EntreComp Questionnaire for Entrepreneurship Competencies: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng and Version 1 by M.Inmaculada Lopez-Nuñez.

The European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) offers a comprehensive description of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that people need to develop for an entrepreneurial mindset. Entrepreneurship competencies have usually been equated to management skills, but it is assumed that entrepreneurship activities cannot be narrowed to the management of business, since it requires a wider range of competencies. In particular, the European Council adopted the concept of entrepreneurship competencies as a set of abilities with the potential of shaping society through value creation at a social, cultural, or financial level with the sense of entrepreneurship as one of the eight key competencies necessary for a knowledge-based society.

  • entrepreneurial mindset
  • entrepreneurial skills
  • entrecomp
  • self-assessment
  • confirmatory factor analysis

1. Introduction

EntreComp offers a framework of transversal competencies that are applicable to various contexts and allows the promotion of entrepreneurial competencies to face challenges and find solutions in a sustainable way. In this regard, it should be noted that one of the competencies included in the EntreComp framework, in the Ideas and Opportunities dimension, is Ethical and Sustainable Thinking, defined as: assessing the consequences of ideas that bring value and the effect of entrepreneurial action on the target community, the market, society, and the environment. Reflects on how sustainable, long-term social, cultural, and economic goals are, and the course of action chosen. Act responsibly.
EntreComp aims to develop entrepreneurship competencies so the relevance of having an instrument that measures the self-perception (and consequently the potential evolution) of them is key. Subjective assessments of self-perceived competencies may not provide an accurate estimation of performance, but nevertheless, it is relevant for the objective of developing an entrepreneurial mindset. As far as research results in the field, it was noticed that actions were more influenced by what people believe they can do rather than with objective facts [20][1].
In view of the lack of specific tools to evaluate the self-perception of entrepreneurship competencies, the main aim of this research is to assesses the validity and reliability of the self-perceptions of the entrepreneurship competencies questionnaire proposed by Armuña [16][2], which aims to help reduce the existing lack of psychometric measuring instruments.
Considering the above, the researchers hypothesized the following: (1) the questionnaire proposed showed a four-dimensional model (Ideas and Opportunities, Personal Resources, Specific Knowledge, Into Action) according to the proposed model by Armuña [16][2]; (2) the questionnaire proposed has a good validity based on a positive relationship with Entrepreneurial Intention and Intrapreneurial Self-Capital, and (3) the questionnaire proposed has good internal consistency (reliability).

2. Analysis of Research Results

2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The KMO value was 0.92 and Bartlett’s test showed a p < 0.001. Four components with eigenvalues greater than one were obtained, explaining 58.36% of total variance (35.86% the first, 10.11% the second, 7.20% the third and 5.20% the fourth component). The first component “Ideas and opportunities” consists of five items related to the capacity to recognize opportunity and ideas. The second factor, “Personal Resources”, is comprised by six items that ask for abilities to follow up on an opportunity that has been identified. The third factor, “Specific Knowledge”, is formed by three items related to digital, legal, financial, and economic know how. The fourth factor “Into action” is formed by eight items and asks about the ability to transform ideas into reality. Table 21 shows the rotated solution for EFA.
Table 21. Rotated component matrix (EFA).
Item Component
1 2 3 4
1. Spotting opportunities
Spotting opportunities
 0.63 0.38 0.20 0.05
2. Creativity
Creativity
 0.59 0.41 0.10 −0.05
0.32
3. Vision
Vision
 0.75
0.07
0.11
0.61 0.18
0.48
13. Legal know how
Legal know how
 0.07 0.00 0.79 0.05
14. Financial and economic know how
Financial and economic know how
 0.07 0.05 0.82 -0.00
15. Development of new products and services
Development of new products and services
20.
Problem solving skills
Problem solving skills
 0.26 0.40 0.13 0.55
21.
). Covariance between errors that showed a value greater than 0.20 were kept as free parameters in the model. This model (Figure 1) showed adequate goodness-of-fit indices: CMIN/DF = 2.37, RMSEA = 0.043 (LO90 = 0.037, HI90 = 0.049); SRMR = 0.0387; AGFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.95; NFI = 0.93. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed.
/media/item_content/202203/622aaddcd80f6sustainability-14-02983-g001.png
Figure 1.
Results of FCA. Standardized solution.

