Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Sirius Huang and Version 2 by Musheer A. Aljaberi.

The Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale is a tool utilized to assess the effectiveness of a family as a functioning system. The scale has a single-factor structure with good validity and reliability.

  • self-efficacy
  • collective efficacy
  • psychological theory
  • family
  • factor analysis

1. Introduction

Family provides more than environments where individuals live; it also provides a complete and intricate social system for human development. Individuals interact within these systems, influencing each other’s behavior. As a social system, the family is envisioned to possess unique characteristics, rules, roles, communication patterns, and power structures that extend beyond the individual [1,2,3,4][1][2][3][4]. The family systems theory asserts that family subsystems are closely interconnected, conceptualizing families as organized groups. It also suggests that understanding human behavior relies on the interactions between individuals within the family and between the family and its context, as the family is an integral part of its surrounding environment [5,6,7][5][6][7]. According to the family systems theory, family functioning encompasses task accomplishment, role performance, emotional involvement, control, values, standards, expression, and emotional communication. The concept of family functioning includes both the efficiency and style of the family. Family efficiency requires structure and the ability to adapt to changes over time, while family patterns refer to the quality of family interactions [8,9][8][9].
The social cognitive theory links behavior to four factors: goals, outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and social–structural variables [10,11,12][10][11][12]. The social cognitive theory, as proposed by Bandura, assumes an interaction between personal, behavioral, and social–environmental factors. The key point is that people strive to develop a sense of significant control over important events in their lives. The perceived efficacy of the group influences their aspirations, resource utilization, contribution to collective effort, resilience in the face of failed collective efforts or opposition, and adaptability when confronting challenging problems. Thus, the social cognitive theory establishes a central role for perceived efficacy in managing various relationships, interactions, and daily tasks within the family system [13,14][13][14]. Specifically, collective efficacy beliefs within the family refer to the judgments made by family members regarding the family’s collective ability to accomplish necessary tasks for its functioning. Family collective efficacy focuses on the capabilities of family members to work together as a whole [15]. In order to better understand family collective efficacy, a validated instrument (i.e., the Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale) should be used. However, the Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale does not have an Arabic version to assess Arab populations. Therefore, the present study translated the Collective Family Efficacy Scale into Arabic for further psychometric evaluation.

2. Collective Efficacy in Families

Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to perform complex life tasks successfully. It plays a crucial role in shaping a person’s feelings, perceptions, motivational activities, and behaviors across various activities [16]. Collective efficacy is considered an extension of building self-efficacy and is a subsidiary model of the social cognitive theory proposed by Bandura. Bandura [17] defines collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the actions required to produce given levels of attainment”. Thus, perceived collective efficacy within the organization represents the group members’ beliefs regarding the collective ability of the social system [18,19][18][19]. The dynamic characteristics of a group can encompass social support, solidarity, communication, collective participation, dialogue, trust, decision-making and sharing, group belongingness, and common goals. The willingness and ability to intervene for the benefit of the group depend on the level of solidarity, participation, and mutual trust among group members [20,21][20][21]. Beliefs about collective family efficacy reflect the judgments made by family members regarding the collective ability of the family as a whole to function as a complete system in accomplishing necessary tasks for the functioning of the family. Bandura, et al. [22] define perceived collective family efficacy as: “members’ beliefs in the capabilities of their family to work together to promote each other’s development and well-being, maintain beneficial ties to extrafamilial systems, and exhibit resilience to adversity”.
While other self-efficacy beliefs primarily focus on dyadic relationships (e.g., between parent and child, husband and wife), collective family efficacy beliefs center around the perceived practical capabilities of the family as a whole [23]. Individual self-efficacy beliefs alone may be insufficient to achieve desired goals when focusing on family performance. Spouses, parents, and children cannot fulfill their roles independently of other family members’ feelings, expectations, and behaviors. Many outcomes can only be achieved when all family members pool their resources and efforts together. This is because the family, as a social system, has a lasting impact on individual growth. Individuals face a variety of needs and challenges throughout life as part of an interconnected family system. Similar to any other social system, perceived collective efficacy influences the system’s sense of purpose and message, the strength of members’ commitment to its pursuit, their perception of their ability to fulfill mutual obligations, and the family’s resilience in the face of adversity [17,23,24][17][23][24]. According to a study by Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Regalia and Scabini [22], a high sense of collective family efficacy is associated with open family communication and explicit disclosure by teenagers about their activities outside the home. Furthermore, family collective efficacy has contributed to the satisfaction of parents and teenagers with their family life. Another study by Kao, et al. [25] found that the perceived collective family efficacy of both teenagers and parents reduced the impact of parental and teenage depressive symptoms on risky health behaviors among teenagers. In fact, parents’ and teenagers’ perceived collective family efficacy protects against depressive symptoms and risky health behaviors.

3. Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale

The Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale, developed by Caprara [26] and Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli and Bandura [24], is a measure used to assess the perceived effectiveness of families in accomplishing essential tasks and functioning as a complete system. It focuses on the family’s practical capabilities and views it as a social system comprising interconnected and interactive relationships. This scale comprises 20 items that emphasize the family’s ability to manage daily routines, reach consensus in decision-making and planning, cope with challenges, promote mutual agreement, provide emotional support during difficult times, engage in shared activities and relaxation despite multiple commitments, and maintain positive relationships with the community.
Several studies have been conducted on the Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale’s psychometric properties. Caprara, Regalia, Scabini, Barbaranelli and Bandura [24] used a group of parents and adolescents to validate the scale’s reliability and validity. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with oblimin rotation showed that collective family efficacy is unidimensional. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the collective family scale indicated high internal consistency, with values of 0.96 for boys and 0.97 for girls. The correlation coefficients between parents’ and adolescents’ family efficacy beliefs ranged from low to moderately high congruence, with same-sex dyads typically having stronger correlations than opposite-sex dyads.
Costa and colleagues conducted studies in Portuguese and Italian contexts to validate the cross-cultural stability of the Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale and its associations with communication, conflict management, and children’s academic achievement [27]. The Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale’s factor loadings were found to be robust in both samples, ranging from 0.71 to 0.89 in Portugal and 0.71 to 0.89 in Italy, indicating that cross-cultural invariance had been achieved in terms of configurable, metric, and scalar. The construct validity was supported by various correlations with internalized and externalized symptoms, close communication with parents, aggressive conflict styles, open communication, compromise in conflict styles, and children’s academic achievement.
Pepe, et al. [28] conducted validation studies in Spanish adolescents and found that all items displayed factor loadings exceeding 0.40, indicating a robust relationship with the underlying factor. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient achieved a value of 0.92, meeting the standard criteria for internal consistency. The construct validity was supported by various correlations, including positive correlations between perceived collective family efficacy and parental affection, the promotion of autonomy, and productive coping strategies and negative correlations with psychological control exerted by parents. The scale also exhibited positive correlations with certain non-productive coping strategies (e.g., worry, wishful thinking) and negative correlations with others (e.g., tension reduction). Additionally, adolescents with a higher family efficacy tended to use fewer drugs.
The psychometric properties of the Perceived Family Collective Efficacy revised scales were also evaluated in the Iranian population by Panaghi and colleagues [29]. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution, while confirmatory factor analysis provided support for both the two-factor and one-factor models, with a preference for the two-factor model due to its superior fit. The calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.92, and the test–retest reliability score was 0.83, highlighting high internal consistency and stability. These findings suggest that the Perceived Family Collective Efficacy Scale has robust psychometric properties suitable for research and family counseling endeavors within the Iranian context.
Overall, the literature evidence indicates that the Perceived Collective Family Efficacy Scale is reliable and valid in assessing family effectiveness and functioning. Its utility spans different cultural contexts and age groups, making it a valuable tool for research and psychological assessment.

