Uncovering potential interviewer-related biases in self-efficacy assessment: a study among chronic disease patients.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Magdalena Holter, Alexander Avian, Martin Weger, Sanja Strini, Monja Michelitsch, Victoria Winkler, Agnes M Kloft, Julia Groß, Thomas Falb, Maximilian Gabriel, Manuel Großpötzl, Andreas Wedrich, Andrea Berghold
{"title":"Uncovering potential interviewer-related biases in self-efficacy assessment: a study among chronic disease patients.","authors":"Magdalena Holter, Alexander Avian, Martin Weger, Sanja Strini, Monja Michelitsch, Victoria Winkler, Agnes M Kloft, Julia Groß, Thomas Falb, Maximilian Gabriel, Manuel Großpötzl, Andreas Wedrich, Andrea Berghold","doi":"10.1186/s40359-025-02579-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish specific tasks and achieve goals, and plays an essential role in achieving positive outcomes in a wide range of domains. Central to the measurement of any form of self-efficacy is the assessment without bias, also in case of an interview situation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Outpatients with macular edema, an eye disease, participated in this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The study assessed self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) in German. Interviewers read questionnaires aloud to patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated using likelihood-ratio χ2 tests for interviewer, sex, age, education, working status, income, diagnosis, and health-status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included N = 556 patients. Median age was 68.4 (IQR: 62.0 - 76.0) years and mean overall GSE score 32.8 (SD: 4.81). No DIF was detected for interviewer. However, DIF was found in item 1 for education (uniform DIF, NCDIF<sub>no degree vs. degree</sub> = 0.042; easier with degree vs. none), in item 1 and 3 for income (item 1: non-uniform DIF, NCDIF<sub><€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125≤€ 1,950</sub> = 0.050 / NCDIF<sub>< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950</sub> = 0.099; item 3: uniform DIF, NCDIF<sub><€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125-≤€ 1,950</sub> = 0.024 / NCDIF<sub>< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950</sub>: 0.095; both easier with higher income), in item 2 for working status (uniform DIF, NCDIF<sub>retired vs. other</sub> = 0.017; easier if working) and in item 3 for sex (non-uniform DIF, NCDIF<sub>male vs. female</sub> = 0.043; easier for women in low ability, harder for them from medium ability on).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Given that no DIF was detected concerning interviewers, our findings indicate that an objective assessment of self-efficacy in a face-to-face interview may be feasible, provided that interviewers receive appropriate training. Since DIF effects concerning other patients characteristics found were small, the GSE may provide a relatively bias free way to assess self-efficacy in an interview setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":37867,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychology","volume":"13 1","pages":"299"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11934557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02579-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish specific tasks and achieve goals, and plays an essential role in achieving positive outcomes in a wide range of domains. Central to the measurement of any form of self-efficacy is the assessment without bias, also in case of an interview situation.

Methods: Outpatients with macular edema, an eye disease, participated in this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. The study assessed self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) in German. Interviewers read questionnaires aloud to patients. Differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated using likelihood-ratio χ2 tests for interviewer, sex, age, education, working status, income, diagnosis, and health-status.

Results: The analysis included N = 556 patients. Median age was 68.4 (IQR: 62.0 - 76.0) years and mean overall GSE score 32.8 (SD: 4.81). No DIF was detected for interviewer. However, DIF was found in item 1 for education (uniform DIF, NCDIFno degree vs. degree = 0.042; easier with degree vs. none), in item 1 and 3 for income (item 1: non-uniform DIF, NCDIF<€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125≤€ 1,950 = 0.050 / NCDIF< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950 = 0.099; item 3: uniform DIF, NCDIF<€ 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,125-≤€ 1,950 = 0.024 / NCDIF< € 1,125 vs.≥€ 1,950: 0.095; both easier with higher income), in item 2 for working status (uniform DIF, NCDIFretired vs. other = 0.017; easier if working) and in item 3 for sex (non-uniform DIF, NCDIFmale vs. female = 0.043; easier for women in low ability, harder for them from medium ability on).

Conclusions: Given that no DIF was detected concerning interviewers, our findings indicate that an objective assessment of self-efficacy in a face-to-face interview may be feasible, provided that interviewers receive appropriate training. Since DIF effects concerning other patients characteristics found were small, the GSE may provide a relatively bias free way to assess self-efficacy in an interview setting.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Psychology
BMC Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
2.80%
发文量
265
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers manuscripts on all aspects of psychology, human behavior and the mind, including developmental, clinical, cognitive, experimental, health and social psychology, as well as personality and individual differences. The journal welcomes quantitative and qualitative research methods, including animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信