Roger N. Reeb

The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale: Further Evidence of Reliability and Validity

SUMMARY The Community Service Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES) measures “… the individuals confidence in his or her own ability to make clinically significant contributions to the community through service” (Reeb et al., p. 48). Three studies reported in this article replicate and extend past CSSES research. With regard to reliability, results replicate past research in demonstrating internal consistency and temporal consistency. Convergent validity was demonstrated by the finding that, as hypothesized, the CSSES correlated moderately with a measure of general self-efficacy. As hypothesized, the correlation between the CSSES and a measure of social desirability was low in magnitude and non-significant, demonstrating discriminant validity. Regarding gender differences, females tended to score somewhat higher than males on the CSSES. With respect to construct validity, CSSES scores changed in the hypothesized direction in response to an intervention. While past CSSES research focused on college students, one study reported in this paper shows that the CSSES is useful in studying adolescents, including those with psychosocial adjustment problems.

Service-Learning in Community Action Research: Introduction to the Special Section

This special section focuses on service-learning in community action research, with an emphasis on Theory, Research, and Practice. This Introduction is organized into three sections. In the first section, a brief description of service-learning is provided, and the general goals of the special issue are delineated. The second section provides a rationale for the special section, including a brief discussion of (a) the relevance of service-learning to psychology in general, (b) the importance of stimulating additional systematic community-based research in the area of service-learning, and (c) the ways in which the goals and outcomes of service-learning reflect the values and assumptions in community psychology. Finally, the third section sets the stage for readers by providing a brief description of each article in the special section.

Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good.

Service learning is an educational approach in which students use knowledge and skills learned in the classroom when engaged in activities with community partners. Service learning projects can cover a wide range of activities, such as helping the homeless, tutoring children, developing informational materials (e.g., brochures), evaluating the efficacy of an organization’s services, conducting research in support of social reform, and promoting awareness of social issues, such as domestic violence. Service learning is more than applied learning; it is “the integration of academic material, relevant service activities, and critical reflection in a reciprocal partnership that engages students, faculty, staff, and community members to achieve academic, civic, and personal [growth] learning objectives as well as to advance public purposes” (Bringle & Clayton, 2012, p. 105). The integration of service learning and psychology was explored in With Service in Mind: Concepts and Models for Service Learning in Psychology Introduction

Enhancing the Psychology Curriculum Through Service Learning

Educators in psychology should aspire to encourage students’ holistic growth in academic, personal, and civic domains. We propose that service learning is the most potent pedagogy for developing well-rounded, psychologically literate citizens capable of meeting the goals for the undergraduate psychology major. This article defines service learning, delineates the rationales for service learning, and summarizes research demonstrating the efficacy of this pedagogical approach. The article also describes the learning objectives derived from the American Psychological Association Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major (Version 2.0, 2013), with an emphasis on the ways in which service learning contributes to academic learning, civic learning, and personal growth. Finally, the article illustrates the four types of service learning, and it provides a concrete example for structuring reflection in order to connect community experiences with course content in a service learning psychology course.

Psycho-Ecological Systems Model: A Systems Approach to Planning and Gauging the Community Impact of Community-Engaged Scholarship

This article presents the PsychoEcological Systems Model (PESM) – an integrative conceptual model rooted in General Systems Theory (GST). PESM was developed to inform and guide the development, implementation, and evaluation of transdisciplinary (and multilevel) communityengaged scholarship (e.g., a participatory community action research project undertaken by faculty that involves graduate and/or undergraduate students as servicelearning research assistants). To set the stage, the first section critiques past conceptual models. Following a description of GST, the second section provides a comprehensive description of PESM, which represents an integration of three conceptual developments: the ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the biopsychosocial model (Kiesler, 2000), and the principle of reciprocal determinism (Bandura, 1978). In the third section, we discuss implications of PESM for communitybased research. A greater emphasis on the development of integrative conceptual frameworks may increase the likelihood that communitybased research projects will: (a) address complex questions; (b) develop and implement efficacious (and sustainable) transdisciplinary (and multilevel) projects; (c) assess constructs at multiple levels using a blend of quantitative and qualitative approaches; and (d) utilize multiple research designs and methods to systematically examine hypotheses regarding a project’s influence on outcome variables and process variables.

Behavioral Summarized Evaluation: An Assessment Tool to Enhance Multidisciplinary and Parent-Professional Collaborations in Assessing Symptoms of Autism

The Behavioral Summarized Evaluation (BSE) was developed by Barthelemy and colleagues (Barthelemy et al., 1990; Barthelemy et al., 1997) for professionals and paraprofessionals to assess autism symptom severity over the course of treatment. The purpose of this article is to review empirical literature examining the utility of this psychometric instrument in research and clinical practice, with an emphasis on the instruments potential to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration and parent-professional collaborations. This article is organized into 4 interrelated sections. The first section provides a brief description of the BSE. In the second section, research on the psychometric properties of the BSE is reviewed, including (a) reliability (i.e., interrater reliability, inter-item consistency, and temporal stability) and (b) validity (i.e., factorial composition, convergent validity, sensitivity to treatment effects, and criterion-related validity). In the third section, recommendations for future BSE validation research are delineated. The final section discusses clinical implications.

Are measures of self-efficacy reactive?

This study attempted to determine if the correspondence between self-efficacy and behavioral performance was due to reactivity cues provided by the self-efficacy measure. The extent to which the self-efficacy measure enhanced or detracted from the effects of a fear-reducing intervention (pretest sensitization) was also examined. Participants (age M = 21.54, SD = 3.11) included 52 undergraduate students (8 males, 44 females) who indicated a particular fear on the Fear Survey Schedule (FSS). Participants were randomly assigned to a self-efficacy group or a routine-treatment group. In the self-efficacy group, the measure of self-efficacy was administered at preintervention, between filmed modeling segments, postintervention, and follow-up; in contrast, the routine-treatment group completed the self-efficacy measure at follow-up only. Outcome assessment of fear included a behavioral approach task and measures of self-reported fear (anticipatory and performance). In general, results indicated that group differences regarding the magnitude of correlations between self-efficacy and fear measures were nonsignificant. In addition, results did not yield evidence of pretest sensitization. The findings are interpreted as supporting Banduras conceptualization of the reactivity issue, and the need for additional research is noted.