Open Access Repositorium für Messinstrumente


French Version of the General Self-Efficacy Short Scale (FASKU)

  • Autor/in: Décieux, J. P., Sischka, P. E., Schumacher, A., & Willems, H.
  • In ZIS seit: 2020
  • DOI:
  • Abstract: The ASKU is an economic instrument for recording individual competence expectations to be able to deal with difficulties and obstacles in daily life. It was originally developed and validated in Germa ... mehrn by Beierlein, Kemper, Kovaleva, & Rammstedt (2013). In 2019 we developed and tested a French Version of this scale and tested it for reliability (internal consistency), validity and measurement equivalence towards the original German Version (see Décieux et al., 2020).The provided evidence on the quality of the German and the French Version of ASKU (FASKU) indicates that the scales allow a reliable, valid and economic assessment of subjective competence expectations and that the two language versions can be used to assess and compare self-efficacy in German and French speaking populations. weniger
  • Sprache Dokumentation: English
  • Sprache Items: französisch, deutsch (Quelle)
  • Anzahl der Items: 3
  • Erhebungsmodus: PAPI, CAWI
  • Bearbeitungszeit: CAWI Duration of the processing time including the time for instruction when using a particular survey mode. average of 37.1s (SD = 22.9; median = 27.0)
  • Reliabilität: Overall: Cronbach’s alpha=.77,McDonald’s omega=.77; German Version: α=.80; ω=.80; French Version: α=.73; ω=.73
  • Validität: evidence for construct validity
  • Konstrukt: General Self-Efficacy
  • Schlagwörter: General Self-Efficacy, ASKU, French
  • Item(s) in Bevölkerungsumfrage eingesetzt: yes
  • Entwicklungsstand: tried
  • Originalpublikation:
    • Instruction


      French Version: [1]

      Les affirmations suivantes sont susceptibles de plus ou moins vous correspondre. Veuillez indiquer,

      pour chacune d’entre elles, dans quelle mesure elles vous correspondent à titre personnel.


      German Version (Beierlein et al. 2013):
      Die folgenden Aussagen können mehr oder weniger auf Sie zutreffen. Bitte geben Sie bei jeder Aussage an, inwieweit diese auf Sie persönlich zutrifft



      Table 1

      Items of the Scale[2]


      French Version (FASKU)

      German Version (ASKU)

      (Beierlein et al. 2013)


      Dans les situations difficiles, je peux me fier à mes aptitudes.

      In schwierigen Situationen kann ich mich auf meine Fähigkeiten verlassen.


      Je peux surmonter tout(e) seul(e) la plupart de mes problèmes.

      Die meisten Probleme kann ich aus eigener Kraft gut meistern.


      En règle générale, je parviens à résoudre même les tâches complexes et difficiles.

      Auch anstrengende und komplizierte Aufgaben kann ich in der Regel gut lösen.



      Response specifications

      As proposed for the original version of Beierlein et al. (2013; the answers to the individual items have to be averaged) in order to obtain a measured value (scale value) for the individual characteristics of the respondent. Higher values depict higher levels of general self-efficacy. The average scale value varies between 1 and 5. The response scale is a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= Ne me correspond pas du tout, 2 = Me correspond peu, 3 = Me correspond un peu, 4= Me correspond relativement bien) to 5 (= Me correspond tout à fait). Cases with missing values are discarded.


      Application field

      The ASKU was developed as a research instrument for social science studies of various kinds and questions. Therefore, the general population can be seen as target group. Excluded are persons whose linguistic or cognitive abilities or whose perceptive skills, e.g. due to visual or hearing impairment, are insufficient to understand the items. FASKU was as well implemented in the online survey in course the Luxemburgish Plan Communal Jeunesse (see Decieux et al. 2016).  This survey revealed that respondents spent on average 37.1 seconds to complete the FASKU (see Décieux et al., 2020).

      In principle, the ASKU can be used in different survey modes. In the validation study, the scale was used in CAWI mode (Computer Assisted Web Interviewing) and in paper form (self-completion). However, before using the ASKU in mixed-mode designs, measurement invariance between the different data collection modes should be checked.




