IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pkp/hassle/v13y2025i1p56-68id3987.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the reliability and validity of self-efficacy beliefs, stress, perceived teachers' support and academic burnout scales using the PLS-SEM approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jingyuan Li
  • Yoon Fah Lay

Abstract

Likert scales were used in this study to collect data on measures such as the student academic burnout scale, the student stress scale, the student self-efficacy beliefs scale and the student perceived teacher support scale. The purpose of this study is to examine the four-part scales' reliability and validity used in this research. The number of measurement indicators for the four scales was 11, 13, 12 and 10, respectively. Seventy-five college students from five colleges and universities participated in the research and the partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach was applied to analyze the data. Consequently, the internal consistency and reliability of the measures were assessed using Cronbach's alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) both of which exceeded the clinical thresholds of 0.6 and 0.7, respectively. The average variance extracted (AVE) was used to evaluate the scales' convergent validity and the reported values were all stated above 0.5. The scales' discriminant validity was also framed within the range of threshold values. As a result, the scales used in this study demonstrated good validity and reliability and can be useful in assessing relationships throughout a range of study situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingyuan Li & Yoon Fah Lay, 2025. "Examining the reliability and validity of self-efficacy beliefs, stress, perceived teachers' support and academic burnout scales using the PLS-SEM approach," Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, Conscientia Beam, vol. 13(1), pages 56-68.
  • Handle: RePEc:pkp:hassle:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:56-68:id:3987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/73/article/view/3987/8359
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pkp:hassle:v:13:y:2025:i:1:p:56-68:id:3987. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dim Michael (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/73/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.