
doi: 10.1007/bf01172996
The major points of Bandura's response to our critique are discussed in this paper. There remain problems both at the theoretical and the methodological levels with self-efficacy theory. We highlight the difficulty of defining self-efficacy theory without reference to outcome considerations. We reiterate our disquiet concerning the methodology usedby Bandura in the assessment of self-efficacy. We conclude that the value of self-efficacy theory both at a theoretical and at a practical level remains to be demonstrated.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 12 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
