This is the most up to date version of this scale.

Construct Summary

The authors state that the scale aims to measure:

“people’s perceived self-efficacy in dealing with robots” (p. 3).

They define self-efficacy (adopting Bandura’s 1986 definition) as:

“people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses” (p. 2).

The authors also clarify self-efficacy as being different from efficacy. They state:

“It is important to note that self-efficacy does not equal efficacy. A person can possess the abilities and the power to complete a task successfully with the desired effect, but may not believe that he or she has the power to produce that desired effect. Moreover, self-efficacy should not be mistaken with locus of control or self-esteem, which are related constructs but which describe different aspects of a humans self” (p. 2).

Rating = 85%

Check? Guideline Item
✓ Is the construct defined?
✓ Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors?
✓ Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)?
✖ Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items?
✓ Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship?
✓ Did they describe how they determined number of factors?
✓ Did they report the full initial set of items?
✖ Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items?
✓ Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)?
✓ Did they list the final items included in the scale?
✓ Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)?
✓ Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported?
✓ Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported?

Comments The authors also developed and validated a German version of the scale in this paper. These ratings (reported here) are for the english version (studies 1 and 3 only).

Reviewed by Experts ✓

Downloads

PAPER
Pütten, A. R. V. D., & Bock, N. (2018). Development and validation of the self-efficacy in human-robot-interaction scale (SE-HRI). ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 7(3), 1-30.


PDF of scale as well as instructions for administration and scoring are not readily available. Check the paper for more details or email hriscaledatabase@gmail.com submit this information if you are the author of this scale.

Final Scale Items (18 total):

Use a 6-point LIkert response scale from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”)


I could set up a robot according to my wishes and my environment.
I could get a robot to perform a specific task.
I am familiar with technology; therefore, I think I could use a robot.
I think I could adjust a robot the way that it could help me in my daily life.
It is easy to use a robot.
If I should solve a problem with the assistance of a robot, I could do that.
To achieve a specific goal with the assistance of a robot will not be a problem for me.
I could teach a robot something if I would tyhard enough.
I could easily learn how to use a robot.
I could teach a robot to complete easy tasks.
If I would use a robot, I would always know how and why it behaves like it does.
I could do easy adjustments on a robot by myself.
I could use a robot in daily life.
I would feel comfortable while interacting with the robot.
If a robot is doing something wrong, I could find a way to change its behavior.
Robots are easy to control.
I could deploy a robot in a specific way to save time.
I am very confident in my abilities to control a robot.