English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale

📜
Abstract

The English debate self-efficacy Scale (EDSS) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to quantify a student's belief in their ability to successfully participate in and navigate the complexities of English-language debates. While self-efficacy is a well-established predictor of academic and performance outcomes, its measurement must be highly context-specific to yield accurate insights. Prior to the development of the EDSS, researchers and educators lacked a validated tool tailored specifically to the unique, high-pressure environment of competitive debating, which demands a blend of linguistic fluency, rapid critical reasoning, and interpersonal coordination.

Developed to address this notable gap in the literature, the EDSS captures the multidimensional nature of debate confidence. It moves beyond general foreign language anxiety or basic public speaking metrics to isolate the exact cognitive and social demands placed on debaters. By evaluating distinct facets such as language proficiency, argumentation tactics, and collaborative teamwork, the instrument provides a granular view of a learner's psychological readiness to engage in this rigorous academic activity.

For the fields of Educational Psychology and applied linguistics, the introduction of the EDSS represents a significant methodological advancement. It equips educators with a reliable metric to assess the baseline confidence of their students, track psychological growth over the course of a debate program, and design targeted pedagogical interventions. Ultimately, by fostering a deeper understanding of debate-specific self-efficacy, the scale supports broader educational goals, including the cultivation of civic engagement, advanced communication skills, and robust Critical thinking among university populations.

🏷
Keywords
self-efficacy
English debate
psychometrics
scale development
EFL learners
Critical thinking
Educational measurement

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
13
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.83
Validation Country
📍 China

Authors

👤 Fanghua Liu
✉ [email protected]
🏛 School of Graduates, Changchun Normal University, Changchun, Jilin Province, People's Republic of China

👤 Yanchao Yang
🏛 Institute of International Language Services Studies, Macau Millennium College, Macau SAR, People's Republic of China

👤 Feng Robin Wang
🏛 School of Translation Studies, Shandong University at Weihai, Weihai, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China

👤 Wangze Li
🏛 College of Materials Science and Engineering, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, Hebei Province, People's Republic of China

Purpose

The primary objective behind the creation of the EDSS is to provide a psychometrically sound tool that isolates and measures a student's confidence in their English debating capabilities. Historically, researchers have relied on generalized measures of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) self-efficacy or broad public speaking scales. However, those instruments fail to capture the interactive, adversarial, and highly structured nature of formal debate. Debating requires spontaneous rebuttal, strategic teamwork, and real-time critical analysis, making it a fundamentally different psychological task than delivering a prepared monologue.

By filling this measurement void, the EDSS offers substantial value to both researchers and educational practitioners. For researchers, it enables rigorous empirical investigations into how debate-specific confidence interacts with variables like language acquisition, civic identity, and academic achievement. For educators and clinicians working in academic settings, the scale serves as a diagnostic tool to identify students who may possess the necessary linguistic skills but lack the domain-specific confidence to deploy them under pressure. This allows for the implementation of highly customized coaching strategies that target specific vulnerabilities, whether they lie in language use, argumentation, or team dynamics.

Construct

The psychological construct measured by the EDSS is 'English debate self-efficacy,' which is rooted in Albert Bandura's foundational social cognitive theory. Bandura posited that self-efficacy—an individual's belief in their capacity to execute specific behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments—is inherently domain, context, and task-specific. In the context of the EDSS, the construct represents a learner's perceived competence in navigating the multifaceted cognitive and social demands of an English-language debate.

The construct is operationalized through a tripartite framework that mirrors the actual mechanics of competitive debating. The first dimension, Language proficiency, captures the individual's confidence in their vocabulary, grammar, and fluency when speaking under time constraints. The second dimension, Debating skills, focuses on the cognitive and strategic elements, such as constructing logical arguments, anticipating counterpoints, and delivering effective rebuttals. The final dimension, Team collaboration, assesses the social aspect of the construct, measuring the debater's belief in their ability to synergize with partners, negotiate strategies, and maintain cohesive team dynamics during the heat of competition. Together, these dimensions form a comprehensive psychological profile of a debater's self-efficacy.

Validity

The validation process for the EDSS was rigorous, encompassing multiple facets of validity to ensure the scale accurately measures what it purports to measure. The researchers established structural validity through advanced factor analytic techniques, confirming that the theoretical dimensions of the construct aligned with the empirical data. Furthermore, the scale demonstrated robust convergent and discriminant validity, indicating that the subscales are related yet distinct enough to warrant separate measurement.

