Primary and Secondary School Counseling Staff Self-Efficacy Relevant Factors

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.23035

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2011. Vol.2, No.3, 226-229

Primary and Secondary School Counseling Staff Self-Efficacy

Relevant Factors

Shuyuan Cheng, Guihao Liu, Guifeng Xu, Yunlian Xue, Li Guo*

Faculty of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University,

Guangzhou, China

Email: [email protected]

Received September 25th, 2010; revised December 22nd, 2010; accepted February 6th, 2011

Objective: To understand the general self-efficacy of full-time and part-time counseling staff in primary and

secondary schools. Methods: 108 counseling staff from primary and secondary schools in Foshan City were se-

lected using multi-stage random sampling method, and investigated by self-made questionnaire, Simplified

Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) and General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Results: Different academic staff

had different positive coping styles scores (P < 0.05). People with Master’s degree and above selected more ma-

ture way than that of college staff, and people with lower educational level (2.56 ± 0.34, 2.02 ± 0.40, P < 0.05);

People with different jobs showed different negative coping styles and self-efficacy (P < 0.01); Score of nega-

tive coping styles of part-time staff was higher than that of full-time staff(1.21 ± 0.59, 0.94 ± 0.36), while their

sense of self-efficacy was lower than that of full-time staff (2.51 ± 0.49, 2.83 ± 0.39). However there was no sta-

tistical difference among people from different majors and jobs on positive coping styles, negative coping styles

and self-efficacy (P > 0.05). High self-efficacy group had higher scores of positive coping styles than that of low

self-efficacy group (2.17 ± 0.36，1.97 ± 0.43, P < 0.05); Positive correlation had been found between

self-efficacy and positive coping styles (r = 0.307, P < 0.01). Conclusion: Self-efficacy of counseling staff in

primary and secondary schools is related to positive coping styles and job styles kinds (full-time or part-time).

Keywords: Counseling Staff, Coping Styles, Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is the core conception of Bandura’s social cog-

nition theory which means that human beings control and guide

their behaviors. If one had believed that he could handle every-

thing, he would display more positive and initiative perform-

ances in his life. The cognition of “I can do it” reflects a control

feeling of environment. Thus, self-efficacy reflects a faith that

individual can take appropriate action when faces challenges

from circumstance. (Zhang Z.-J., 2005) In process of psychol-

ogy counseling, self-efficacy is one of the crucial factors af-

fecting the result.

As an inter factor between stress and mental regulation or

psychopathological symptoms, coping style or strategy plays a

vital role in individual’s physical and psychological develop-

ment(Compas B.E.,2001), and self-efficacy has important im-

pact on coping with pressure. Since sense of self-efficacy was

proposed by Bandura, it has gained widespread attention, and

been studied and used in various practice areas. At present,

psychology counseling and health education in schools has

been carrying out widely in China. Working efficiency’s close

related to the sense of self-efficacy of psychology counselors in

Schools. However, few study report can be found in this field.

Therefore, under today’s multivariate social background, un-

derstanding the self-efficacy of school psychological counselors

has important practical significance on enhancing the develop-

ment of psychological health of these staff and improving their

counseling level and quality. Today’s studies show quality and

capacity of counseling staff will affect counseling quality and

effect. This thesis basic on understanding the work situation of

primary and secondary school counseling staff and their self-

efficacy, exploring the relationship between the two to find the

way to improve the quality and effect of counseling staff.

Subjects and Methods

Study Sub jec ts

Counseling staff from primary and secondary schools in

Foshan City were selected by stratified random sampling

method. We stratified them according to school type (primary

and secondary school). Then, we sample counseling staff from

each layer. 125 questionnaires were sent out, 108 were taken

back, and 17 were excluded because of their invalidity, and the

ratio of callback valid questionnaire was 86.40%.

Study Tools

Self-made demographic characteristics questionnaire was

used, including age, gender, unit, education history, job types

(full-time or part-time), etc.

Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) (Wang X.-D.,

1999) was also put into use, including 20 items, using multi-

ple-grade score method and listing 4 options after each coping

style, that are Disuse, Occasionally use, Sometime use and

Frequently use, with scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, respectively. The ques-

tionnaire can reflect the relationship between people’s different

coping features and their psychological health, which is made

up of 2 dimensions—positive and negative coping. When the

score of positive coping is higher, the score of psychological

problems or symptoms would be lower. Whereas, when the

score of negative coping is higher, the score of psychology

problems or symptoms would be higher. The test-retest correla-

tion coefficient of SCSQ is 0.89, α coefficient is 0.90. α coeffi-

cient of positive and negative coping style scale are 0.89 and

S. Y. CHENG ET AL. 227

0.78 respectively. For the validity, extracting factors by factor

analysis, and doing variance maximum oblique rotation for

factor model. Factor analysis shows that coping style item can

load to “positive” and “negative” factors, same as theoretical

assumption.

