Self-efficacy beliefs play a central role in human functioning. They influence whether individuals set ambitious goals, how much effort they invest and how long they persist when facing difficulties and failures (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy can be general or specific, and both aspects of self-efficacy may promote optimal functioning (Schutte & Malouff, 2016). General self-efficacy beliefs are conceptualized as “individuals' perception of their ability to perform across a variety of situations” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 169). Specific self-efficacy describes an individual’s belief he or she can bring about good outcomes in a defined area of life, such as during work (Bandura, 2012). Most studies on self-efficacy have examined either general or specific self-efficacy as unique separate constructs. Only a small number of studies have simultaneously looked at the two facets of self-efficacy (Schutte & Malouff, 2016).

In the present study we focus on the concepts of general self-efficacy and specific self-efficacy among Flemish elementary principals and how these two concepts relate to each other.

The first goal of this study is to validate the multi-dimensional principal self-efficacy instrument of Federici and Skaalvik (2011). In developing this questionnaire, the authors (Federici & Skaalvik, 2011)  performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the data, but no exploratory factor analysis. Also, their instrument was developed in a study with Norwegian principals. We believe it is important to validate their instrument again in a new study with a different population of principals (in Flanders, Belgium).

A second goal in this study is to examine the relation between principal self-efficacy and general self-efficacy.  According to Schutte and Malouff (2016) both specific and general forms of self-efficacy have the potential to support optimal functioning. It is important to establish if the concepts refer to different phenomena and in what way there is overlap between the two concepts.

The third goal of this study is to analyze the relation between both principal self-efficacy and general self-efficacy with other variables. Exploring the similarities and differences between both forms of self-efficacy in relation to other variables can shed light on the way in which we must perceive both concepts, their mutual relationship, and their respective relevance. We have included demographic, career-related and work-related variables to study in relation to the self-efficacy forms. One of the most researched variables related to self-efficacy is the seniority of principals. Previous research has suggested that experience affects self-efficacy (Fisher, 2014; Özer, 2013). In addition, based on the research of Elias and colleagues (2013), we can hypothesize that work-related variables will be more correlated with principal self-efficacy than with general self-efficacy. Therefore, we selected two variables related to a more or less challenging work context, namely the school size and the location of the school. Schools with a large number of staff are more difficult to manage and urban schools have a more diverse population than rural schools. We expect these variables to make a greater difference for principal self-efficacy than for general self-efficacy. Finally, gender, tenure and principal training were also included. Gender is an important demographic variable, and it is interesting to explore if gender makes a difference for both forms of self-efficacy. Gaining tenure is an important step in the career of principals. We want to explore if this career step makes a difference. It can be expected that tenure enhances the self-efficacy of principals. Finally, the training of principals can be considered as an important potential influence on school leadership development. It is interesting to study if training is related to the self-efficacy of principals.

981 principals in Flanders participated in an online questionnaire about their sense of self-efficacy. To assess general self-efficacy, we used the General Self-Efficacy scale of Chen, Gully, & Eden (2001). This self-report scale consists of 8 items about a person’s general self-efficacy. To determine the specific self-efficacy, the principal self-efficacy instrument of Federici and Skaalvik (2011, 2012) was used. The instrument of Federici and Skaalvik (2012) includes 8 scales, based on minimum 2 items each: economic management, instructional leadership, municipal authority, parental relations, local community, administrative management, teacher support, school environment. To study the first research goal, exploratory graph analysis (EGA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability analysis were used to study the construct validity of the principal self-efficacy scale. First, an exploratory graph analysis (EGA) was conducted. EGA is a new technique to estimate the number of factors underlying multivariate data (Christensen & Golino, 2021; Golino et al., 2019). After the EGA, an EFA was performed to uncover the underlying structure of the factors. Further, a CFA was performed to confirm the data. Finally, Cronbach's alpha was calculated to indicate reliability. The EGA and the CFA were analyzed using R version 4.1.1 with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). In contrast, the EFA and the reliability analysis were conducted in SPSS 29.0. We used maximum-likelihood extraction with promax rotation for the EFA. In addition, we tested the extent to which general and specific self-efficacy are related. For research goal two, we compared general and specific self-efficacy by analyzing the correlation table. For research goal three, we studied the relationship with demographic variables, career variables and work-related variables, (M)ANCOVA was used.

First, the results indicate that general and principal self-efficacy are two different concepts. Although there are significant correlations between general and principal self-efficacy subscales, only the subscale administrative management scores relatively high (.508), followed by de subscale people management (.366). The range of correlations between the other principal self-efficacy subscales and general self-efficacy is .173 and .287, which is rather low. Administrative management refers more to general tasks that principals perform. Therefore, the similarity with general self-efficacy is not surprising. Still, it only is correlated with a score of .508. The second factor ‘people management’ which refers more to general people management tasks. The other scales are all more specific tasks. These findings suggest that certain subscales of the principal self-efficacy are more strongly associated with general self-efficacy than others. In addution, our analysis of both forms of self-efficacy in their relationship with other variables provides a complex and mixed picture. We expected that general self-efficacy is definitely an individual trait, not easy to influence, whereas principal self-efficacy, although also an individual trait, is more context related and therefore is more strongly related to specific work conditions. But we found that one of the two work-related variables we studied, size of the school, is significantly related to general self-efficacy and not to principal-self-efficacy. On the other hand, gender, a typical individual, demographic characteristic, was not related to general self-efficacy, but to specific subscales of principal self-efficacy. In these subscales, we found typical gender stereotypes. So, we can not conclude from our study that general self-efficacy is only a matter of individual trait characteristics and principal self-efficacy is more related to work context and can more easily be influenced.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44. Bellemans, L., Devos, G., Tuytens, M., & Vekeman, E. (2023). The role of self-efficacy on feelings of burnout among Flemish school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Administration, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2022-0138 Chen, Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004 Christensen, A. P., & Golino, H. (2021). Estimating the Stability of Psychological Dimensions via Bootstrap Exploratory Graph Analysis: A Monte Carlo Simulation and Tutorial. Psych, 3(3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych3030032 Elias, S. M., Barney, C. E., & Bishop, J. W. (2013). The treatment of self-efficacy among psychology and management scholars. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(4), 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12007 Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: assessing a Norwegian Principal Self-Efficacy Scale. Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4 Golino, H., Shi, D., Christensen, A. P., Garrido, L. E., Nieto, M. D., Sadana, R., … Martínez-Molina, A. (2019). Investigating the performance of Exploratory Graph Analysis and traditional techniques to identify the number of latent factors: A simulation and tutorial. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000255 Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader Self and Means Efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.007 Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The Power of Being Positive: The Relation Between Positive Self-Concept and job Performance. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.9668030 Luszczynska, A., Mohamed, N. E., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Self-efficacy and social support predict benefit finding 12 months after cancer surgery: The mediating role of coping strategies. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 10(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500500093738 Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multicultural Validation Studies. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 439–457. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). General and Realm-Specific Self-Efficacy: Connections to Life Functioning. Current Psychology, 35(3), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9301-y