A methodology explaining t-test statistical analysis procedure

Journal citation

McBrayer, J. S., Melton, T. D., Calhoun, D., Dunbar, M., & Tolman, S. (2018). The correlation between self-efficacy and time to degree completion of educational leadership doctoral students. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 413-439. https://doi.org/10.28945/4138

---

Summary of Article

The researchers of “The correlation between self-efficacy and time to degree completion of educational leadership doctoral students” article presented a quantitative study using an ex- post facto correlation design which examined the educational doctoral program redesign (CPED model; the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2018) in order to spot the light on the problem of time to degree completion and low graduation rate and to “ improve students’ academic writing and embody a scholarly practitioner approach to research”( McBrayer, Melton, Calhoun, Dunbar, & Tolman, 2018, p. 413). By applying a t-test analysis and Pearson’s correlation coefficients, McBrayer, Melton, Calhoun, Dunbar, & Tolman (2018) examined “self-efficacy and educational leadership doctoral students perceived versus actual program progression” (p. 413). The study examined two Cohorts for 2014 and 2015 in a rural public institutions and utilized Bandura (2012) in building the framework of the whole research.

The result has shown that there was “a significant difference in the number of defenses completed per semester based on the program redesign” (p.414).

 Methodology

The article’s methodology was ex-post-facto (after the fact) correlational design utilizing a t-test analysis and Pearson correlation coefficient to determine if there is a correlation among the self-efficacy and the program progression of two cohort’s educational leadership students; 2014 and 2015. Participants were a total of two groups. Each group consisted of 16 students at a large public institution in the southeastern of the United States.

The author stated in the methodology section of the article that the purpose of this study was “to determine if there was a correlation between educational leadership doctoral students’ self-efficacy and program progression as measured by attainment of major transitional points, as well as to determine if there was a correlation between educational leadership doctoral students perceived versus actual final dissertation defense date” ( McBrayer, Melton, Calhoun, Dunbar, & Tolman, 2018, p. 418).

The researchers conducted descriptive statistics from 2011 until present and focused on CPED initiates in order to reshape the educational leadership doctoral program. According to the authors, “CPED has placed emphasis on moving beyond a traditional dissertation to focusing on alternatives, such as dissertations of practice, which are conducted as applied research and focus on real-world problems of practice” (McBrayer et al., 2018, p. 418). Figure one, on page 421, illustrates three phases of redesigning.

McBrayer et al. (2018) collected data with an online questionnaire circulated over Qualtrics TM within two weeks, including the GSE scale (General Self Efficacy). The questionnaire consisted of forty questions, including open-ended questions, and the researchers

analyzed data by calculating descriptive statistics by using SPSS to answer the research questions below (p.415):

1. What is the correlation between educational leadership doctoral students’ self-efficacy as measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) and program progression as measured by attainment of major transitional points (pre-prospectus, prospectus, and final dissertation defenses)?
2. What is the correlation between educational leadership doctoral students perceived versus actual final defense date and program progression as measured by attainment of major transitional points (pre-prospectus, prospectus, and final dissertation defenses)?

The authors mentioned that the first and second questions have the number of semesters or the time of reaching the dissertation milestone as the dependent variable.  GSE is the general self-efficacy as an independent variable in question one, and students’ perceived semesters to final dissertation defense is the independent variable in question two.

The researchers chose to conduct a t-test analysis because “to determine if there was a significant difference in the self-efficacy scores between the two cohorts and if there was a statistically significant difference in the number of perceived versus actual defenses completed per semester between the two cohorts”(McBrayer, Melton, Calhoun, Dunbar, & Tolman, 2018, p. 422).

Usefulness of Article

The finding of this study supported the redesign program as it was “a factor that led to improved student progression while maintaining high levels of self-efficacy, as students were better prepared to conduct scholarly research and write their dissertations” (McBrayer et al., 2018, p.429).

This study has shown as well that doctoral students had a high level of self-efficacy and the authors hypothesized that “students with high self-efficacy will be more successful in their academic pursuits” (McBrayer et al., 2018, p.423).

The t-test analysis that the authors conducted revealed of “no significant difference in the self-efficacy scores between the two cohorts. However, a statistically significant (p<.05) difference did exist in the number of defenses completed per semester between the two cohorts. So, the 2015 Cohort was getting to a transitional point faster on average than the 2014 Cohort.

Therefore doctoral students in “the newly redesigned doctoral program focused on scholarly practitioner research and academic writing could, in turn, be more successful, and thus doctoral programs can focus efforts on increasing self-efficacy within their students, which in turn may impact time to degree completion”( (McBrayer et al., 2018, p.423).

Finally, this study is indeed beneficial for the educational leadership doctoral program faculty and administrators or any other programs as it provides statistical analysis which they can explore the whole notion of the new design to train the scholarly practitioners to be more prepared to defend their dissertation in a timelier more appropriate manner. It also provides them with a good understanding and guidance through the research process and academic writing.

Moreover, this study is useful as it contributed to the literature about educational leadership effectiveness and preparation.

Future areas of Investigation

In the limitation section of the article, the authors mentioned that for future research, it is essential to consider using another instrument like ASES academic self-efficacy scale as the study’s finding revealed that there was no correlation between time to transition point and general self-efficacy GSE. Besides, other researchers discovered that GSE does not predict ASE academic self-efficacy.

The population was a limitation as it has a small n; however, the researchers gathered data from all the students, and they “ do intend to gather longitudinal data and look further at the correlation between self-efficacy as scholarly practitioners and time to degree completion as we make improvements with-in our program” (McBrayer et al., 2018, p.428).

The authors mentioned that it is critical to compare the study’s findings with other institutions; therefore, they can improve their program design and learn from their strategies.