Cuándo se debe practicar un estudio genético en un paciente con epilepsia?

2.3.1.1 TASK SPECIFIC SCALES

The measurement o f self-efficacy involves assessing people’s beliefs in their abilities

to produce specific levels of attainment (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1977, 1986) advocates

using self-efficacy measures that are specific to particular domains o f functioning rather than

assessing self-efficacy as a global disposition with an omnibus test. Consequently, most self-

efficacy researchers have constructed measures which are tailored to their specific study.

Bandura also advocates using a microanalytic approach, which requires a detailed assessment

o f the level, strength, and generality o f self-efficacy beliefs. As discussed in section 2.21,

efficacy beliefs can vary along three dimensions: Level which is concerned with the

individual's expected performance attainment (Hardy et al., 2001), strength which reflects the

certainty with which the individual expects to achieve success (Hardy et al., 2001), and

generality which refers to the number o f activities or domains o f functioning in which the

individual considers him/herself efficacious. However, generality is rarely used in studies on

self-efficacy (Maddux, 1995).

Task specific self-efficacy measures are typically constructed by listing a hierarchical

series o f tasks, usually varying in difficulty, complexity, and/or stressfulness (Feltz & Chase,

1998). Participants are asked to designate (yes or no) the tasks that they believe they can

perform (efficacy level). For each task designated as ‘y es’, they rate the strength o f their

b elief ranging in 10 unit intervals from 0 (total uncertainty) to 100 (total certainty). The

measure o f self-efficacy for the activity. A measure o f efficacy level can also be obtained by

identifying the last item before participants judged themselves unable to complete the task.

The validity o f self-efficacy measures is typically inferred from how well they predict

the behaviours hypothesised in the research study, such as choice o f task, persistence, thought

patterns, and emotional responses (Feltz & Chase, 1998). However, when these scales are

used with athletes in competitive situations, they tend to have lower correlations with

measures o f performance outcome. Furthermore, one-item competitive or comparative

efficacy scales have the tendency to create ceiling effects when utilised with athletes who may

not demonstrate much diffidence (Vealey, 1986).

2.3.1.2 COLLECTIVE EFFICACY MEASURES

Only a few studies have examined collective efficacy in sport and the instruments used

have varied in their approach (Feltz & Chase, 1998). Early collective efficacy measures

utilised one-item questions to assess comparative efficacy at the team level. For example,

Spink (1990) used two questions to measure team efficacy in volleyball: “What placing do

you expect to attain in Supervolley?” (open question) and “How confident are you that your

team will attain this placing?” (scored on a 7 point Likert scale). However, as highlighted by

Feltz and Chase (1998), the first question is more related to expectancy, and the second

question is invalid. For example, an athlete who is very confident that his/her team will

achieve a poor placing, would receive a higher efficacy score than a player who is less certain

about a poor placing. In a later study designed to assess the effects of different levels o f

collective efficacy on performance o f a muscular endurance task, Hodges and Carron (1992)

assessed collective efficacy by asking “What do you think your group’s chances are of

winning?” and How confident are you of your prediction?” However, the measures suffered

the same limitation associated with Spink’s (1990) study. Furthermore, whilst the first

measured certainty o f efficacy, these are actually conceptually the same thing according to

Bandura’s (1977, 1986) definitions.

More recently, the measurement of collective efficacy has evolved in complexity.

Contemporary research has utilised two methods for measuring team efficacy, as advocated

by Bandura (1997). The first method involves aggregating team members’ appraisals o f their

own abilities for the functions they perform within the team. This is calculated by summing

all team members’ responses to various items using the stem question “How confident are you

that you can ...? ” The second method involves aggregating team members’ appraisals o f their

team’s capability as a whole using items that assess competitive task components in addition

to coordination, communication, and coordination within the team. Two different stem

questions have been adopted: “How confident are you in your team’s ability to ...? ” and

“What is your team’s confidence that they can...? ” The former has been utilised to assess

individuals’ perceptions o f the collective efficacy o f the team (Feltz & Lirgg, 1998; Magyar,

Feltz & Simpson, 2004; Myers, Feltz & Short, 2004; Myers, Payment & Feltz, 2004). The

latter has been used to assess individual’s estimates o f the team’s collective efficacy (Heuze,

Raimbault, & Fontayne, 2006; Heuze, Sarrazin, Masiero, Raimbault, & Thomas 2006;

Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1999; Short, Sullivan & Feltz, 2005).

The relative merits o f these two stem question approaches to assessing collective

efficacy has been debated (Short et al., 2005). Whether the stem question should direct a

respondent to focus on his/her individual belief in the team, or his/her perception o f the

team’s belief, is at present unclear. Indeed, Short et al., (2002a) found no differences between

the two stem questions on team efficacy ratings. Further research is needed to more fully

understand the way in which each type of stem question might influence the measurement of

Unlike the task-specific collective efficacy measures presented above, the Collective

Efficacy Questionnaire for sports (CEQS; Short et al., 2005) was developed as a

multidimensional measure o f general team sport functioning, allowing researchers to examine

team efficacy across different sport types. Furthermore, the CEQS was developed as a state

measure, with specific instructions for participants to base their responses on upcoming sport

competition. An overall team efficacy score can be computed as the average o f five

interrelated team efficacy factors: Ability, Effort, Preparation, Persistence, and Unity.