2.3. Evidence of Validity Based on Relationships with Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) and Intrapreneurial Self-Capital (IC)

EntreComp scores for each dimension were calculated as the arithmetic mean of all items belonging to each factor. All Pearson correlation coefficients between EI and IC with EntreComp scores were significant (p < 0.001) (Table 32), although were higher for IC than for EI. The squared multiple correlation values (R2) show that competencies explain 21% of the variance of the IE and 43% of the IC, which were significant in both cases (p < 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was confirmed.
Table 32. R2 and Pearson correlation between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-capital with competencies of EntreComp.
  R2 Ideas and Opportunities Personal Resources Specific Knowledge Into Action
Entrepreneurial intention 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.18
0.23

2.4. Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.896 for the whole scale and it decreased if an item was deleted (Table 43). For each subscale, good values of Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.70 were obtained. Composite Reliability (CR) for each subscale was adequate in all cases (CR = 0.81, for Ideas and Opportunities; CR = 0.81, for Personal Resources; CR = 0.78, for Specific Knowledge; CR = 0.70, for Into Action). Therefore, hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was near but lower than 0.50 in all cases (AVE = 0.46, for Ideas and Opportunities; AVE = 0.42, for Personal Resources; AVE = 0.42, for Specific Knowledge; AVE = 0.37, for Into Action), showing a lack of discriminant validity.
Table 43.
Descriptive and internal consistency of EntreComp.
Item Mean SD Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation		 Cronbach’s

α If Item

Deleted		 Subscales

(α; Mean: SD)
0.24
1 4.91 1.11 0.65 0.78 Ideas and opportunities

(0.83; 26.16; 4.40)
0.71
0.06
Learn by doing
Learn by doing
Intrapreneurial Self-Capital 0.43 0.55 0.15
2 5.23 1.26 0.57 0.81 0.10 0.17
3 5.41 1.14 0.64 0.78
4. Valuing ideas
Valuing ideas
 0.78
40.16 0.14 0.09
5.27 1.14 0.68 0.77
5. Ethical and sustainable thinking
Ethical and sustainable thinking
 0.74 0.04 0.09 0.19
5 5.35 1.06 0.56 0.81
6. Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy
 0.47 0.27 0.05 0.31
7 5.03 1.34 0.62 0.78 Personal resources

(0.82; 31.18; 5.79)
7. Motivation, perseverance
Motivation, perseverance
 0.31 0.61
80.15 5.300.18
1.16 0.58 0.79
8. Mobility resources
Mobility resources
 0.34 0.52 0.19 0.18
9 5.18 1.54 0.62 0.78
9. Leadership skills
Leadership skills
 0.18 0.73 0.15 0.13
10 5.45 1.32 0.55 0.80
10. Communication skills
Communication skills
 0.09 0.72 0.02 0.22
11 5.39 1.16 0.59 0.79
11. Multidisciplinary skills
Multidisciplinary skills
 0.25 0.51 0.29 0.28
17 4.83 1.40 0.58 0.79
12. Digital know how
Digital know how
12 5.03 1.43 0.49 0.79 Specific knowledge

(0.80; 19.55; 5.68)
13 3.23 1.48 0.60 0.76
14 3.42 1.58 0.64 0.74
15 4.05 1.48 0.63 0.74
16. Defining priorities and actions plans
Defining priorities and actions plans
 0.35 0.33 0.42
180.20
3.82 1.63 0.55 0.77
17. Making decisions dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risks
Making decisions dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risks
 0.25 0.51 0.38 0.23
19
18. Networking skills
Networking skills
 0.09 0.40 0.59 0.07
5.87 1.14 0.46 0.69 Into action

(0.72; 23.92; 3.05)
20 5.74 1.06 0.54 0.64
19. Team working
Team working
 0.03 0.24 0.09 0.61
21 6.07 0.99 0.52 0.65
22 6.25 0.93 0.52 0.65
0.15 0.16 0.09 0.73
0.60
22. Learn from mistakes
Learn from mistakes
 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.77
To avoid doubts about the interpretation of the components, items with similar weights in various components were eliminated. Only those items with weights above 0.50 were considered for further analysis. Thus, items 6 and 16 were eliminated from the final version of the questionnaire, which was made up of 20 items and whose structure will be analyzed through the subsequent CFA with the second sample.

2.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The four-factor model obtained after EFA was tested by CFA using Maximum Likelihood estimation method. Critical ratio for Mardia coefficient was 1.49 showing the multivariate normality of the data. Through CFA wthe researchers tested a model of four first-order factors with these all intercorrelated (Figure 1
Total scale α = 0.90; Mean = 100.81; SD = 14.91.

