A positive self-concept supposedly affects a student’s well-being as well as his or her perception of individual competence at school. As computer-based learning is becoming increasingly important in school, a positive computer-related self-concept (CSC) might help to enhance cognitive achievement. Consequently, we focused on establishing a short, valid, and reliable instrument to measure the CSC by administering to German subsamples (Ntotal = 488) of three different age-groups: 8th (N = 159), 11th graders (N = 214), and university freshmen (N = 115). We succeeded in developing a one-factor-instrument with good overall reliability (αtotal = .84) and adequate criterion validity. The scale implementation revealed a high self-concept among younger respondents. Furthermore, we observed a stereotypical difference between the CSC scores for 8th and 11th graders. Finally, we discuss pedagogical and educational considerations of the scale’s implementation in school.
BanduraA. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Baram-TsabariA.YardenA. (2011) Quantifying the gender gap in science interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education9(3): 523–550.
3.
BongM.ClarkR. E. (1999) Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist34(3): 139–153.
4.
BongM.SkaalvikE. M. (2003) Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really?Educational Psychology Review15(1): 1–40.
BroosA. (2005) Gender and information and communication technologies (ICT) anxiety: Male self-assurance and female hesitation. CyberPsychology & Behavior8(1): 21–31.
7.
BrunnerM.KellerU.DierendonckC.ReichertM.UgenS.FischbachA.MartinR. (2010) The structure of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology102(4): 964–981.
8.
ByrneB. M. (1984) The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research54(3): 427–456.
9.
ByrneB. M. (1996) Academic self-concept: its structure, measurement, and relation to academic achievement. In: BrackenB. A. (ed.) Handbook of self-concept, New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 287–316.
10.
ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J. (1987) Adolescent self-concept: Testing the assumption of equivalent structure across gender. American Educational Research Journal24(3): 365–385.
11.
CassidyS.EachusP. (2002) Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research26(2): 133–153.
12.
ChoiN. (2005) Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students’ academic performance. Psychology in the Schools42(2): 197–205.
13.
ChristophG.GoldhammerF.ZylkaJ.HartigJ. (2015) Adolescents’ computer performance: The role of self-concept and motivational aspects. Computers & Education81: 1–12.
14.
ComberC.ColleyA.HargreavesD. J.DornL. (1997) The effects of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research39(2): 123–133.
15.
DenissenJ. J. A.ZarrettN. R.EcclesJ. S. (2007) I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development78(2): 430–447.
16.
FerketichS. (1991) Focus on psychometrics. Aspects of item analysis. Research in Nursing & Health14(2): 165–168.
17.
FieldA. (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. And sex and drugs and rock’n’roll, 4th ed. London, England: Sage Publications.
18.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975) Belief, attitude, intentions and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
GarlandR. (1991) The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable. Marketing Bulletin2(1): 66–70.
20.
GniewoszB.EcclesJ. S.NoackP. (2011) Secondary school transition and the use of different sources of information for the construction of the academic self-concept. Social Development21(3): 537–557.
21.
HartigJ.FreyA.JudeN. (2012) Validität. In: MoosbruggerH.KelavaA. (eds) Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 143–171.
22.
ImhofM.VollmeyerR.BeierleinC. (2007) Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior23(6): 2823–2837.
JanneckM.Vincent-HöperS.EhrhardtJ. (2013) The computer-related self-concept: A gender-sensitive study. International Journal of Social and Organizational Dynamics in IT3(3): 1–16.
25.
JonkmannK.BeckerM.MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU. (2012) Personality traits moderate the big-fish-little-pond effect of academic self-concept. Learning and Individual Differences22(6): 736–746.
26.
KaiserH. F. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement20: 141–151.
27.
KaiserH. F. (1970) A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika35: 401–415.
28.
KaiserH. F. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika39: 31–36.
29.
KlineP. (1999) The handbook of psychological testing, 2nd ed. London, England: Routledge.
30.
LienertG. A. (1969) Testaufbau und testanalyse, 3rd ed. Weinheim, Berlin, Germany: Julius Beltz.
31.
LienertG. A.RaatzU. (1994) Testaufbau und testanalyse, Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, Psychologie-Verlags-Union.
32.
LipsH. M. (2004) The gender gap in possible selves: Divergence of academic self-views among high school and university students. Sex Roles50(5): 6, 357–371.
33.
MarkusH.NuriusP. (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist41(9): 954–969.
34.
MarshH. W. (1987) The big fish little pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology79(3): 280–295.
35.
MarshH. W.O’NeillR. (1984) Self description questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement21(2): 153–174.
36.
MarshH. W.ParkerJ. W. (1984) Determinants of student self-concept: It is better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don’t learn to swim as well?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology47(1): 213–231.
37.
MarshH. W.ParkerJ.BarnesJ. (1985) Multidimensional adolescent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic measures. American Educational Research Journal22(3): 422–444.
38.
MarshH. W.TrautweinU.LüdkeO.KöllerO.BaumertJ. (2005) Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development76(2): 397–416.
39.
MorrisS. A.GulleksonN. L.MorseB. J.PopovichP. M. (2009) Updating the attitudes toward computer usage scale using American undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 535–543.
40.
MummendeyH. D.GrauI. (2008) Die fragebogen-methode, 5th ed. Göttingen,Germany: Hogrefe.
41.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
42.
OerkeB.BognerF. X. (2013) Social desirability, environmental attitudes, and general ecological behaviour in children. International Journal of Science Education35(5): 713–730.
43.
PajaresF.MillerM. D. (1994) Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology86(2): 193–203.
44.
PancerS. M.GeorgeM.GebotysR. J. (1992) Understanding and predicting attitudes towards computers. Computers in Human Behavior8(2): 211–222.
45.
RätyH.VänskäJ.KasanenK.KärkkäinenR. (2002) Parents’ explanations of their child’s performance in mathematics and reading: A replication and extension of Yee and Eccles. Sex Roles46(3): 4, 121–128.
46.
RosenbergM. J.HovlandC. I. (1960) Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In: RosenbergM. J. (eds) Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 1–14.
SáinzM.EcclesJ. (2012) Self-concept of computer and math ability: Gender implications across time and within ICT studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior80(2): 486–499.
49.
SchwanzerA. (2002) Entwicklung und Validierung eines deutschsprachigen instruments zur erfassung des selbstkonzepts junger erwachsener (Development and validation of a german instrument to measure the self-concept of young adults)Vol. 74, Berlin, Germany: Max Plank Institute for Human Development.
50.
SchwanzerA. D.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.SydowH. (2005) Entwicklung eines deutschsprachigen instruments zur erfassung des selbstkonzepts junger erwachsener (Development a of a german instrument to measure the self-concept of young adults). Diagnostica51(4): 183–194.
51.
ShavelsonR. J.HubnerJ. J.StantonG. C. (1976) Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research46(3): 407–441.
52.
StevensJ. P. (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
VekiriI.ChronakiA. (2008) Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education51(3): 1392–1404.
54.
YeeD. K.EcclesJ. S. (1988) Parent perceptions and attributions for children’s math achievement. Sex Roles19(5): 6, 317–333.
55.
ZarrettN. R.MalanchukO. (2005) Who is computing? Gender and race differences in young adults’ decisions to pursue an information technology career. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development2005(110): 65–84.
