top of page

Assessment

Our USDA project team has developed a scale to assess self-efficacy for applied virtual/3D technology. We adapted and modified the existing scales measuring general self-efficacy to align with the specific context of applied virtual/3D technology.

Working with Financial Survey Documents
Reviewing Financial Survey Report
Reviewing reports at desk

Introduction to A Scale Measuring Self-Efficacy in Using 3D/Virtual Technology

A scale measuring self-efficacy in using 3D/virtual technology does not currently exist; thus, we adopted and developed an initial 27-item instrument from the literature (Blomquist et al., 2016; Laver et al., 2012; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003; Riggs et al., 1994; Tatar et al., 2009). To test the instrument, educational materials focused on 3D/virtual technology were delivered into existing apparel design and merchandising programs at three U.S. universities. Exploratory Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis and reliability tests were conducted to identify the underlying structure and to examine the stability of the instrument. A total of 13 items remained after EFA, and three factors were identified as a result: attitude self-efficacy, skill/knowledge self-efficacy, and comprehensive self-efficacy. Results of the CFA indicated good model-data fit of the three dimensions of the self-efficacy structure (GFI=0.88, NFI=0.93, CFI=0.94, and TLI=0.92). All factors had reliabilities above 0.70. Average variance extracted (AVE) scores above 0.50 were used to establish convergent validity.

​

The scales range from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) for all items about 3D/virtual technologies. 

 

  • I find learning 3D/virtual technology concepts to be challenging.

  • I find completing 3D/virtual technology assignments to be challenging.

  • I struggle to complete my 3D/virtual technology assignments without                        assistance.

  • I feel anxious about being asked questions on 3D/virtual technology when I am in the classroom environment.  

  • I fear I will not be able to successfully complete 3D/virtual technology                      assignments.  

  • I cannot learn how to use 3D/ virtual technology no matter how hard I try. 

  • I cannot comprehend 3D/virtual technology no matter how hard I try.

  • I am confident that I can understand basic 3D/virtual technology concepts that are covered in class.

  • I am confident that I can understand the most difficult 3D/virtual technology concepts that are covered in class.

  • I am capable of improving my understanding of 3D/virtual technology.

  • I have the skills required to successfully complete 3D/virtual technology                    assignments.

  • I have the knowledge to comprehend 3D/virtual technology concepts.

  • I can successfully complete 3D/virtual technology assignments.

​

ITAA Proceedings

  • ​Hodges, N., Watchravesringkan, K., Yan, R., Chang, H., Maurno, C., Tarzian, J., & Rakib, N. (2022). Being real about teaching virtual: Comparing academic and industry views on technology integration and skill development. In International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 78(1). Iowa State University Digital Press. View PDF

​

  • Yan, R., Tarzian, J., Hodges, N., Watchravesringkan, K., & Chang, H. (2022). Do 3D technologies fill in the gaps for online shopping? Understanding young adult consumers' motivations and user experiences from the behavioral reasoning theory perspective. In International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings. 

​

  • Watchravesringkan, K., Chang, H., Hodges, N., & Yan, R. (2022). Measuring self-efficacy in the context of 3D/virtual technology learning: Scale development and assessment. In International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 79(1). Iowa State University Digital Press. View PDF

​

  • Hodges, N., Watchravesringkan, K., Yan, R., Chang, H., & Lee, Y. (2024). Teaching virtual/3D technology in the apparel and textiles curriculum: A conceptual model for developing pedagogical best practices. In International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 80(1). Iowa State University Digital Press. View PDF

​

  • Hodges, N., Watchravesringkan, K., Yan, R., Geanious, C., Chang, H., & Greenhalgh-Spencer, H. (2024). Cultivating applied technology competencies in the apparel and textiles curriculum: Development and assessment of course materials and teaching strategies. In International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 80(1). Iowa State University Digital Press. View PDF

References

Blomquist, T., Farashah, A. D., & Thomas, J. (2016). Project management self-efficacy as a predictor of project performance: Constructing and validating a domain-specific scale. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1417-1432. 

​

Laver, K., George, S., Ratcliffe, J., & Crotty, M. (2012). Measuring technology self-efficacy: Reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self-efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(3), 220-227. 

​

McClough, A. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2003), Selection in teams: An exploration of the teamwork knowledge, skills, and ability test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 56 -66. 

​

Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourtm R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Evaluation and Psychological Assessment, 54(3), 793-802. 

​

Tatar, N., Yıldız, E., Akpınar, E., & Ergin, Ö. (2009). A study on developing a self-efficacy scale towards science and technology. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36(36), 263-280.

bottom of page