To establish criterion-related validity, the developers examined the relationship between the newly formed EDSS and an established measure, the English Proficiency self-efficacy Scale. The significant positive correlations observed between these instruments provided compelling evidence that while debate self-efficacy is a unique construct, it behaves theoretically as expected in relation to broader language confidence metrics. This comprehensive validity portfolio assures researchers that the EDSS is a highly credible instrument for deployment in educational and psychological studies.

Convergent & Discriminant Validation Correlations

Reference Instrument Correlation Coefficient (r)
English Proficiency self-efficacy Scale

Reliability

Reliability testing for the EDSS yielded excellent results, particularly concerning the internal consistency of its subscales. The researchers utilized Cronbach's Alpha to evaluate how closely related the items within each specific dimension were. The analysis revealed strong coefficients across the board: the Language proficiency dimension achieved an alpha of .894, the Debating skills dimension reached .861, and the Team collaboration dimension scored .831.

In psychometric evaluation, alpha values exceeding the .80 threshold are generally considered indicative of high internal consistency, meaning the items reliably measure the same underlying concept without excessive redundancy. These robust figures demonstrate that the EDSS is a highly stable instrument, capable of producing consistent and dependable measurements of a student's debate-specific self-efficacy across different testing instances within the target population.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the EDSS was established using a classic split-sample cross-validation approach, a gold standard in scale development. The researchers initially subjected data from 613 participants to an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This data-driven technique successfully extracted three distinct latent factors from the original 13-item pool, which conceptually mapped onto language proficiency, debating skills, and team collaboration.

Following the exploratory phase, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was executed on an independent sample of 646 participants to test the fit of the three-factor model derived from the EFA. The CFA results corroborated the proposed structure, verifying that the 13 items loaded significantly onto their respective designated factors. This two-step analytical procedure provides strong empirical backing for the multidimensional architecture of the scale, ensuring that each subscale functions effectively as an independent metric while contributing to the overarching construct of debate self-efficacy.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Language proficiency Measures the individual's confidence in their linguistic abilities, including fluency, vocabulary retrieval, and grammatical accuracy during a debate.
Debating skills Assesses the student's perceived competence in core debate mechanics, such as constructing logical arguments, critical analysis, and delivering rebuttals.
Team collaboration Evaluates the debater's self-efficacy regarding interpersonal dynamics, including strategizing with partners and maintaining cohesive teamwork during competition.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 13 items
Scoring Total score and subscale scores calculated based on item responses
Language English
Population College students
Age Group University age
Administration Digital/Online via Wenjuanxing platform
Completion Time Approximately 5 minutes

English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

The study utilized a final sample of 1,259 university students from an independent college located in Hebei Province, northern China. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling and completed the survey online. The sample was randomly split into two cohorts: 613 students for the Exploratory Factor Analysis and 646 students for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Permissions & Test Year

Published in PLoS ONE, an open-access journal. Content is typically distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.

Test Year: 2025

📄
Cite This Paper

Fanghua Liu, Yanchao Yang, Feng Robin Wang, Wangze Li (2025). English debate self-efficacy Scale. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314879

