Handbook of Organization Measurement

Self-Efficacy

construct.self_efficacy

§2The established instruments

What the field already uses — named and cited, not reproduced (item wording is copyrighted and withheld pending clearance).

§3The math on what we know

Synthesized priors from the live registry: pooled r, studies (k), total N, top study grade, and heterogeneity. Rows flagged for heterogeneity or single-study evidence are directional, not settled — read them as a central tendency.

What drives self-efficacy

PredictorrkNGradeConfidence
Goal Orientation+0.33110,217Asingle study
Applicant Reactions+0.1415,701Asingle study

What self-efficacy predicts

OutcomerkNGradeConfidence
Job Satisfaction+0.45212,953Acoherent
Overall Job Performance+0.2311,122Asingle study
Task Performance+0.2311,122Asingle study

§4As a model node

Where self-efficacy sits when you drop it into a model — what feeds it, what it moves. Read left to right as a small, actionable causal claim.

Inputs (drivers)

  • Goal Orientation+0.33
  • Applicant Reactions+0.14
Self-Efficacy

Outputs (outcomes)

  • Job Satisfaction+0.45
  • Overall Job Performance+0.23
  • Task Performance+0.23
Composed live from the Principia registry. Effect sizes are synthesized priors (random-effects meta-analysis); grades are the top study-quality grade in each pool; I² is pooled heterogeneity. Source-instrument item wording is withheld pending copyright clearance (PRN-207); the Principia rendering is owned and shown in full.