Sherer General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSES)

1. Abstract

The Sherer General Self-Efficacy Scale (SGSES), originally developed by Mark Sherer and colleagues in 1982, is one of the most widely utilized psychometric instruments designed to assess an individual’s generalized belief in their ability to perform across varied novel, challenging, or stressful life situations. Grounded in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory, the instrument bridges the gap between context-specific efficacy expectations and generalized personality dispositions. The original instrument consists of a 30-item self-report questionnaire, comprising a 17-item General Self-Efficacy (GSE) subscale, a 6-item Social Self-Efficacy (SSE) subscale, and 7 filler items intended to minimize response biases. Items are rated along a 5-point or 14-point Likert response continuum, with modern implementations predominantly adopting the 5-point format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust reliability for the SGSES. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) typically range from .84 to .89 for the General Self-Efficacy subscale and from .68 to .73 for the Social Self-Efficacy subscale across diverse student, adult, and clinical populations. Construct and criterion validity are substantiated by strong convergent correlations with measures of self-esteem, internal locus of control, personal mastery, and adaptive coping, alongside significant negative associations with depressive symptomatology, trait anxiety, neuroticism, and learned helplessness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses historically confirm the bifurcated structure separating general and social domains, while subsequent factor analyses of the 17-item general subscale frequently identify three foundational sub-dimensions: Initiative, Effort, and Persistence. This comprehensive profile outlines the theoretical foundation, structural composition, diagnostic utility, and statistical robustness of the SGSES across clinical, educational, occupational, and health psychology domains.

2. Keywords

Sherer General Self-Efficacy Scale, SGSES, general self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, psychometrics, Bandura social cognitive theory, locus of control, scale validation, factor analysis, internal consistency, behavioral persistence, psychological assessment

3. Authors

The instrument was developed and validated by a collaborative research team led by Mark Sherer, along with James E. Maddux, Blaise Mercandante, Steven Prentice-Dunn, Beth Jacobs, and Ronald W. Rogers. The primary validation study was conducted at the University of Alabama (Department of Psychology, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States) and published in 1982 in Psychological Reports.

Subsequent psychometric refinement and clinical construct validation were spearheaded by Mark Sherer and C. H. Adams (1983), establishing the operational properties of the scale within vocational rehabilitation and psychiatric diagnostic environments. Dr. Mark Sherer later became a distinguished neuropsychologist and senior scientist in rehabilitation medicine, focusing extensively on traumatic brain injury, cognitive outcomes, and psychological adjustment.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sherer General Self-Efficacy Scale is to provide a quantitative index of an individual’s broad, generalized sense of personal competence and perceived control. Although Bandura’s foundational conceptualization postulated that self-efficacy operates primarily as a situation-specific belief system, behavioral scientists and clinical psychologists recognized the operational utility of a generalized construct. Individuals frequently accumulate past successes and failures across heterogeneous domains, coalescing into an overarching, trait-like belief system regarding whether they can successfully navigate novel challenges, resolve ambiguous problems, and recover from behavioral setbacks.

In clinical and counseling psychology, the SGSES serves as a critical diagnostic and prognostic tool. Low scores identify clients who are susceptible to learned helplessness, demoralization, treatment non-adherence, and heightened vulnerability to depressive episodes. Clinicians utilize the scale to evaluate baseline psychological capital before psychotherapeutic interventions—such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), motivational interviewing, or behavioral activation—and to monitor incremental gains in perceived agency throughout treatment.

In vocational, organizational, and educational settings, the scale is deployed to predict performance trajectories, persistence in academic programs, occupational stress resilience, career decision-making self-efficacy, and adaptive leadership. Employees exhibiting high general self-efficacy demonstrate superior self-regulation, set higher personal goals, exert sustained effort when confronting complex obstacles, and interpret negative feedback as informational rather than indicative of innate deficit. In medical and health psychology, the SGSES evaluates chronic illness management, compliance with demanding rehabilitation regimens (e.g., following stroke, cardiac events, or spinal cord trauma), and the psychological resilience needed to cultivate adaptive health behaviors.

5. Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct evaluated by the SGSES is general self-efficacy, paired with a specialized subsidiary dimension of social self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers not to an objective inventory of physical or cognitive skills, but rather to an individual’s subjective appraisal of what they can accomplish across unpredictable circumstances using the capabilities they possess.