3. Current Insights

The conception of entrepreneurship as a competency, which is applicable to a wider range of activities than launching a new business, including general professional and personal development, has promoted the aspiration to integrate these capabilities as part of the horizontal students’ curricula along the entire education cycle [7,27,28,29,30][3][4][5][6][7]. In this sense, the EntreComp framework can be seen as a practical and flexible tool, as it is designed to be adapted and applied for promoting and enabling individuals and organizations to be entrepreneurial.
Nevertheless, as stated, this framework is a starting point, because their authors suggest that it must be tested, developed, and potentially improved by further research. In this sense, although from both perspectives of policy and academic research, the basis of EntreComp has had an echo, with a primary focus on the development of tools to improve the competencies in classes [9,11][8][9] to adapt the framework to particular targets, such as public and private sector employees [12][10], or to inspire practices in specific sectors or entrepreneurship education programs [14][11], but there is a lack of specific tools to evaluate the self-perception of entrepreneurship competencies and the potential evolution.
This restudyearch assessed the psychometric properties of the EntreComp Questionnaire developed by Armuña [16][2] with a sample of students from different universities and areas of knowledge. Results showed a four-dimensional model (Ideas and Opportunities, Personal Resources, Specific Knowledge, Into Action) according to the proposed model by Armuña [16][2].
The first factor, “Ideas and Opportunities”, is made up of the same five competencies indicated by Armuña’s [16][2] and EntreComp’s framework (spotting opportunities, creativity, vision, valuing ideas, and ethical and sustainable thinking).
The second factor, “Personal Resources”, was composed of six items (motivation, perseverance, mobility resources, leadership skills, communication skills, multidisciplinary skills, making decisions dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risks competence). A difference with the results of Armuña [16][2] is that self-efficacy could not be included because it did not have sufficient load in any factor. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to be successful in specific situations or when performing a task [31][12]. Self-confidence, in specific tasks, is a relevant personal resource, as is widely documented by research in different spheres of functioning [32,33][13][14]. It is probable that self-efficacy weighs in several factors since it is a more global and non-specific factor. However, self-efficacy is a key cognitive predictor of entrepreneurial intention [34][15], so wthe researchers consider that future studies should improve this item and include it in the questionnaire.
In the Armuña model [16][2] and EntreComp framework, the competency of” Making decisions dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity and risks” is an Into Action factor, but ourthe results showed a higher loading on the “Personal Resources” factor. In fact, according to previous research, this item seems to be more related with individual variables, as they have shown that tolerance of ambiguity and decision making under uncertainty are individual differences and trait personalities, related with entrepreneurship [35,36][16][17].
The third factor, Specific Knowledge, included the three competencies from the Armuña model [16][2] in addition to “Development of new products and services”, and “Networking skills”. Other competencies of this factor were the perception of digital, legal, financial, and economic technical knowledge. Developing new products and services requires that people have the necessary technical knowledge, so it seems coherent that they all belong to the same factor. In the same way, Network skills could be considered as specific knowledge required to solve problems and deal with a complex environment. In recent years, the number of publications on online training and skills development has increased as a key element to enhance employability [37,38][18][19] so it is consistent that this ability can be perceived as specific knowledge.
The fourth factor, Into Action, is like the Armuña model [16][2] as it included five of the seven original competencies.
Despite some small differences, the structure of the questionnaire is very similar to the one proposed in the original Armuña model [16][2] and corresponds to the ideas of the EntreComp model, so wthe researchers can conclude that the studied questionnaire presents strong evidence of constructed validity.
Evidence of validity based on relationships with Entrepreneurial Intention and Intrapreneurial Self-Capital showed high positive correlations, being higher in the case of the IC. These results support the findings of other studies about the relationship between individual variables, skills, and entrepreneurial intention [39,40,41][20][21][22].
Finally, analysis of EntreComp’s internal consistency showed appropriate values according to standard recommendations that were confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) indices for each subscale.
The AVE values were close, although less than, 0.50 for all subscales, except for Into Action, for which the AVE value was much lower. This implies a certain limitation of the instrument, since it indicates a lack of discriminatory validity of the subscales that may be due mainly to the high correlations between the factors. However, this result agrees with the theoretical framework of EntreComp, which highlights the interconnection between the competency dimensions and with previous studies that seek the grouping of competencies, and which obtained similar results regarding the high permeability of the limits between entrepreneurship competencies [42][23].
If wthe researchers consider the comparative analysis of 12 existing entrepreneurial skills self-assessment tools [3][24], Armuña’s model questionnaire is like other instruments in that it is a tool to meet the needs of entrepreneurial education and focus on students and graduates of higher education. In terms of purpose and content, it is the only instrument that assesses the self-perception of entrepreneurial competence. In relation to the theoretical framework of competencies, it has the advantage of being the only instrument that addresses the entire set of EntreComp competencies. Another advantage is that it presents is that it is an instrument that has psychometric validation, showing good reliability and validity of the data. It would be appropriate for future developments of the instrument to include illustrative diagrams, such as the spider diagrams used in other tools, to visualize strengths and areas for improvement.