General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) (Zhang Z.-J., 2005), to-

tally 10 items, related to self-confidence when individual suf-

fering setbacks or difficult. It takes the form of Likert 4-point

scale. Subjects according to their real situation answer all ques-

tions with Absolutely incorrect, Somewhat true, Most correct or

Completely correct, and the sequence of grade is 1-4. GSES has

good reliability and validity, α coefficient is 0.87, test-retest

reliability is 0.83. For the validity, the correlation coefficient of

10 items and total scale score is between 0.60 and 0.77. Factor

analysis extract one factor and explanatory variance is 47.09%,

showing that GSES has good construct validity. Self-efficacy in

this study was grouped according to the average score 2.6.

Statistic Me t hods

Database was built by the Epidate 3.0, and data was recorded

by two people which were analyzed bySPSS 13.0. took the

relative number index to the categorical data was statistically

described by ratio and proportion; the continuous data (obeyed

normal distribution) was statistically described by mean or

standard deviation; the comparison of ratio was computed by

chi-square test; the of the mean values between two groups

conducted by t test (we used the t' when variance not equal); the

comparison of the mean values among multiple groups con-

ducted by ANOVA; correlation between each scales was ana-

lyzed by Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results

General Demographics

108 primary and secondary school counseling staffs were

investigated, including 18 males (16.67%) and 90 females

(83.33%), with age ranged from 22 to 47 years (mean 31.06 ±

6.49 years). 104 people are teachers (96.30%); others were 3

administrators (2.78%) and 1 education counselor (0.93%).

View from the education degrees: 4 cases were master or above

(3.70%), 61 bachelors (56.48%), 43 people were junior college

or below (39.82%); major with most subjects was Psychol-

ogy/Pedagogy with 55.56%. From the work types, we found

that full-time counseling staff were less with only 29.00%,

while the proportion of part-time staff was as much as 71.00%,

29.69% of which are voluntary consultants (consultation time is

not the workload), and 70.31% of part-time staff only doing

consult as part of his work (They also had tasks of teaching,

research and others).

Comparison of Coping Style and Self-Efficacy

Between Different Education Degree Staff

Table 1 shows that different academic staff have different

scores about positive coping styles (P < 0.05), the highest score

was gained by staff with Master's degree and above, while ones

with educational level of junior college or below gains the low-

est scores, with significant difference (P = 0.039). The result

indicates that with the improvement of education degree, coun-

seling capacity of positive coping of staff was growing. Not yet

found the difference among staff with different education de-

grees.

Comparison Coping Style and Self-Efficacy Between

Different Job Specificat io n Staff

Table 2 shows that different kinds of labors have different

score of negative coping styles. Score of negative coping styles

of part-time staff was higher than that of full-time staff, with

significant difference (P = 0.007). Staff with different work

style show different scores of self-efficacy, that is, full-time

staff have higher sense of self-efficacy than that of part-time

staff, with significant difference (P = 0.003). Not yet found

difference of positive coping styles between different staff of

job specification.

Comparison Coping Style and Self-Efficacy Between

Different Major Staff

As the Table 3 suggests that people of different major may

not have different scores in positive coping styles, negative

coping styles and self-efficacy.

Table 1.

Comparison of coping style and self-efficacy between different education degree staff.

Education degree N

± S F P

Master or above 4 2.56 ± 0.34

Bachelor 61 2.05 ± 0.41

Positive coping

Junior college or below 43 2.02 ± 0.40

3.343 0.039*

Master or above 4 1.03 ± 0.51

Bachelor 61 1.08 ± 0.54 Negative coping

Junior college or below 43 1.26 ± 0.58

1.325 0.270

Master or above 4 2.75 ± 0.29

Bachelor 61 2.60 ± 0.46 Self-efficacy

Junior college or below 43 2.60 ± 0.54

0.184 0.832

*P < 0.05

S. Y. CHENG ET AL.

228

Table 2.

Comparison coping style and self-efficacy between different job specifications staff.

Job specifications N

± S t P

29 2.07 ± 0.31

Positive coping

Part-time 71 2.05 ± 0.46

0.235 0.815

Full-time 29 0.94 ± 0.36

Negative coping

Part-time 71 1.21 ± 0.59

−2.786 0.007&**

Full-time 29 2.83 ± 0.39

Self-efficacy

Part-time 71 2.51 ± 0.49

3.097 0.003**

& is t' test; **P < 0.01

Table 3.

Comparison coping style and self-efficacy between different major staff.

Major N

± S t P

Psychology/Pedagogy 60 2.01 ± 0.42

Positive coping

Not Psychology/Pedagogy 48 2.12 ± 0.40

−1.371 0.173

Psychology/Pedagogy 60 1.12 ± 0.53

Negative coping

Not Psychology/Pedagogy 48 1.20 ± 0.60

−0.722 0.472

Psychology/Pedagogy 60 2.68 ± 0.52

Self-efficacy

Not Psychology/Pedagogy 48 2.50 ± 0.43

1.919 0.058

Comparison Coping Styles Between People with High

and Low Self-Efficacy

Table 4 shows that score of positive coping style of the high

self-efficacy group is higher than that of the low self-efficacy

group, with statistical significance (P = 0.011), which indicates

that those with higher self-efficacy more likely take mature

coping style. And in this study the score of negative coping

style has not been found significantly different between the

high and the low self-efficacy groups.

Correlation Analyze Between Self-Efficacy and

Coping Style

As what can be seen from table 5, for primary and secondary

school psychological counseling staff, there is positive correla-

tion p between self-efficacy and coping style. On contrary,

there is s negative correlation between self-efficacy and nega-

tive coping style, while with no statistical significance.

Discussion

As an inner self-faith, self-efficacy is the deep inner motiva-

tion of psychological counseling staff when they are engaged in

psychological consults. It is also the foundation and motive

power to produce and increase the autonomous working moti-

vation. Once self-efficacy forms, it must have direct impact on

working enthusiasm, self-expectation and behaviors. It may

decide the emotional responses of psychological counseling

staff, such as stress state, anxious, depression and so on. In light

of this, on the one hand, if self-efficacy is not enough, it can

affect the physical and psychological health of psychological

counseling staff. On the other hand, if one keeps positive self-

efficacy, it can help counseling staff to improve and maintain

their physical and psychological health.

Table 4.

Comparison coping style between people with High and Low self-effi-

cacy.

Self-efficacyN

± S t P

Low 591.97 ± 0.43

Positive

coping High 492.17 ± 0.36

−2.575 0.011*

Low 591.15 ± 0.53

Negative

coping High 491.16 ± 0.60

−0.067 0.947

*P < 0.05

Table 5.

Correlation analyze between self-efficacy and coping style.

Positive coping Negative coping

r 0.307** −0.051

P 0.001 0.603

Self-efficacy

N108 108

** P < 0.01

S. Y. CHENG ET AL. 229

In this survey, we found that the higher the education degree

of the psychological counseling staff from primary and secon-

dary schools was, the more mature their coping style was.

Views from job specification, full-time staff had taken more

mature positive coping style than that of part-time staff, and

their self-efficacy was also higher than that of part-time staff. It

may be related to following factors: (1) Full-time staff own rich

psychological theory knowledge, and have accepted more

trainings about psychological counseling. They know how to

modify themselves when they are suffering from stress. While

part-time staffs are lack of advantages in these aspects, so they

are more likely to take negative coping style, which affects

self-efficacy in a certain degree. (2) The main working tasks of

part-time staff are teaching and doing research, and they do

part-time psychological counseling. In this situation, their en-

ergy must be diffused, and then plays negative impact on their

self-efficacy. The results of this survey suggest that, in order to

improve the self-efficacy and consulting outcome of primary

and secondary school staff, a management system with full-

time staff in certain working posts should be established. And

employees should have relevant qualifications, and be trained

with positive professional coping styles.

The results of this survey show that there is positive correla-

tion between self-efficacy and coping style for psychological

counseling staff in primary and secondary schools. Those who

have higher self-efficacy more likely to take positive coping

style than that of those with low self-efficacy, which is similar

to Pang L.-J.’s conclusion of self-efficacy study that self- effi-

cacy of teachers is closely correlated with the performance of

education behaviors, and compared to the staff with low sense

of self-efficacy, ones with high self-efficacy could tackle prob-

lems more effective. (Pang L.-J., 2005) Qiu X.-F. proposed that

if negative and inappropriate coping styles were taken repeat-

edly in the long term, the result of accumulation of stress and

increasing of burden would occur, which might push someone

to physical and psychological diseases. (Qiu X.-F., 2007) While

positive coping style is one of important protective factors

which can reduce pressure and resolve stress. Therefore, these

should become key research issues in future studies that how

can the psychological counseling staff in primary and secon-

dary schools maintain vigilant for their psychological health,

and pay more attention to train mature positive coping style,

change their immature negative coping style, and improve their

self-efficacy, which consequently can improve the quality and

effect of psychological counseling work. Literatures which

probe the relationship between quality of primary and secon-

dary school counseling staff and counseling quality are rare in

China at present. This thesis tried to explore which factors

could affect quality and effect of counseling from the angle of

self-efficacy of primary and secondary school counseling staff.

In this study, sample size is not so big, and the results we have

got require further researches. We suggest that counseling staff

in primary and secondary schools should be train with positive

coping style and improve their self-efficacy to improve quality

and effect of psychological counseling work.

References

Zhang Z.-J. (2005) Editorial Committee of Chinese Journal of Behav-

ioral Medical Science. Behavior Medicine Scale Manual. Beijing:

China Medical Multimedia Press, 187-189..

Compas B. E., Connor-Smith J. K., Saltzman H. et al. (2001) Coping

with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress

and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127,

87-127. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87

Wang X.-D., Wang X.-L., Ma H. et al. (1999). Psychology health

measuring scale manual (Expanded edition). Chinese Mental Health

Journal, 122-124.

Pang L.-J., & Hong X.-M. (2005). Teacher’s perceived self-efficacy:

An important inherent motive mechanism in teacher’s self-devel-

opment. Teacher Education Rresearch, 17, 43-46.

Qiu X.-F., Zhang W., & Yao D.-J. (2007). The relationships of univer-

sity teachers’ well-being and coping strategies. The Modern Educa-

tion Journal, 133, 22-26.