General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Dimension

The 17-item General Self-Efficacy dimension assesses a non-domain-specific reservoir of perceived competence that influences cognitive appraisals, emotional arousal, and behavioral initiation. Within this dimension, three underlying behavioral mechanisms operate:

• Initiative: The willingness and capacity to initiate new behaviors, formulate structured plans, and embark on tasks without excessive procrastination or avoidance (e.g., “When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it”).
• Effort: The magnitude of cognitive and physical energy an individual mobilizes when confronted with challenging or adverse conditions (e.g., “When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick with it until I finish it”).
• Persistence: The sustained commitment to maintain goal-directed actions in the face of discouraging obstacles, repeated failures, or ambiguous outcomes (e.g., “If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can” versus “I give up easily”).

Social Self-Efficacy (SSE) Dimension

The 6-item Social Self-Efficacy dimension captures perceived competence within interpersonal interactions, relational risk-taking, and social integration. Unlike general task self-efficacy, social efficacy relies on interpersonal problem-solving, communication confidence, social anxiety regulation, and the initiation of friendships. Sample items reflect proactive engagement in unfamiliar social landscapes (e.g., “If I see someone I would like to meet, I go to that person instead of waiting for him or her to come to me”) versus social withdrawal and insecurity (e.g., “It is difficult for me to make new friends”).

Filler Items

The original 30-item administration embeds 7 filler items (e.g., “I like to grow house plants,” “I like science”) that assess neutral personal preferences or fatalistic philosophical viewpoints. These items serve to break response patterning, obscure the underlying psychometric target, and attenuate acquiescence bias.

6. Theoretical Framework

The SGSES is theoretically anchored in Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1977, 1986, 1997), which posits a model of triadic reciprocal determinism: human functioning is an ongoing interaction between cognitive and personal factors, environmental events, and behavioral actions. Central to this theoretical model is the role of efficacy expectations.

Bandura articulated a critical distinction between outcome expectations and efficacy expectations. An outcome expectation is an individual’s judgment that a specific behavior will lead to certain environmental outcomes (e.g., “Practicing piano daily leads to musical proficiency”). In contrast, an efficacy expectation is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes (e.g., “I possess the capability to sustain daily piano practice”). Even if an individual acknowledges that a specific behavior produces a favorable outcome, they will not initiate or sustain the behavior if they doubt their personal execution capacity.

Sherer and colleagues (1982) integrated Bandura’s micro-analytic efficacy model with personality theories of broad expectancies, most notably Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory (1954, 1966) and the construct of Locus of Control. Rotter suggested that when individuals enter novel or ambiguous situations where they have no direct behavioral history, they rely on generalized expectancies distilled from past experiences across varied domains. Sherer et al. hypothesized that past masteries and failures do not merely create situation-specific efficacy beliefs; they aggregate into a generalized cognitive set or trait-like cognitive disposition. Consequently, an individual with high general self-efficacy enters unfamiliar challenges with a baseline presumption of eventual mastery, mitigating inhibitory anxiety, catastrophic attributions, and premature withdrawal.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the SGSES have been thoroughly examined across diverse empirical and cross-cultural investigations.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In the seminal validation study by Sherer et al. (1982), the scale was administered alongside several established psychometric instruments to evaluate theoretical convergence:

• Locus of Control: The General Self-Efficacy subscale demonstrated a moderate, statistically significant negative correlation with Rotter’s Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control Scale ($r = -.28$ to $-.43$, $p < .001$; noting that higher scores on Rotter’s scale indicate an external locus), confirming that individuals with high self-efficacy perceive environmental reinforcements as contingent upon their own actions.
• Self-Esteem: Moderate to strong positive correlations were documented with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ($r = .51$ to $.57$), establishing that generalized competence beliefs are closely related to, yet theoretically distinguishable from, global self-worth.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale were modest ($r = .19$ to $.28$), demonstrating that the scale is largely free from pervasive impression-management artifacts.
• Competence and Self-Actualization: The SGSES correlated positively with subscales of the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI), particularly Inner Directedness ($r = .43$) and Time Competence ($r = .38$).

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Sherer and Adams (1983) extended construct validity into clinical domains, demonstrating that psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with mood and anxiety disorders scored significantly lower on the SGSES compared to matched non-clinical cohorts. Furthermore, higher pre-treatment GSE scores predicted superior post-treatment functional independence, rapid vocational reintegration, and decreased relapse rates. In educational research, high scores on the SGSES consistently predict higher academic performance, persistence in challenging STEM curricula, and adaptive coping during transition periods.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the SGSES have been repeatedly confirmed across four decades of empirical application in multiple languages.