References

  1. Markman, G.D.; Baron, R.A.; Balkin, D.B. Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 1–19.
  2. Armuña, C.; Ramos, S.; Juan, J.; Feijóo, C.; Arenal, A. From stand-up to start-up: Exploring entrepreneurship competences and STEM women’s intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2020, 16, 69–92.
  3. Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y.; Van den Brande, G. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. In European Commission Scientific and Technical Research Reports; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016.
  4. European Commission. Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-Economic Outcomes. 2012. Available online: https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/com669_en.pdf (accessed on 16 November 2021).
  5. European Commission. A New Skills Agenda for Europe. Working Together to Strengthen Human Capital, Employability and Competitiveness. Com (2016)381/F1. 2016. Available online: https://community.oecd.org/docs/DOC-131502 (accessed on 16 November 2021).
  6. Lackéus, M. Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When How. Background paper for OECD-LEED. 2015. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  7. Wilson, K.; Vyakarnam, S.; Volkmann, C.; Mariotti, S.; Rabuzzi, D. Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs: Unlocking Entrepreneurial Capabilities to Meet the Global Challenges of the 21st Century. In World Economic Forum: A Report of the Global Education Initiative; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  8. McCallum, E.; Weicht, R.; McMullan, L.; Price, A.; Bacigalupo, M.; O’Keeffe, W. EntreComp into Action: Get inspired, make it happen. In European Commission Scientific and Technical Research Reports; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.
  9. Bacigalupo, M.; Weikert García, L.; Mansoori, Y.; O’Keeffe, W. EntreComp Playbook. Entrepreneurial Learning beyond the Classroom; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2020.
  10. Lackéus, M.; Lundqvist, M.; Middleton, K.W.; Inden, J. The Entrepreneurial Employee in the Public and Private Sector—What, Why, How; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2020.
  11. EntreComp Europe. Inspiring Practices from across Europe 2020. Available online: https://entrecompeurop.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/EntreComp_Europe_Inspiring_Practices.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  12. Bandura, A. Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In Handbook of Principles of Organization Behavior, 2nd ed.; Locke, E.A., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 179–200.
  13. Stajkovic, A.D.; Luthans, F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 240–261.
  14. Zimmerman, B.J. Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 82–91.
  15. Newman, A.; Obschonka, M.; Schwarz, S.; Cohen, M.; Nielsen, I. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 110, 403–419.
  16. López-Núñez, M.I.; Rubio-Valdehita, S.; Aparicio-García, M.E.; Díaz-Ramiro, E.M. Are entrepreneurs born or made? The influence of personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 154, 109699.
  17. McMullen, J.S.; Ingram, K.M.; Adams, J. What makes an entrepreneurship study entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2021, 45, 1197–1238.
  18. Badoer, E.; Hollings, Y.; Chester, A. Professional networking for undergraduate students: A scaffolded approach. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2021, 45, 197–210.
  19. Batistic, S.; Tymon, A. Networking behaviour, graduate employability: A social capital perspective. Educ. Train. 2017, 388.
  20. Bhatti, M.A.; Al Doghan, M.A.; Saat, S.A.M.; Juhari, A.S.; Alshagawi, M. Entrepreneurial intentions among women: Does entrepreneurial training and education matters? (Pre-and post-evaluation of psychological attributes and its effects on entrepreneurial intention). J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2021, 28, 167–184.
  21. Di Fabio, A.; Gori, A. Developing a new instrument for assessing acceptance of change. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 802.
  22. Rodrigues, R.; Butler, C.L.; Guest, D. Antecedents of protean and boundaryless career orientations: The role of core self-evaluations, perceived employability and social capital. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 110, 1–11.
  23. Mitchelmore, S.; Rowley, J. Entrepreneurial Competencies of Women Entrepreneurs Pursuing Business Growth. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2013, 20, 125–142.
  24. Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P.; McCallum, E.; Punie, Y. Promoting the Entrepreneurship Competence of Young Adults in Europe: Towards a Self-Assessment Tool. In Proceedings of the ICERI, Sevilla, Spain, 14–16 November 2016.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Feedback