changed from “How well can you work in harmony with your class-
mates?” to “How well can you get along with your classmates while working together?” in
an effort to clarify meaning. This version of the SEQ-C items administered in Study 2 is
reproduced in Table 1 with the permission of Peter Muris. The Flesch-Kincaid formula used
to calculate readability indicated the directions and items of this version of the SEQ-C were
at a reading level of 5.2.

Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; Huebner, 1994). The

MSLSS is a 40-item scale designed to measure children’s and adolescents’ degree of satis-
faction with five specific domains of life: school, self, family, friends, and living environ-
ment. The MSLSS provides a more comprehensive picture of life satisfaction than the
global assessment yielded by the SLSS. Students indicate level of agreement with items on
a 6-item Likert-type scale, with 10 items reverse-scored. Items are then summed and aver-
aged to yield a mean score of life satisfaction for each domain. The five-factor hierarchical
structure of the MSLSS has been supported in factor analytic studies (Huebner, 1994).
Construct validity is supported through high relationships with other measures of life sat-
isfaction (see Huebner, Nagle, & Suldo, 2003 for a review). In the current study, coefficient
alpha values were as follows: school = .85, self = .78, family = .89, friends = .87, and
living environment = .84.

The Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2001). The 2001 version of the YSR is a 112-item questionnaire with slight revisions to the
eight syndrome scales included in the 1991 version administered in Study 1. Specifically, the
Withdrawn subscale was modified to include withdrawn/depressed symptoms. The same
five subscales comprise internalizing behavior and externalizing behavior. An additional
350 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

improvement of the YSR 2001 is the inclusion of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM)−oriented indices. These indices are driven by expert clinicians’
judgment, rather than factor analysis, regarding which symptoms align with mental disor-
ders according to criteria advanced in the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association,
2000). The DSM-oriented indices analyzed in the current study include affective problems
(i.e., symptoms of dysthymia and major depressive disorder), anxiety problems (i.e., symp-
toms of generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, and specific phobia),
somatic problems (i.e., symptoms of somatization disorder and somatoform disorder),
oppositional defiant problems (e.g., stubborn, argues, disobedient), and conduct problems
(e.g., breaks rules, lacks guilt, sets fire, steals). In the current study, alpha coefficients were
as follows: affective problems = .79, anxiety problems = .64, somatic problems = .74, oppo-
sitional defiant problems = .68, and conduct problems = .80.

Results
Factor Structure
One participant was identified as a univariate outlier on the SEQ-C; 317 respondents
were retained for further analyses of factor structure. The scree plot and eigenvalues sug-
gested a three-factor solution that accounted for 99.31% of the variance; all eigenvalues
exceeded 1.0. The rotated factor pattern yielded a pattern of item loadings consistent with
that reported in original SEQ-C validation studies. Interfactor correlations were significant
(r = .41 to .44).
As shown in Table 1, the majority of items (19 of 21) loaded adequately (i.e., ≥ .30) on
only the factor for which they were intended. Item 10 loaded on two factors, again suggest-
ing this item was not a pure indicator of a factor. Item 13 did not load substantially on any of
the factors. A 19-item solution was retained for the remaining analyses. Internal consistencies
for each subscale were as follows: Academic (.86), Emotional (.80), and Social (.74).

Criterion-Related Validity
With an alpha of .001 cutoff level, 11 participants in the original sample were identified as
multivariate outliers and deleted from correlational analysis. For all instruments, skew and
kurtosis values were within acceptable limits. Descriptive statistics for all instruments, and
correlations between them, are presented in Table 3. Mean scores for boys (n = 100) and girls
(n = 207) were similar for academic and social self-efficacy; boys reported significantly
higher emotional self-efficacy (M = 23.72, SD = 5.27) than girls (M = 21.44, SD = 4.49),
t(305) = 3.93, p < .01. Participant age was unrelated to emotional and social self-efficacy, and
inversely related to academic self-efficacy (r = −.27, p < .01).
Alpha was set at .002 to control for 33 comparisons. All domains of self-efficacy were
significantly associated with all domains of life satisfaction. Regarding the magnitude of
these associations, academic self-efficacy had a large correlation with school satisfaction;
correlations with family and living environment were moderate. Moderate correlations
were found between emotional self-efficacy and satisfaction with self, school, and family.
Moderate correlations were found between social self-efficacy and satisfaction with self
and friends.
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 351