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
93 references
  1. N Nasriandi (2021). The Use of British Parliamentary Debate Style in Teaching Speaking Skill. IDEAS J English Lang Teach Learn Linguist Lit, 9 (1), 572.
  2. LW Zorwick (2016). Enhancing civic education through the use of assigned advocacy, argumentation, and debate across the curriculum. Commun Educ, 65 (4), 434. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1203005
  3. N Baketa (2023). The role of debate in cognitive development and development of civic awareness of young people-a qualitative analysis. Sociologija, 65 (3), 400. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2298/SOC2303400B
  4. S. Ryan (2006). Arguing toward a more active citizenry: Re-envisioning the introductory civics course via debate-centered pedagogy. J Public Aff Educ, 12 (3), 385. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2006.12001442
  5. PE Mabrey (2021). Debate for Civic Learning: A Model for Renewing Higher Education’s Civic Mission. J Scholarsh Teach Learn, 21 (4), 100.
  6. C Bradley (2022). Critical Thinkers for a Critical Time: Debate as a Foundation for Youth Civic Engagement. Nat’l Civ Rev, 111 (2), 14.
  7. C. Medina (2020). The Effect of Debate Across the Curriculum Pedagogy on Critical thinking in Higher Education Institutions.
  8. T Sako (2023). Impact of Debate Instruction and Pair Practice on Japanese High School Students’ Speaking Skills and Critical thinking. English Teach, 52 (1), 32. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.52696/BLJD6558
  9. Z. Bačíková (2017). The role of a debate in the development of Critical thinking. Megatrendy a médiá, 4 (1), 18.
  10. DS Nasution (2023). The effect of English debate on Increasing Communication Skill. J Educ, 6 (1), 4211.
  11. N Lubis (2020). Analyzing Indonesian EFL Students’ Communication Skill in Debate Classroom. J Linguist English Teach Educ, 1 (1), 15.
  12. R Latif (2018). A comparison of debate and role play in enhancing Critical thinking and communication skills of medical students during problem based learning. Biochem Mol Biol Educ, 46 (4), 336. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21124
  13. A El Majidi (2018). Students’ perceived effect of in-class debates in second language learning. Eur J Appl Linguist TEFL, 7 (1), 35.
  14. Zahra IA. The effect of debate activity in English four skills: The students’ perspective. In: UICELL Conference Proceedings. 2019. p. 57–67.
  15. M Ghalib (2023). Effect of debate strategy on EFL learners, speaking proficiency at Ibb University and their attitudes towards it. Int J Lang Lit Stud, 5 (1), 328.
  16. MM Kazemi (2021). The Impacts of Debate Instruction on Iranian EFL Students’ L2 Speaking Performance. Int J Res Humanit Soc Stud, 8 (9), 5.
  17. W Ben (2020). The Impact of English debate on Developing College students’ Critical thinking Skills. US-China Foreign Lang, 18 (6), 71.
  18. A Alasmari (2013). Using debate in EFL classes. English Lang Teach, 6 (1), 147.
  19. AT Hetharie (2020). The Benefits of Joining English Debating Society (Eds) for Students’ Speaking Skills. LLT J A J Lang Lang Learn, 23 (2), 383. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v23i2.2504
  20. A. Bandura (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. J Appl Psychol, 12 (1), 1.
  21. A. Bandura (1997). self-efficacy: The exercise of control. self-efficacy: The exercise of control. ix.
  22. MM Almohammadi (2023). A Decade of EFL self-efficacy Research: Empirical Status and Future Directions. English Lang Teach, 16 (7), 1.
  23. N Fallah (2017). Mindfulness, coping self-efficacy and foreign language anxiety: a mediation analysis.. Educ Psychol [Internet], 37 (6), 745. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1149549
  24. J Fathi (2020). The Effect of Listening Strategy Instruction on Second Language Listening Anxiety and self-efficacy of Iranian EFL learners. SAGE Open, 10 (2), 2158244020933878. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020933878
  25. Khelalfa N. Writing Anxiety, self-efficacy, Effort, and Their Roles in Writing Achievement. In: Proceedings of the 10th International RAIS Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientia Moralitas Research Institute; 2018. p. 33–7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2991/rais-18.2018.6
  26. QH Lin (2022). Anxiety and self-efficacy in Chinese international students’ L3 French learning with L2 English and L3 French. Front Psychol, 13.
  27. AA Sabti (2019). The Impact of Writing Anxiety, Writing Achievement Motivation, and Writing self-efficacy on Writing Performance: A Correlational Study of Iraqi Tertiary EFL learners. SAGE OPEN, 9 (4), 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019894289
  28. G Kutuk (2022). Relations between gender stereotyping and foreign language attainment: The mediating role of language learners’ anxiety and self-efficacy. Br J Educ Psychol, 92 (1), 212. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12446
  29. X Wu (2022). English use anxiety, motivation, self-efficacy, and their predictive effects on Chinese top university students’ English achievements. Front Psychol, 13
  30. SH Kim (2021). Second Language Learners’ self-efficacy and English Achievement: the Mediating Role of Integrative Motivation. English Teach Learn, 1.
  31. GP Park (2023). Contributions of self-efficacy to Learning Strategies Mediated by Instrumental and Integrative Motivation. Asia-Pacific Educ Res, 1.
  32. B Shen (2020). Exploring Hong Kong primary students’ English writing motivation: relationships between writing self-efficacy and task value. J Multiling Multicult Dev [Internet], 44 (4), 1.
  33. P Abdolrezapour (2023). self-efficacy and resilience as predictors of students’ academic motivation in online education. PLoS One, 18 (5), 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285984
