Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:31:43.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Phobic Situations (SEQ-SP): Development and Psychometric Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Natalie Flatt*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. [email protected]
Neville King
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia.
*
*Address for correspondence: Natalie Flatt, Faculty of Education, Monash University, PO Box 6, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

The 13-item Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Specific Phobias (SEQ-SP) was developed as a measure of perceived ability to cope with phobic symptoms when approaching feared stimuli. This study examined the psychometric properties of the SEQ-SP in a sample of 43 Australian children and adolescents aged 7 through to 17 years. Participants met the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for a specific phobia. Exploratory factor analysis yielded two reliable subscales labelled Cognitive/Physiological Efficacy and Behavioural Efficacy. A confirmatory cluster analysis revealed the possibility of three ad hoc clusters comprising of cognitive, physiological and behavioural classifications. Results furthermore provided preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the SEQ-SP. Psychometric evaluation revealed excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Additionally, results indicated that higher SEQ-SP scores were significantly correlated with lower scores on the Child Anxiety Sensitivity Index and higher scores on the Behavioural Avoidance Test, displaying evidence of moderate to excellent construct validity. This new self-report measure has a potentially useful role in clinical work and research with children and adolescents presenting with a specific phobia. Subsequent research examining the clinical utility of the SEQ-SP to predict treatment outcome is discussed.

Type
Standard Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)