Table 3
Intercorrelations Between SEQ-C, YSR DSM− −Oriented,
and MSLSS Subscales for Study 2 (N = 307)
Academic Emotional Social
Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy
(M = 25.22, (M = 22.19, (M = 18.86,
Variable M SD SD = 5.04) SD = 4.87) SD = 3.38)

Affective problems 6.39 3.97 −.34* −.53* −.23*

Anxiety problems 2.90 2.12 −.07 −.53* −.21*
Somatic problems 2.64 2.27 −.23* −.35* −.11
Conduct problems 3.42 2.94 −.46* −.25* −.17
Oppositional defiant problems 3.57 2.01 −.29* −.23* −.04
Self-satisfaction 4.76 .65 .24* .44* .45*
Friend satisfaction 5.11 .62 .23* .21* .33*
Family satisfaction 4.32 .99 .38* .32* .18*
Living environment satisfaction 3.99 .98 .41* .28* .27*
School satisfaction 3.86 .92 .52* .41* .24*
Grade point average 3.56 .76 .50* .12 .09

Note: SEQ-C = Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children; YSR = Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior
Checklist; DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; MSLSS = Multidimensional
Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale.
*p < .002.

With respect to psychopathology outcomes, emotional self-efficacy had large correla-

tions with internalizing problems, specifically affective and anxiety problems; a moderate
relationship with somatic problems; and small but significant correlations with conduct and
oppositional defiant problems. Social self-efficacy was significantly related to two of five
psychopathology syndromes: affective and anxiety problems; the magnitude of these asso-
ciations was small. Academic self-efficacy was most strongly related to a specific form of
externalizing psychopathology-conduct problems; the correlation with affective problems
was also moderate, whereas correlations with oppositional defiant and somatic problems
were small but significant.
Finally, academic achievement was strongly associated with academic self-efficacy and
unrelated to social and emotional self-efficacy.
The magnitude and direction of the associations between self-efficacy domains and psy-
chopathology were similar for boys and girls for 32 of 33 correlations (z < ±1.96). The cor-
relation between academic self-efficacy and family satisfaction was moderate among girls
(r = .31, p < .01) and large among boys (r = .52, p < .01), z = 2.10.

Discussion
Both studies supported use of slightly modified versions of the SEQ-C with American
adolescents in two southeastern states. The SEQ-C measured three domains of functioning
particularly salient during the adolescent years—academic, emotional, and social self-efficacy.
352 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

