Original article| Volume 93, ISSUE 10, P1757-1765, October 2012

University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale: A New Self-Efficacy Scale for People With Disabilities


      Amtmann D, Bamer AM, Cook KF, Askew RL, Noonan VK, Brockway JA. University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale: a new self-efficacy scale for people with disabilities.


      To develop a self-efficacy scale for people living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and spinal cord injury (SCI) that can be used across diagnostic conditions.


      The scale was developed using modern psychometric methods including item response theory. Items were administered at 3 time-points of a longitudinal survey of individuals with MS and SCI.


      Survey participants with MS were recruited from the National MS Society, and participants with SCI were recruited from the Northwest Regional Spinal Cord Injury Model System and the Shepherd Center at the Virginia Crawford Research Institute in Atlanta, GA.


      Adults aged 18 years and older reporting a definitive diagnosis of MS (N=473) or SCI (N=253).



      Main Outcome Measures

      Evaluation of the new self-efficacy measure called the University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale (UW-SES) included comparisons with the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale and other patient-reported outcome measures.


      UW-SES has excellent psychometric properties including well-functioning response categories, no floor effects, and low ceiling effects. A long form (17 items) and a short form (6 items) are available. The correlation between the score on the newly developed scale and the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale was high (.83), providing support for convergent validity. Higher self-efficacy scores were statistically significantly associated with better mental health, better physical health, less fatigue, less stress, less pain interference, less pain, fewer sleep problems, and lower depressive symptoms.


      The UW-SES is a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring self-efficacy, validated in MS and SCI, and can be used across both conditions. Both the long form and the short form are available free of charge.

      Key Words

      List of Abbreviations:

      CFA (confirmatory factor analysis), DIF (differential item functioning), IRT (item response theory), MS (multiple sclerosis), PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System), SCI (spinal cord injury), SF-8 (Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 8-Item Health Survey), TI (Test-Information), UW-SES (University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Bandura A.
        Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.
        Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs1986
        • Tedman S.
        • Thornton E.
        • Baker G.
        Development of a scale to measure core beliefs and perceived self efficacy in adults with epilepsy.
        Seizure. 1995; 4: 221-231
        • Barnwell A.M.
        • Kavanagh D.J.
        Prediction of psychological adjustment to multiple sclerosis.
        Soc Sci Med. 1997; 45: 411-418
        • Lorig K.
        • Chastain R.L.
        • Ung E.
        • Shoor S.
        • Holman H.R.
        Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis.
        Arthritis Rheum. 1989; 32: 37-44
        • Rigby S.A.
        • Domenech C.
        • Thornton E.W.
        • Tedman S.
        • Young C.A.
        Development and validation of a self-efficacy measure for people with multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Self-efficacy Scale.
        Mult Scler. 2003; 9: 73-81
        • Hampton N.Z.
        Subjective well-being among people with spinal cord injuries: the role of self-efficacy, perceived social support, and perceived health.
        Rehabil Counsel Bull. 2004; 48: 31-37
        • Fortinsky R.H.
        • Kercher K.
        • Burant C.
        Measurement and correlates of family caregiver self-efficacy for managing dementia.
        Aging Ment Health. 2002; 6: 153-160
        • Altmaier E.M.
        • Russel D.W.
        • Kao C.F.
        • Lehmann T.R.
        • Weinstein J.N.
        Role of self-efficacy in rehabilitation outcome among chronic low back pain patients.
        J Counsel Psychol. 1993; 40: 335-339
        • Regenold M.
        • Sherman M.F.
        • Fenzel M.
        Getting back to work: self-efficacy as a predictor of employment outcome.
        Psychiatr Rehabil J. 1999; 22: 361-367
        • Schwarzer R.
        • Boehmer S.
        • Luszczynska A.
        • Mohamed N.E.
        • Knoll N.
        Dispositional self-efficacy as a personal resource factor in coping after surgery.
        Pers Individ Dif. 2005; 39: 807-818
        • Hampton N.Z.
        Self-efficacy and quality of life in people with spinal cord injuries in China.
        Rehabil Couns Bull. 2000; 43: 66-74
        • Marks R.
        • Allegrante J.P.
        • Lorig K.
        A review and synthesis of research evidence for self-efficacy-enhancing interventions for reducing chronic disability: implications for health education practice (part II).
        Health Promot Pract. 2005; 6: 148-156
        • Sherer M.M.J.
        • Mercandante B.
        • Prentice-Dunn S.
        • Jacobs B.
        • Rogers R.
        The Self-Efficacy Scale: construction and validation.
        Psychol Rep. 1982; 51: 663-671
        • Airlie J.
        • Baker G.A.
        • Smith S.J.
        • Young C.A.
        Measuring the impact of multiple sclerosis on psychosocial functioning: the development of a new self-efficacy scale.
        Clin Rehabil. 2001; 15: 259-265
        • Middleton J.W.
        • Tate R.L.
        • Geraghty T.J.
        Self-efficacy and spinal cord injury: psychometric properties of a new scale.
        Rehabil Psych. 2003; 48: 281-288
        • Horn W.
        • Yoels W.
        • Wallace D.
        • Macrina D.
        • Wrigley M.
        Determinants of self-efficacy among persons with spinal cord injuries.
        Disabil Rehabil. 1998; 20: 138-141
        • Shnek Z.M.
        • Foley F.W.
        • LaRocca N.G.
        • et al.
        Helplessness, self-efficacy, cognitive distortions, and depression in multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury.
        Ann Behav Med. 1997; 19: 287-294
        • Jerusalem M.
        • Schwarzer R.
        Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress performance.
        in: Schwarzer R. Self-efficacy: thought control of action. Hemisphere, Washington (DC)1992: 195-213
        • Lorig K.R.
        • Sobel D.S.
        • Ritter P.L.
        • Laurent D.
        • Hobbs M.
        Effect of a self-management program for patients with chronic disease.
        Eff Clin Pract. 2001; 4: 256-262
        • Bamer A.M.
        • Johnson K.L.
        • Amtmann D.
        • Kraft G.H.
        Prevalence of sleep problems in individuals with multiple sclerosis.
        Mult Scler. 2008; 14: 1127-1130
        • Bamer A.M.
        • Johnson K.L.
        • Amtmann D.A.
        • Kraft G.H.
        Beyond fatigue: assessing variables associated with sleep problems and use of sleep medications in multiple sclerosis.
        Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 2: 99-106
        • Baylor C.
        • Yorkston K.
        • Bamer A.
        • Britton D.
        • Amtmann D.
        Variables associated with communicative participation in people with multiple sclerosis: a regression analysis.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011; 19: 143-153
        • Johnson K.L.
        • Bamer A.M.
        • Yorkston K.M.
        • Amtmann D.
        Use of cognitive aids and other assistive technology by individuals with multiple sclerosis.
        Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009; 4: 1-8
        • Jensen M.P.
        • Hirsh A.T.
        • Molton I.R.
        • Bamer A.M.
        Sleep problems in individuals with spinal cord injury: frequency and age effects.
        Rehabil Psychol. 2009; 54: 323-331
        • Ware J.E.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Dewey J.E.
        • Gandek B.
        A manual for users of the SF-8 Health Survey.
        QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln2001
        • Fisk J.D.
        • Ritvo P.G.
        • Ross L.
        • Haase D.A.
        • Marrie T.J.
        • Schlech W.F.
        Measuring the functional impact of fatigue: initial validation of the fatigue impact scale.
        Clin Infect Dis. 1994; 18: S79-S83
        • Cohen S.
        • Kamarck T.
        • Mermelstein R.
        A global measure of perceived stress.
        J Health Soc Behav. 1983; 24: 385-396
        • Cohen S.
        • Williamson G.
        Perceived stress in a probability sample of the U.S..
        in: Soacapam S. Oskamp S. The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Sage, Newbury Park1988: 31-67
        • Spritzer K.L.
        • Hays R.D.
        MOS Sleep Scale: a manual for use and scoring, Version 1.0.
        RAND, Los Angeles2003
        • Becker J.
        • Schwartz C.
        • Saris-Baglama R.N.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Bjorner J.B.
        Using item response theory (IRT) for developing and evaluating the Pain Impact Questionnaire (PIQ-6).
        Pain Med. 2007; 8: S129-S144
        • Kroenke K.
        • Spitzer R.L.
        • Williams J.B.
        The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16: 606-613
        • Spitzer R.L.
        • Kroenke K.
        • Williams J.B.
        Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study.
        JAMA. 1999; 282: 1737-1744
        • Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
        PROMIS Scoring Guide: Version 1.0 short forms, profile short forms, computerized adaptive testing.
        (Accessed April 2012)
        • Von Korff M.
        • Ormel J.
        • Keefe F.J.
        • Dworkin S.F.
        Grading the severity of chronic pain.
        Pain. 1992; 50: 133-149
        • Bentler P.
        Comparative fit indices in structural models.
        Psychol Bull. 1990; 107: 238-246
        • Hu L.T.
        • Bentler P.
        Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
        Struct Equ Modeling. 1999; 6: 1-55
        • Hu L.T.
        • Bentler P.M.
        Evaluating model fit.
        in: Hoyle R.H. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks1995: 76-79
        • McDonald R.
        Test theory: a unified treatment.
        Erlbaum, Mahway1999
        • Browne M.W.
        • Cudeck R.
        Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
        in: Bollen K.A. Long J.S. Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park1993: 136-172
        • Kline R.B.
        Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
        The Guilford Press, New York1998
        • West S.G.
        • Finch J.F.
        • Curran P.J.
        SEM with nonnormal variables.
        Sage, Thousand Oaks1995
        • Cook K.F.
        • Kallen M.A.
        • Amtmann D.
        Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption.
        Qual Life Res. 2009; 18: 447-460
        • Reise S.P.
        • Morizot J.
        • Hays R.D.
        The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 19-31
        • McDonald R.P.
        The dimensionality of test and items.
        Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1981; 34: 100-117
        • Samejima F.
        Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores.
        Psychometrika Monograph Supplement. 1969; (No. 17): 1-100
        • Orlando M.
        • Thissen D.
        Likelihood-based item-fit indices for dichotomous item response theory models.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2000; 24: 50-64
        • Orlando M.
        • Thissen D.
        Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: an item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models.
        Appl Psychol Meas. 2003; 27: 289-298
        • Scott N.W.
        • Fayers P.M.
        • Aaronson N.K.
        • et al.
        A simulation study provided sample size guidance for differential item functioning (DIF) studies using short scales.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 288-295
        • Cohen J.
        Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
        Erlbaum, Hillsdale1988
        • Zumbo B.D.
        A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores.
        Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, Ottawa, Canada1999
        • Crane P.K.
        • Belle G.V.
        • Larson E.B.
        Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI.
        Stat Med. 2004; 23: 241-256
        • Crane P.K.
        • Gibbons L.E.
        • Ocepek-Welikson K.
        • et al.
        A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression.
        Qual Life Res. 2007; 16: 69-84
        • Miller S.M.
        The measurement of self-efficacy in persons with spinal cord injury: psychometric validation of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31: 988-993