  34. S Dalland (2023). An investigation into EFL instructors’ intention to leave and burnout: Exploring the mediating role of job satisfaction. Sadeghi K, Modirkhameneh S, Alavinia P, Khonbi ZA, editors. Front PsycholInternet], 13 (1), 160.
  35. NA Piran (2014). The relationship between self-concept, self-efficacy, self-esteem and reading comprehension achievement: Evidence from Iranian EFL learners. Int J Soc Sci Educ, 5 (1), 58.
  36. A Asakereh (2018). Reflective thinking, self-efficacy, self-esteem and academic achievement of Iranian EFL students in higher education: Is there a relationship?. Int J Educ Psychol, 7 (1), 68. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2018.2896
  37. N. Noorollahi (2021). On the relationship between Iranian English language teaching students’ self-efficacy, self-esteem, and their academic achievement. Lang Teach Res Q, 21 84. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.21.06
  38. J Montaño-González (2020). Exploring the Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and self-efficacy of Chilean University EFL Students. Mextesol J, 44 (2), 1.
  39. DH Schunk (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp Educ Psychol, 60 101832. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832
  40. JS Eccles (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol, 61 101859. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
  41. A Phakiti (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL international students in Australia.. J Res Int Educ [Internet], 12 (3), 239. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913513520
  42. DR Bailey (2021). Confidence Is Everything: The Mediating Effects of self-efficacy on Task Value and Social Media Participation. TESL-EJ, 24 (4), 1.
  43. A Zafarmand (2014). A structural equation modeling of EFL learners’ goal orientation, metacognitive awareness, and self-efficacy. Adv Lang Lit Stud, 5 (6), 112.
  44. TH He (2012). Trichotomous goals of elementary school students learning English as a foreign language. Percept Mot Skills, 114 (1), 157. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2466/08.11.14.PMS.114.1.157-173
  45. LH Ma (2018). The association between teacher-student relationship and academic achievement in Chinese EFL context: a serial multiple mediation model. Educ Psychol, 38 (5), 687. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1412400
  46. M Zhou (2023). The mediating effect of self-efficacy between teacher emotional support and interaction engagement in EFL learning. J Multiling Multicult Dev,
  47. Q Liu (2023). Teacher support and learning engagement of EFL learners: The mediating role of self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation. Curr Psychol, 42 (4), 2619. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04043-5
  48. YP Rui (2023). The effect of online English learners’ perceived teacher support on self-regulation mediated by their self-efficacy. Porta linguarum, (40), 215.
  49. MN Daemi (2017). The Relationship between Classroom Environment and EFL learners’ Academic self-efficacy. Int J Educ Lit Stud, 5 16.
  50. G. Dislen Daggöl (2019). Learning Climate and self-efficacy Beliefs of High School Students in an EFL Setting. Novitas-ROYAL (Research Youth Lang, 13 (1), 19.
  51. SS Wang (2022). English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Academic Achievement: Does Creativity and self-efficacy Matter?. Front Psychol, 13
  52. YY Cai (2023). Examining the mediation of engagement between self-efficacy and language achievement. J Multiling Multicult Dev, 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2217801
  53. NX Hong (2020). Students’ self-efficacy Beliefs and TOEIC Achievements in the Vietnamese Context. Int J Instr, 13 (4), 67.
  54. J Goetze (2022). Is learning really just believing? A meta-analysis of self-efficacy and achievement in SLA. Stud Second Lang Learn Teach, 12 (2), 233. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.2.4
  55. R Karbakhsh (2020). Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Goal Orientation, Willingness to Communicate, self-efficacy, and Learning Strategy Use as Predictors of Second Language Achievement: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.. J Psycholinguist Res [Internet], 49 (5), 803. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09714-7
  56. YC Chang (2022). The Effect of University Students’ Emotional Intelligence, Learning Motivation and self-efficacy on Their Academic Achievement-Online English Courses. Front Psychol, 13
  57. DH Schunk (2014). Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications.
  58. U Scholz (2002). Is General self-efficacy a Universal Construct? Psychometric Findings from 25 Countries. Eur J Psychol Assess, 18 242. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242
  59. SA Smith (2006). If at first you don’t succeed: Effects of failure on general and task-specific self-efficacy and performance. N Am J Psychol, 8 171.
  60. A. Bandura (2006). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. self-efficacy beliefs Adolesc, 5.
  61. X. Zhang (2018). self-efficacy and English Public Speaking.
  62. G Ocak (2018). The scale development study on foreign language speaking self-efficacy perception. Eur J Foreign Lang Teach, 3 (1), 50.
  63. S Smith (2011). Development of the Listening self-efficacy Questionnaire (LSEQ). Int J Audiol, 50 417. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.553205
  64. A Oliva (2021). Test Retest Reliability of the Listening self-efficacy Questionnaire. Am J Audiol, 30 (4), 1108. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-21-00107
  65. ES Martin (2020). The validation of an L2 English listening self-efficacy instrument using Rasch analysis. SHIKEN, 24 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.TEVAL24.2-1