To the best of our knowledge, the SEQ-C is the first published measure to simultaneously
assess adolescents’ perceived competence in all three of these important domains.
Although results of the factor analyses supported the presence of three factors identified in
original validation studies (Muris, 2001, 2002), in the current study academic self-efficacy
clearly emerged as the strongest factor, suggesting the SEQ-C may be most appropriately
used as a measure of academic self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy was a weak factor in the cur-
rent study and yielded only small to moderate associations with indicators of psychological
functioning with which it should theoretically relate, namely, domains of life satisfaction that
involve interpersonal functioning (satisfaction with friends and family). Differences in fac-
tor structure also arose at the item level. In both samples of American youths, Item 10,
intended to assess social self-efficacy, also loaded highly on academic self-efficacy; efforts
to retain this item through rewording with colloquial American speech were not successful.
It is therefore suggested that this item be omitted from the SEQ-C in future use with
American adolescents. Researchers who use the SEQ-C should consider conducting an
EFA on the remaining 20-item scale and only use those items with acceptable factor load-
ings. In the current studies, indicators of academic self-efficacy (Item 3) and social self-
efficacy (Item 13) did not always load satisfactorily on a single factor. Following additional
exploratory studies to clarify the utility of all items in more diverse and representative sam-
ples of American youths, confirmatory analyses would be appropriate.
The relationships between self-efficacy and dimensions of psychopathology yielded in
the current study are consistent with several previous studies that used different measures
of domain-specific self-efficacy. For instance, the strong, negative relationship between
emotional self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety is consistent with research that measured
emotional self-efficacy through an individual interview (Suveg & Zeman, 2004). A differ-
ent self-report measure of self-efficacy also found internalizing disorders to be more
strongly associated with emotional than social self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 2003).
Although the current research confirmed links between social self-efficacy and anxiety and
depression, symptoms of psychopathology were least associated with perceptions of social
competence. The current study and Bandura et al.’s (2003) research demonstrated that aca-
demic self-efficacy has a large relationship with academic achievement, as well as sizable
associations with dimensions of disruptive behavior in addition to symptoms of depression.
The current study did not support a link between academic self-efficacy and anxiety, in con-
trast to previous research that found associations between academic self-efficacy and a spe-
cific fear- school phobia (Muris, 2002).
Recent empirical research with adults has illustrated a strong connection between self-
efficacy and a positive indicator of psychological wellness—subjective well-being (Caprara
& Steca, 2005a, 2005b). In a study of 512 adults, emotional self-efficacy exerted direct and
indirect effects (via social self-efficacy and pro-social behavior) on life satisfaction
(Caprara & Steca, 2005b). The current study is the first to demonstrate a similar relation-
ship among youths; emotional self-efficacy as measured by the SEQ-C yielded significant
relationships with each dimension of life satisfaction. Earlier research with youths sug-
gested links between global life satisfaction and academic self-concept (Huebner et al.,
1999) and social self-efficacy (Fogle et al., 2002). The current study confirms these
relationships and also identifies emotional self-efficacy as an additional cognitive correlate
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 353

