Purpose of Measure: "The purpose of this study was to design and psychometrically evaluate a set of three, domain-specific scales assessing scientific communication skills within the framework of social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Using a sample of public health, biomedical, and social science trainees enrolled in doctoral and postdoctoral programs, this article describes the development and psychometric properties of scientific communication self-efficacy, career outcome expectations, and task interest, and reports the relation of these measures with trainee scientific communication behaviors" (Anderson et al., 2016, p. 83).
Lay-Person Terms: To assess a individual's level of confidence in aspects of scientific communication.
Measure:
Rate your level of confidence (even if you have never done it yet) in your ability to…
| 1. Very Insecure | 2. Insecure | 3. Neither Confident nor Insecure | 4. Confident | 5. Very Confident | |
| 1. Excel in giving scientific presentations (i.e., you usually receive high praise for your presentations from your mentor or the audience). | |||||
| 2. Give a scientific talk to a lay audience (e.g. high school students, cancer patients). | |||||
| 3. Give an oral presentation at a scientific meeting. | |||||
| 4. Require little to no assistance with my speaking and presenting skills. |
Type of Validity: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 22-item, 3-factor measure of self-efficacy; an 11-item, 2-factor measure of outcome expectations; and a 12-item, 3-factor measure of interest in scientific communication activities. Construct validity was further demonstrated by theory-consistent inter-factor relations and relations with typical communications performance behaviors (e.g., writing manuscripts, abstracts, and presenting at national meetings).
Instructions to analyze and interpret: The three-factor model of writing, presenting, and conversation provided the best fit to the data. From the 27-item pool, a total of 22 items were retained in the LISREL analyses. An iterative process was used to delete five items due to redundancies, lack of domain specificity (e.g., “Deal with fear of disappointing your mentor), or loadings below .60, our chosen cutoff for a moderate to strong association (Kline, 2005). All models were fit without post hoc model modifications (i.e., no correlated errors), providing the most stringent test of the models. Given these strict criteria, the fit indices for the final three-factor model were quite satisfactory (NNFI=.95, CFI=.96, SRMR=.065), although the RMSEA value was somewhat high at .091.
Other citations: N/A