JCERJournal of Contemporary Educational Research2208-84662208-8474Bio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.10.26689/JCER.v10i9.15695ArticleAbility Versus Action Self-Efficacy as Differential Predictors of Learning Engagement among Chinese Top-Up Degree Studentshttps://artdesignp.com/journal/JCER/10/9/10.26689/JCER.v10i9.15695HuXinyu,LiWei20261092026-09-30We compared ability self-efficacy (confidence in academic ability) and action self-efficacy (confidence in carrying out study strategies) as predictors of learning engagement in a cross-sectional survey of Chinese top-up degree students. Items were adapted from a Chinese learner-characteristics scale to fit the top-up degree context. Of 363 collected questionnaires, 25 straight-line or invariant responses were removed, leaving 338 for analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis fit a three-factor measurement model well, and chi-square difference tests kept the three constructs separate despite their high latent correlations. A common method bias check suggested that no single factor explained the covariance among the indicators. In the structural model, ability self-efficacy predicted engagement significantly (β = 0.685, P < 0.001); action self-efficacy did not (β = 0.197, P = 0.097). A Wald test separated the two coefficients on the unstandardized scale (z = 6.71, P < 0.001) but reached only marginal significance on the standardized scale (z = 2.03, P = 0.043). The model explained 73.1% of the variance in engagement. On balance, confidence in academic capability emerges as the more proximal driver of engagement, though the standardized gap between the two dimensions was small.Ability self-efficacy, Action self-efficacy, Learning engagement, Structural equation modeling, Top-up degree students

[1] Pajares F, 1996, Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4): 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543 [2] Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK, 2020, Motivation and Social Cognitive Theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60: 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832 [3] Bandura A, 1997, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: Freeman. [4] Multon KD, Brown SD, Lent RW, 1991, Relation of Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Academic Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1): 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30 [5] Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH, 2004, School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1): 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [6] Hattie J, 2009, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London, England: Routledge. [7] Bandura A, 2006, Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In F. Pajares T. Urdan (Eds.): Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (Vol. 5), 307–337, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. [8] Bong M, Skaalvik EM, 2003, Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302408382 [9] Bandura A, 2012, On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1): 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606 [10] Wang G, Fu G, 2018, Construction of the Learner Characteristics Model and Scale Development in a Networked Environment. Journal of Distance Education, 36(3): 64–74. [11] Rosseel Y, 2012, lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 [12] Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V, 2012, When Can Categorical Variables be Treated as Continuous? A Comparison of Robust Continuous and Categorical SEM Estimation Methods under Suboptimal Conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3): 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315 [13] Hu L, Bentler PM, 1999, Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 [14] Sharma S, Mukherjee S, Kumar A, et al., 2005, A Simulation Study to Investigate the Use of Cutoff Values for Assessing Model Fit in Covariance Structure Models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7): 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2003.10.007 [15] Bollen KA, 1989, Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: Wiley. [16] Fornell C, Larcker DF, 1981, Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 [17] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. [18] Anderson JC, Gerbing DW, 1988, Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3): 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 [19] Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, 2015, A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1): 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 [20] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al., 2003, Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [21] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, 2012, Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [22] Richardson HA, Simmering MJ, Sturman MC, 2009, A Tale of Three Perspectives: Examining Post Hoc Statistical Techniques for Detection and Correction of Common Method Variance. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4): 762–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109332824 [23] Cole DA, Preacher KJ, 2014, Manifest Variable Path Analysis: Potentially Serious and Misleading Consequences Due to Uncorrected Measurement Error. Psychological Methods, 19(3): 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033805 [24] Schuberth F, Schamberger T, Henseler J, 2024, More Powerful Parameter Tests? No, Rather Biased Parameter Estimates. Some Reflections on Path Analysis with Weighted Composites. Behavior Research Methods, 56(4): 4205–4215. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02256-5 [25] Gelman A, Stern H, 2006, The Difference between “Significant” and “Not Significant” Is Not Itself Statistically Significant. The American Statistician, 60(4): 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649