References

  1. Gilbertson, S.; Graves, B.A. Chapter 4—Heart Health and Children. In Lifestyle in Heart Health and Disease; Watson, R.R., Zibadi, S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 35–46.
  2. McGinnis, H.A.; Wright, A.W. Adoption and child health and psychosocial well-being. In Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Health, 1st ed.; Halpern-Felsher, B., Ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2023; pp. 582–598.
  3. Aiche, S. Building a measure of functional family performance: A field study on a sample of respondents in Algeria. J. Educ. Qual. Res. 2021, 8, 167–182.
  4. Taresh, S.M.; Ahmad, N.A.; Roslan, S.; Ma’rof, A.M. Preschool Teachers’ Beliefs towards Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in Yemen. Children 2020, 7, 170.
  5. Schermerhorn, A.C.; Mark Cummings, E. Transactional Family Dynamics: A New Framework for Conceptualizing Family Influence Processes. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior; Kail, R.V., Ed.; JAI: Beijing, China, 2008; Volume 36, pp. 187–250.
  6. Watson, W.H. Family Systems. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd ed.; Ramachandran, V.S., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 184–193.
  7. Aiche, S.; Hammadi, F. The factorial structure of the satisfaction with family life scale on a sample of Algerians. Al-Qabas J. Psychol. Soc. Stud. 2023, 5, 69–79.
  8. Caporino, N.E. Chapter 14—Involving family members in exposure therapy for children and adolescents. In Exposure Therapy for Children with Anxiety and OCD; Peris, T.S., Storch, E.A., McGuire, J.F., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 323–357.
  9. Coulacoglou, C.; Saklofske, D.H. Chapter 8—The Assessment of Family, Parenting, and Child Outcomes. In Psychometrics and Psychological Assessment; Coulacoglou, C., Saklofske, D.H., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 187–222.
  10. Conner, M. Health Behaviors. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 582–587.
  11. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Cooperation and Competition. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Wright, J.D., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 856–861.
  12. Schunk, D.H.; DiBenedetto, M.K. Learning from a social cognitive theory perspective. In International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed.; Tierney, R.J., Rizvi, F., Ercikan, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2023; pp. 22–35.
  13. Procentese, F.; Gatti, F.; Di Napoli, I. Families and Social Media Use: The Role of Parents’ Perceptions about Social Media Impact on Family Systems in the Relationship between Family Collective Efficacy and Open Communication. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5006.
  14. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 1–26.
  15. Urdan, T.; Pajares, F. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents; IAP: Cape Canaveral, FL, USA, 2006.
  16. Butler, J. Self-Efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine; Gellman, M.D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1983–1985.
  17. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 604–609.
  18. Donohoo, J.; Hattie, J.; Eells, R. The power of collective efficacy. Educ. Leadersh. 2018, 75, 40–44.
  19. Pietrantoni, L. Collective Efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 987–989.
  20. Dehingia, N.; Dixit, A.; Heskett, K.; Raj, A. Collective efficacy measures for women and girls in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. BMC Women’s Health 2022, 22, 129.
  21. Aiche, S. Family Sacrifice: A Theoretical Approach. Soc. Empower. J. 2021, 3, 148–159.
  22. Bandura, A.; Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Regalia, C.; Scabini, E. Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 60, 421–448.
  23. Scabini, E.; Marta, E.; Lanz, M. The Transition to Adulthood and Family Relations: An Intergenerational Approach; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2007.
  24. Caprara, G.V.; Regalia, C.; Scabini, E.; Barbaranelli, C.; Bandura, A. Assessment of Filial, Parental, Marital, and Collective Family Efficacy Beliefs. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2004, 20, 247–261.
  25. Kao, T.-S.A.; Ling, J.; Dalaly, M.; Robbins, L.B.; Cui, Y. Parent–Child Dyad’s Collective Family Efficacy and Risky Adolescent Health Behaviors. Nurs. Res. 2020, 69, 455–465.
  26. Caprara, G.V. La Valutazione Dell’autoefficacia. Costrutti e Strumenti; Edizioni Erickson: Trento, Italy, 2001.
  27. Costa, M.; Faria, L.; Alessandri, G.; Caprara, G.V. Measuring parental and family efficacy beliefs of adolescents’ parents: Cross-cultural comparisons in Italy and Portugal. Int. J. Psychol. 2016, 51, 421–429.
  28. Pepe, S.; Sobral, J.; Gómez-Fraguela, J.A.; Villar-Torres, P. Spanish adaptation of the Adolescents’ perceived collective family efficacy scale. Psicothema 2008, 20, 148–154.
  29. Panaghi, L.; Mokhtarnai, I.; Kalantary, F. A Preliminary Study of Psychometric Properties of the Adolescents’ Perceived Family Collective Efficacy Scale in Adolescent. J. Fam. Res. 2016, 11, 531–550.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback