MENU

Women's Collective Efficacy Scale

The Women’s Collective Efficacy (CE) scale is a 33-item measure of the gender-specific mechanisms through which CE, defined as perceptions regarding a group’s ability to execute actions related to a common goal, operate for women. This scale contains 6 factors related to CE: social response; social networks and personal agency; community organization and leadership; associational participation; social attachment; and common vision. It was originally developed within a sanitation and hygiene project in rural Ethiopia. Scales for Men's Collective Efficacy (CE) and General Collective Efficacy (CE) are also available.

Categories

Geographies Tested: Ethiopia

Populations Included: Female

Age Range: Adults

Items:

Factor: Social response
1. This is a close-knit community (i.e., people in this community have close personal relationships with each other).
2. When there is a problem in this community, people come together to discuss how it should be solved.
3. People in this community can be trusted.
4. If there is a problem that affects the entire community, for instance, crop disease, people in this community will help each other.
5. If there is a big dispute between two persons, other people from the community will help in solving the problem.
6. People in this community live in harmony with each other most of the time.
7. If the people of this community see crime-like activities, they will do something about it.

Factor: Social networks and personal agency
8. My neighbours sometimes come to me to share their problems and get help.
9. If you suddenly need some money, you can borrow from a person or group in your community.
10. If you and your relatives suddenly had to go away for a day or two, you could count on your neighbours to take care of your children.
11. I have the ability to contribute to this community's development.
12. I have the capacity to achieve my future aims.
13. In this community, I have friends with whom I can share my problems.
14. I typically accept advice from others in this community.
15. The people of this community will contribute their own money or labour for community development.
16. If someone in this community loses a cow or goat, a neighbor will help look for it.

Factor: Community organisation and leadership
17. The leaders of community-based associations, like Edir leaders, respond to this community's concerns.
18. The community-based associations, such as the Edir, in this community is very active.
19. People in this community get to choose the leaders of their own community-based associations, such as the Edir leaders.
20. There are people in this community who show strong leadership.
21. Formal administrative leaders, like the kebele manager, provide support to this community.

Factor: Associational participation
22. I attend meetings of a community-based association, such as the Edir.
23. I participate in activities held by any community-based associations, such as the Edir.
24. I attend the meetings of any government or NGO-initiated community development group, such as the Development Army.

Factor: Social attachment
25. People in this community accept me as a member of the community.
26. Being a member of this community is part of who I am.
27. I feel attached to this community and its people.
28. I feel proud to be a part of this community.
29. People in this community share the same ideas on how village matters should be managed.
30. Most people in this community have similar hopes about the future development of the community.

Factor: Common vision
31. Most people in this community have common values, for example, they value hard work.
32. People in this community have the capacity to make positive changes by coming together.
33. During crisis situations, such as drought, government services are distributed equally by the community to all households in need.

Response Options:
Completely disagree - 1
Partially disagree - 2
Neither agree nor disagree [neutral] - 3
Partially agree - 4
Completely agree - 5

Scoring Procedures

Collective Efficacy (CE) factor scores may be calculated in two ways: as either average or average weighted scores. In either approach, higher factor scores represent higher levels of perceived behavioral control over the respective CE factors.

Average CE factor scores are calculated by summing responses for all items in each factor and dividing that sum by the number of items subsumed under that factor. This scoring is simpler however it assumes that all items have the same level of influence on the latent factor, which may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, a second approach was used in which one calculated the weighted average CE factor scores. Weights were applied to be equal to the item's initial factor loadings or loadings prior to generating an average score.

Original Citation

Delea, M. G., Sclar, G. D., Woreta, M., Haardorfer, R., Nagel, C. L., Caruso, B. A., Dreibelbis, R., Gobezayehu, A. G., Clasen, T. F., & Freeman, M. C. (2018). Collective Efficacy: Development and Validation of a Measurement Scale for Use in Public Health and Development Programmes. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(10), 2139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102139

Psychometric Score

Citation Frequency

Ease of Use Score

Formative Research

Qualitative Research

Existing Literature/Theoretical Framework

Field Expert Input

Cognitive Interviews / Pilot Testing

Reliability

Internal

Test-retest

Interrater

Validity

Content

Face

Criterion (gold-standard)

Construct

Ease of Use

Readability

Scoring Clarity

Length

KEY