of life satisfaction during adolescence, a relationship that had been discussed in theory
(cf. Saarni, 2000) but not been examined empirically. Taken together, youths with high life
satisfaction are more likely to hold positive beliefs about their ability to perform well
socially, to achieve in school, and to manage negative emotions.
Psychologists interested in studying self-efficacy during adolescence need valid and prac-
tical (i.e., brief, highly readable) measures that tap perceived competence in important
domains of functioning. The current study provides preliminary support for the SEQ-C as a
potentially useful option for assessing multidimensional self-efficacy in American youths. In
addition to using the SEQ-C for research, psychologists might consider using the SEQ-C in
clinical assessment for such purposes as understanding the maintenance of psychopathology
and monitoring changes in perceived capability as a result of mastery experiences. Self-
efficacy is a critical component of readiness for change; clinicians are encouraged to sup-
port and monitor clients’ self-efficacy during attempts to change behavior (Miller &
Rollnick, 2002). Clinicians should expect adolescent boys to report slightly higher emo-
tional self-efficacy on the SEQ-C relative to adolescent girls, consistent with prior research
(Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy were not sup-
ported by this study or in previous research with 12-year-olds (Usher & Pajares, 2006), nor
were gender differences in social self-efficacy found in this study or previous research with
13- to 19- year-olds (Bacchini & Magliulo, 2003). Pending research with clinical samples
of youths, clinicians should use the SEQ-C with caution as the current study explored the
relationship between self-efficacy and psychological functioning in a nonclinical sample; it
is unknown if self-efficacy relates to symptomatology in the same manner in clinical
samples of youths.
Future investigations of the SEQ-C should aim to expand external validity through
increasing the populations with which this measure has been used successfully. Further
study of the SEQ-C with representative samples of adolescents from different race and eth-
nic groups, geographic areas, and age groups are needed, as the current study primarily sup-
ports its use with African American and Caucasian adolescents in middle and high school
in the southeastern United States. Limitations inherent to the convenience samples
employed in the current studies may also have had unanticipated effects on the results. As
noted earlier, the active consent procedures contributed to a relatively low response rate
(25% to 30%) in which some demographic groups were underrepresented. Some research
suggests that the extent to which domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., academic self-
efficacy) contribute to important outcomes such as grades earned in high school varies by
demographic group (specifically, gender) (Saunders et al., 2004). It is unknown if the rela-
tionships between self-efficacy domains and psychological functioning variables vary
among diverse populations. Additional research in which the factor structure of the SEQ-C
and pattern of relationships between self-efficacy and psychological functioning variables
are examined in representative gender, ethnic, and SES groups would help determine if the
current findings are generalizable to the larger population of American adolescents. Finally,
studies that include methods other than student self-report (e.g., parent or teacher report of
adolescent mental health) and that purposefully include constructs not hypothesized to
relate to self-efficacy are needed to control for method bias and establish discriminant
validity of the SEQ-C.
354 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of
Vermont Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington:
University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
Bacchini, D., & Magliulo, F. (2003). Self-image and perceived self-efficacy during adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 32, 337-350.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84,
191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 212 -213). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-
regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74, 769-782.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood
depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-269.
Berry, J. M., & West, R. L. (1993). Cognitive self-efficacy in relation to personal mastery and goal setting across
the life span. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 351-379.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2004). Life satisfaction among European American, African American,
Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American adolescents. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 28, 385-400.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005a). Affective and social self-regulatory beliefs as determinants of positive
thinking and happiness. European Psychologist, 10, 275-286.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005b). Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life
satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 191-217.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in
middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351-368.
Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Hightower, A. D. (1991). Toward the development of a measure of perceived self-
efficacy in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 169-178.
Dew, T., & Huebner, E. S. (1994). Adolescents’ perceived quality of life: An exploratory investigation. Journal
of School Psychology, 33, 185-199.
Fogle, L., Huebner, E. S., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). The relationship between temperament and life satisfaction
in early adolescence: Cognitive and behavioral mediation models. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 373-392.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology
International, 12, 231-240.
Huebner, E. S. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for
children. Psychological Assessment, 6, 149-158.
Huebner, E. S., Gilman, R., & Laughlin, J. E. (1999). A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality
of children’s well-being reports: Discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators
Research, 46, 1-22.
Huebner, E. S., Nagle, R. J., & Suldo, S. (2003). Quality of life assessment in child and adolescent health care:
The Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS). In J. Sirgy, D. Rahtz, & A. C. Samli
(Eds.), Advances in quality-of-life theory and research (pp. 179-190). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 277-287). London: Oxford University Press.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford.
 Suldo, Shaffer / Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 355

Muris, P. (2001). A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youths. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 23, 145-149.
Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a
normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 337-348.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school
achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (pp. 239-265). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Saarni, C. (2000). Emotional competence: A developmental perspective. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker
(Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home,
school, and in the workplace (pp. 68-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Saunders, J., Davis, L., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2004). Gender differences in self-perceptions and aca-
demic outcomes: A study of African-American high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33,
81-90.
Shaunessy, E., Suldo, S. M., Hardesty, R. B., & Shaffer, E. J. (2006). School functioning and psychological
well-being of International Baccalaureate and general education students: A preliminary examination.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 76-89.
Stewart, S. M, Kennard, B. D., Lee, P. W. H., Hughes, C. W., Mayes, T. L., Emslie, G. J., et al. (2004). A cross-
cultural investigation of cognitions and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 113, 248-257.
Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous?
Social Indicators Research, 78, 179-203.
Suveg, C., & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 750-759.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle
school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 125-141.