Psychometric Properties of Study Centre Directors’ Behaviour Expectation Scale (BES)
Keywords:
Study Centre, Directors’ Behaviour Expectations, NOUNAbstract
The researcher developed a 15-item scale with the use of documented literature. In establishing the psychometric properties of the scale, sample of 49 males and 49 females Study Centres staff from three North-west Centres of NOUN participated in the study. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the preliminary data, while Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to determine the psychometric properties of the scale. Results of the EFA revealed that the scale measures four distinct dimensions: Behaviour trait for managing staff/students (BTMS/S), Behaviour trait for financial prudent (BTFP), Behaviour trait for community advocacy (BTCA) and Behaviour trait for managing self/university dictates (BTMS/UD), with four sub-scale (4-3 items) which demonstrates good psychometric properties. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.88 to 0.80 across the four sub-scales. Criterion-related validity was demonstrated for each sub-scale. BTMS/S for those who reported ‘’yes’’ had a higher mean than those who responded with ‘’no’’ or ‘’don’t know’’ (3.44 vs. 2.43). For BTFP and BTCA, samples with desire to involve in monetary activities and advocacy of the centres had a higher mean score than respondents without desire to involve (3.83 vs. 2.41), and for BTMS/UD, samples who reported to centre directors having the behaviour trait obtained a lower mean score than samples who reported ‘’no’’ or ‘’don’t know’’ (2.59 vs. 3.43). Based on the findings therefore, the study conclude that centre directors behaviour trait for managing staff/ students is related to trait for mobilizing the community and essential for successful management of study centre. Likewise, ability to be prudent in financial management is also related to individual self-control which assists the individual to abide by university dictates.
Résumé : Le chercheur a construit une échelle de 15 questions à l'aide d’une documentation. Pour établir les propriétés psychométriques de l'échelle, un échantillon de 49 hommes et 49 femmes du personnel de trois centres d’études de NOUN dans la région du nord-ouest du Nigeria a participé à l'étude. Des statistiques descriptives ont été utilisées pour analyser les données préliminaires, tandis que l'analyse factorielle exploratoire (AFE) a servi à déterminer les propriétés psychométriques de l'échelle. Les résultats de l'AFE ont révélé que l'échelle mesure quatre dimensions distinctes : Trait de comportement pour la gestion du personnel/étudiants (TCGP /E) ; trait de comportement pour la prudence financière (TCPF) ; trait de comportement pour le plaidoyer communautaire (TCPC) et trait de comportement pour la gestion des dictats de l'auto/université (TCPGDL/U), avec quatre sous-échelles (4-3 indices) qui démontrent de bonnes propriétés psychométriques. L'alpha de Cronbach variait de 0,88 à 0,80 sur les quatre sous-échelles. La validité liée aux critères a été démontrée pour chaque sous-échelle. Les TCGP /E pour ceux qui ont répondu " oui " avaient une moyenne plus élevée que ceux qui ont répondu " non " ou "je ne sais pas ". (3,44 contre 2,43). Pour les TCPF et les TCPC, les échantillons désireux de participer aux activités monétaires et de plaidoyer des centres ont obtenu une moyen note plus élevé que les répondants qui ne souhaitaient pas participer (3,83 vs 2,41), et pour les TCPGDL/U, les échantillons qui ont déclaré aux directeurs de centres ayant le trait de comportement ont obtenu une moyen note inférieur à ceux qui ont déclaré " non " ou " ne sais pas ". (2,59 contre 3,43). Basant sur les résultats, l'étude conclut donc que le trait de comportement des directeurs de centre pour la gestion du personnel et des élèves est lié au trait pour la mobilisation de la communauté et ceci est essentiel pour une gestion effective du centre d'étude. De même, la capacité d'être prudent dans la gestion financière est également liée à la maîtrise de soi qui aide l'individu à se conformer aux exigences de l'université.
References
Adeosun, I, Ogun, O, Adegbohun, A, Jejeloye, A, Ogunlowo, A. (2014). Psychometric Properties and Confirmatory Structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Sample of Adolescents in Nigeria Abstract 0886. European Psychiatry, 29(Suppl 1), 1-2.
Akpa, OM, Bamgboye, EA, Baiyewu, O. (2015). The Adolescents’ Psychosocial Functioning Inventory (APFI): scale development and initial validation using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. African Journal for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Afr J Psychol Study Soc Issues, 18(1), 1–21.
Aminu, KI. (2015). Validation of goal setting, decision-making skills and learning satisfaction scale among distance and conventional university learners in Nigeria. West African Journal of Open and Flexible Learning (WAJOFEL). Vol. 4, No. 1. Pp 152-162
Björnsdotter, A, Enebrink, P, Ghaderi, A. (2013). Psychometric properties of online administered parental strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ), and normative data based on combined online and paper-and-pencil administration. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 40. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-7-40.
Dickey, WC, Blumberg, SJ. (2004). Revisiting the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1159–1167.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.
Gadermann, AM, Guhn, M, Zumbo, BD. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for likert-type and ordinal item response data: a
conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=17&n=3
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
Marzano, RJ. Marzano, JS, Pickering, D, (2003). Classroom Management That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Every Teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Mellor, D, Stokes, M. (2007). The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 105–112.
National Open University of Nigeria, NOUN. (2006). Getting to know your university: An orientation and information guide for
students of National Open University of Nigeria. Lagos.
National Open University of Nigeria, NOUN. (2014). Academic brief. National Open University of Nigeria. Lagos. 14/16 Ahmadu
Bello way, Victoria Island.
National Open University of Nigeria, NOUN. (2018). University organogram. Abuja. Office of the University Registrar.
O’Neill, SC, Stephenson, J. (2014). Evidence-Based Classroom Behaviour Management Content in Australian Pre-Service
Primary Teachers’ Coursework: Where Art Thou? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 1-22.
Ortu˜no-Sierra, J, Chocarro, E, Fonseca-Pedrero, E, Paino, M., Sastre i Riba, S, Mu˜niz, J. (2015). The assessment of emotional and Behavioural problems: Internal structure of The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. International Journal of Clinical and
Health Psychology, 15, 265---273.
Pinterits, EJ, Poteat, VP, Spanierman, LB. (2009). The White Privilege Attitudes Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 56, 417–429.
Shaun, K. (2016). Behaviour management strategies. The Australian Society for Evidence-Based teaching. Turning research into
practical advice. Retrieved from http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/top-10-behaviourmanagement-strategies/
Van Leeuwen, K, Meerschaert, T, Bosmans, G, De Medts, L, Braet, C. (2006). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a
community sample of young children in Flanders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 189-197.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.