      [1] English Translation adapted from Beierlein et al. (2013): The following statements may more or less apply to you. For each statement, please indicate to what extent it applies to you personally

      [2] English Translation adapted from Beierlein et al. (2013): 1) I can rely on my own abilities in difficult situations. 2) I am able to solve most problems on my own. 3) I can usually solve even challenging and complex tasks well.

    General self-efficacy (GSE) is a personal coping resource (Schwarzer, 1994) reflecting “one’s belief in one’s overall competence to effect requisite performances across a wide variety of achievement situations” (Eden, 2001, p. 75). GSE can also be described as “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different situations” (Judge et al., 1998, p. 170). Many studies show that expectations of competency have positive effects in different areas of life, such as health behavior and learning. Furthermore, it was shown that GSE is positively related to self-esteem, locus of control, and earning expectations (Bandura, 1997; Beierlein et al., 2013; Luszczynska et al., 2005). Because GSE affects the probability of success in many areas of life, there is great interest in evaluating this construct as a context variable for different research areas.


    The FASKU complements the work of Beierlein and colleagues (2013) who developed the Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskala (ASKU) based on the 10-item scale by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1999), though the ASKU uses only three items to assess GSE. This scale is especially useful as it meets all scientific criteria for collecting and providing objective and valid data. Furthermore, given its features as a short scale, it is relatively easy to amend as a supplement to different types of surveys (Beierlein et al., 2013). The French version was developed and tested by Décieux et al. (2020). Based on the TRAPD approach (Translation, Review, Adjunction, Pretesting, and Documentation; Harkness, 2003), the items from the scale Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskala (ASKU) were translated from the original German version by two independent translators who are both native French speakers. In the second step, the translated drafts were discussed and modified by a group of experts including translators, scientists, and other stakeholders. In a review process, the research team decided on one version. The final draft was evaluated using several steps implying a backtranslation and feedback from field staff and bilingual respondents before a final version was developed.



    Data was collected in 2014 as part of a quantitative study of the Luxembourgish Youth Report 2015 (Schumacher et al., 2015). The study was implemented by the University of Luxembourg in collaboration with the Ministère de l’Education nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse (MENJE) of Luxembourg and entailed a paper-and-pencil survey with 1,716 young people between 15 and 35 years. It consisted of 937 males (54.9%) and 770 females (45.1%).


    Item analyses

    The factor structure was tested with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Décieux et al., 2020). As in the original study by Beierlein et al. (2013) the factor loadings of all three indicators were set to be equal (representing an essentially tau-equivalent measurement model; Graham, 2006). The MLR χ2-test statistic with robust standard error (Yuan & Bentler, 2000) was calculated and full-information maximum likelihood was used to account for missing data. Analysis was done with R version 3.6.0 (R Core Team, 2019) and the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Results indicated that the single-factor model presented a good fit to the data for the total and the German version (Décieux et al., 2020). However, for the French version the RMSEA was quite high (see Table 2). Nevertheless, the confidence interval of the RMSEA covers a good model fit. Thus, the high RMSEA might also be due to a sample error. As the other fit indices were in an acceptable range, measurement invariance testing was conducted with the essentially tau-equivalent model as the basis for the configural model. The ΔCFI was used to assess goodness of fit of measurement invariance models. a CFI change of ≥ -.01 between a baseline model and the resulting model indicates measurement invariance (Little, 2013). According to the change in CFI, configural and metric invariance as well as scalar invariance were confirmed for the different language versions of the ASKU (see Table 3).


    Table 2.

    Fit indexes of the Self-Efficacy factorial structures from Confirmatory Factor Analysis




    RMSEA [90% CI]






    .027 [.000; .055]






    .000 [.000; .046]






    .095 [.057; .138]



    Note. df = 2. RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; RMSEA 90% CI = 90% confidence interval of root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index (Source: Décieux et al. 2020)



    Table 3.

    Test of measurement invariance and fit indices for Self-Efficacy one-factor model across language versions

    Form of invariance








    Configural invariance








    Metric invariance








    Scalar invariance








    Note. RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index. (Source: Décieux et al. 2020)


    Item parameters

    Table 4 details the results of the descriptive data analysis for the whole sample and the two different language versions of the ASKU.


    Table 4.