Internal Consistency

In the initial instrument development study with university undergraduates ($N = 376$), Sherer et al. (1982) reported:

• General Self-Efficacy Subscale (17 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .86$
• Social Self-Efficacy Subscale (6 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .71$

Replication studies have shown consistent findings across varied cultural contexts. For example, Imam (2007) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 for the General subscale and .72 for the Social subscale among Southeast Asian university cohorts. Similarly, Woodruff and Cashman (1993) reported alphas of .84 for the General subscale, while Bosscher and Smit (1998) found an internal consistency of .86 in an older adult Dutch cohort. Subscale item-total correlations typically range between .35 and .68 for the general items, confirming acceptable item homogeneity.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability estimates show that generalized self-efficacy behaves as an enduring, trait-like construct over short-to-medium intervals while remaining sensitive to systemic behavioral mastery interventions over longer durations. Imam (2007) established a test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .74$ ($p < .001$) across a 3-week interval. Over a 6-month longitudinal tracking period, stability coefficients generally hover around $r = .60$ to $.68$ in non-interventional conditions, indicating trait stability with room for cognitive-experiential adaptation.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural integrity of the SGSES has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Initial EFA Architecture (Sherer et al., 1982)

Sherer et al. subjected the 30 candidate items to an initial principal components analysis followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations. Items displaying factor loadings greater than .40 were retained, while items failing to cleanly load or exhibiting excessive cross-loadings were set aside. This extraction definitively isolated two major factors accounting for the majority of the common variance:

• Factor 1: General Self-Efficacy (17 items, eigenvalue = 6.44, explaining approximately 26.5% of the total variance). Items loading on this factor reflect broad, non-interpersonal self-regulation, task engagement, and perseverance.
• Factor 2: Social Self-Efficacy (6 items, eigenvalue = 2.07, explaining approximately 8.5% of the total variance). Items loading here index social approach behavior, assertiveness, and ease in initiating relational connections.
• Filler Items: The remaining 7 items exhibited negligible loadings (< .30) on both factors and were identified as non-scored filler items.

Subsequent Factor Models and Three-Factor Refinements

Subsequent psychometric evaluations challenged the single-factor interpretation of the 17-item General Self-Efficacy subscale. Most notably, Bosscher and Smit (1998) examined the GSE items via confirmatory factor analysis and demonstrated that an oblique three-factor model yielded superior fit indices compared to a unidimensional model ($\chi^2 / df < 2.0$, $RMSEA = .048$, $CFI = .95$):

• Initiative: Represented by items 2, 9 (16), 11 (20) [measuring initial drive to start tasks].
• Effort: Represented by items 8 (15), 15 (27) [measuring capacity to execute hard work].
• Persistence: Represented by items 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 [capturing resilience following obstacles or failure].

Consequently, researchers utilize either the global 17-item unidimensional general self-efficacy aggregate score or evaluate these three constituent sub-components depending on their theoretical and diagnostic goals.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 14 to 85+).
• Administration Format: Individual or group paper-and-pencil or secure computer/web-based digital administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Total Item Count: 30 items total:
  • General Self-Efficacy Subscale: 17 items (Items 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30)
  • Social Self-Efficacy Subscale: 6 items (Items 6, 10, 14, 19, 24, 28)
  • Filler Items: 7 items (Items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25; not included in aggregate scoring)
• Response Continuum: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Reverse Keying Guidelines:
  • Negatively worded items (reverse scored): Responses must be inverted prior to calculating totals ($1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, $5 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Reverse-coded General items: 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30.
  • Positively-coded General items: 2, 4, 15, 16, 23, 27.
  • Reverse-coded Social items: 6, 14, 24.
  • Positively-coded Social items: 10, 19, 28.
  • GSE Score Range: 17 to 85 points (higher scores reflect greater generalized self-efficacy).
  • SSE Score Range: 6 to 30 points (higher scores reflect greater interpersonal/social self-efficacy).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Sherer General Self-Efficacy Scale was first published in 1982 by Mark Sherer, James E. Maddux, Blaise Mercandante, Steven Prentice-Dunn, Beth Jacobs, and Ronald W. Rogers in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Reports. The scale is in the public domain for academic, clinical, and non-profit scientific research purposes, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and standard citation are given to the original 1982 publication.

No commercial fee or licensing payment is required to administer the scale for non-commercial investigations. However, organizations seeking to incorporate the SGSES into commercial software platforms, fee-for-service digital testing batteries, or high-stakes employment screening procedures should ensure compliance with relevant intellectual property standards and journal copyright provisions.

12. References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bosscher, R. J., & Smit, J. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(3), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00025-4

Hamill, S. K. (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs and coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the Sciences, 35, 115–146.

Imam, S. S. (2007). Sherer et al. General Self-Efficacy Scale: Dimensionality, internal consistency, and temporal stability. Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and Understanding Conference, Singapore.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 53(3), 899–902. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.899

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

Woodruff, S. L., & Cashman, S. B. (1993). Task, domain, and general self-efficacy: A reexamination of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 72(2), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.72.2.423

13. Items of the Scale