  66. D. Unveren (2019). Developing the Scale of Writing, Speaking, Listening, Reading self-efficacy for Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language. Cypriot J Educ Sci, 14 (4), 676. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v11i4.4440
  67. J. Harris (2022). Measuring listening and speaking self-efficacy in EFL contexts: The development of the Communicative SE Questionnaire. Lang Teach Res,
  68. CM Callahan (2020). Validation of instruments for measuring affective outcomes in gifted education. J Adv Acad, 31 (4), 470.
  69. PI Peura (2019). Specificity of reading self-efficacy among primary school children. J Exp Educ, 87 (3), 496. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1527279
  70. G KOŞAR (2022). Development and validation of a reading self-efficacy scale. Int J Assess Tools Educ, 9 (1), 203. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.894688
  71. DF Shell (1989). self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. J Educ Psychol, 81 (1), 91. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
  72. SS Kula (2020). self-efficacy perceptions scale for reading comprehension of 4th grade students in primary school: Validity and reliability study. Bartın Univ J Fac Educ, 9 (1), 106. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.536885
  73. M León-Gutiérrez (2023). Psychometric properties and invariance of the self-efficacy for writing scale in Peruvian high school students. Front Psychol, 7 1.
  74. T Sun (2022). Psychometric properties of an English Writing self-efficacy scale: aspects of construct validity. Read Writ, 35 (3), 743. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10206-w
  75. LS Teng (2018). Conceptualizing Writing self-efficacy in English as a Foreign Language Contexts: Scale Validation Through Structural Equation Modeling. TESOL Q, 52 (4), 911. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.432
  76. L Shaheen (2022). Validation of self-efficacy for Self-Regulation of Academic Writing Scale: An EFA and CFA with Measurement Invariance. Int J Educ Psychol Couns, 7 (46), 18.
  77. R Bruning (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology., 105 25. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029692
  78. C Golombek (2019). Assessing self-efficacy for Self-Regulation of Academic Writing Development and Validation of a Scale. Eur J Psychol Assess, 35 (5), 751. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000452
  79. S Collado (2023). Development and Validation of the self-efficacy for Writing and Defending Academic Texts Scale. Psicol Educ, 29 (1), 91. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2022a15
  80. PX Zhang (2022). Assessing L2 integrated writing self-efficacy: Development and validation of a scale. Assess Writ, 54.
  81. JC Nunnally (1967). Psychometric theory. Psychometric theory. xiii.
  82. X Zhang (2019). Building Assessments for self-efficacy in English Public Speaking in China. Asia-Pacific Educ Res, 28 (5), 411. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00441-9
  83. X Zhang English speaking self-efficacy and its relations with personality traits. Mirici IH, Erten IH, Oz H, editors.. Cypriot J Educ Sci [Internet], 5 (1), 27.
  84. X Zhang (2020). self-efficacy and English public speaking performance: A mixed method approach. English Specif Purp [Internet], 59 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.02.001
  85. YC Chen (2020). Correlation between self-efficacy and English Performance. Int J Emerg Technol Learn, 15 (8), 223. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i08.13697
  86. Y Wang (2024). Development and validation of scales for speaking self-efficacy: Constructs, sources, and relations. PLoS One, 19 (1), e0297517. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297517
  87. X Zhang (2023). Relationships Among English Language Proficiency, self-efficacy, Motivation, Motivational Intensity, and Achievement in an ESP/EAP Context. J Psycholinguist Res,
  88. L. Deng (2023). English Proficiency, self-efficacy, Motivation, Language Learning Strategies, and Perceptions toward Native and Non-native Speaker Teachers’ Effectiveness in Teaching English. ResearchSpace@ Auckland,
  89. JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.19.0). 2024.
  90. TR Hinkin (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res methods, 1 (1), 104. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
  91. J Hair (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
  92. AH Gold (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. J Manag Inf Syst, 18 (1), 185. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669
  93. H Setiawan (2024). Promoting Critical thinking and Public Speaking Skills Through Debates at Tridinanti University. IDEAS J English Lang Teach Learn Linguist Lit, 12 (2), 950.

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/english-debate-self-efficacy-scale/

Mohammed looti. "English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/english-debate-self-efficacy-scale/.

Mohammed looti. "English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/english-debate-self-efficacy-scale/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/english-debate-self-efficacy-scale/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. English Debate Self-Efficacy Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Principal Self-Efficacy Instrument and Teacher Self-Efficacy Instrument
  2. English Self-Confidence Scale
  3. Comparison Standards Scale for Appearance–English Version (CSS-A)
  4. English Writing Enjoyment Scale (EWES)
  5. Mammography-Specific Self-Efficacy Scale – Arabic Version
  6. English Language Teachers Resilience Inventory
  7. Addiction Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale (ACSES)
  8. Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES)
  9. Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale—Erectile Functioning
  10. General Self-Efficacy Scale
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top