    Sample size, means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, reliability, and completely standardized factor loadings for the one-factor Self-Efficacy model

    Scale items






    ML l [95% CI]








    Item 1 (“Trust in own skills”)






    .708 [.680; .737]

    Item 2 (“Problem solving”)






    .723 [.693; .754]

    Item 3 (“Exhausting exercises”)






    .756 [.727; .786]

    German version







    Item 1






    .737 [.701; .773]

    Item 2






    .765 [.731; .799]

    Item 3






    .777 [.743; .811]

    French version (FASKU)







    Item 1






    .673 [.627; .719]

    Item 2






    .663 [.609; .718]

    Item 3






    .719 [.665; .773]

    Note. ML = maximum likelihood estimation; l = factor loading; McDonalds’s ω in brackets. (Source: Décieux et al., 2020)





    Objectivity refers to the degree to which a measurement is independent of the examiner (cf. Jacob et al., 2019). This refers to different phases of an empirical study: the implementation, the evaluation and the interpretation. In the case of a PAPI survey, the implementation objectivity depends on the situation in which the respondent completes the questionnaire. Here, for example, the presence of third parties or other distractions may cause slight bias, but generally this should be a lesser problem than, for example, in interviews with interviewers, where this is only given if the interviewers follow the exact instructions and wording of the items when prescribing the scale. With appropriately trained interviewers, however, this is usually the case and ensures objectivity of implementation (Rammstedt, 2010). Evaluation objectivity concerns the numerical and categorical evaluation of respondents' answer behaviour according to fixed rules (cf. Lienert & Raatz, 1998). According to Beierlein et al. (2013), these are fully given for ASKU and thus also for FASKU, as the rules for calculating the values of the items are clearly defined and do not allow any room for interpretation. Interpretation Objectivity is given if the conclusions drawn from the survey results are comparable across different researchers. To maximise the objectivity of interpretation, researchers' knowledge of the measuring intention of the scale and of the interpretation of the quantitatively measured values should be comparable (Rammstedt, 2010). By standardising the evaluation and assigning a numerical measured value that describes respondents' level of general self-efficacy, the evaluation objectivity of the ASKU can also be considered as given according to Beierlein et al. (2013) and therefore also for the FASKU.



    Beierlein et al. (2013) already tested the reliability of ASKU. In our study (Décieux et al. 2020), reliability was satisfactory for the total sample (McDonald’s ω = .77) as well as for the two language versions (German: ω = .80; French: ω = .73).



    Beierlein et al. (2013) showed that the ASKU is a valid measure of general self-efficacy. In our study, (Décieux et al., 2020) we additionally tested the construct validity of FASKU using intercorrelations to theoretically related constructs and corroborated the construct validity of the (F)ASKU scale (see Table 5 and Decieux et al., 2020). Moreover, we tested the original German Version of ASKU and the newly developed French Version (FASKU) for different forms of measurement invariance. According to the change in CFI, configural and metric invariance as well as scalar invariance were confirmed across the two language versions (see Table 3 and Decieux et al., 2020).


    Table 5.

    Correlations between ASKU and relating factors












    1. ASKU










    2. Gendera










    3. Age










    4. Int. locus of control










    5. Ext. locus of control










    6. Engagement










    7. Work climate










    8. Personal learning










    9. Work self-realization










    10. Goal achievement










    11. Self -esteem










    Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; n ranges between 1095 and 1679; a higher values depict female (Source: Décieux et al. 2020)




    Descriptive Statistics

    The overall mean of the ASKU was 3.86 (SD = 0.80). Men seem to be slightly more concerned with GSE (M = 3.91, SD = .81) than women (M = 3.80, SD = .79, t(1; 1,670) = 2.76, p = .001 d = −.14; 95% CI (−.23, −.04)). People who chose to complete the German language version of the ASKU had a mean score of 3.90 (SD = .77), and people who completed the French version (FASKU) had a mean score of 3.79 (SD = .84, t(1; 1,677) = 2.200, p = .01, d = −.14; 95% CI (−.23, −.04)).


    •  Jean Philippe Décieux, University of Duisburg Essen, Lotharstraße 65, 47057 Duisburg, E-Mail: (Corresponding author)
    •  Philipp E. Sischka, University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, E-Mail:
    • Anette Schumacher, University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, E-Mail:
    • Helmut Willems, University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, E-Mail: