Article

Research in Education

Effect of math-specific 0(0) 1–24

! The Author(s) 2017

self-efficacy on math Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

literacy: Evidence from DOI: 10.1177/0034523717741914

journals.sagepub.com/home/rie

a Greek survey
Jehanzeb R Cheema
George Mason University, USA

Abstract
Prior research has suggested a strong link between student-level psychological
con-structs such as self-efficacy and achievement in academics. In this study, we
looked at the relationship between math self-efficacy and mathematics literacy
using a large-scale survey from Greece. Our analytical results show that there is a
strong association between math self-efficacy and math literacy among Greek high
school students, and that this association persists even after controlling for student-
level differences such as age, grade, gender, parental education, parental
occupation, family wealth, cultural pos-sessions, and availability of educational
resources at home, and school-level differences such as school type, school size,
student–teacher ratio, and school-level socioeconomic status.

Keywords
Mathematics, self-efficacy, literacy, Program for International Student
Assessment, mul-tiple regression

Background
Self-efficacy is a measure of an individual’s perception of own ability to complete a
specific task or to accomplish a certain goal. According to Bandura’s (1988) social
cognitive theory, self-efficacy can play an important role in determining how an

Corresponding author:
Jehanzeb R Cheema, School of Business, George Mason University, 221 Enterprise Hall, 4400 University
Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
Email: jcheema1@masonlive.gmu.edu
2 Research in Education 0(0)

individual perceives and approaches various tasks and goals. Individuals with high
levels of self-efficacy approach problems as tasks that must be mastered while those
with low self-efficacy see them as hurdles to be avoided (Bandura, 1998). Thus, self-
efficacy does not only play an important role in identification of initial goals but also
influences the level of motivation towards accomplishing those goals (Bandura, 1993).
Bandura’s (1998) social cognitive theory has some overlap with Vygotsky’s well-
known concept of zone of proximal development from the latter’s sociocultural theory
of cognitive development, in the notion that human beings learn from their
environments including experiences of others around them (Vygotsky, 1978). Bandura
has additionally argued that differences in self-efficacy can result in fundamental
differences in how individuals view the world around them. Those with high self-
efficacy generally believe that they have a higher degree of control over their lives and
what actions they take and choices that they make directly affect their lives. On the
other hand, individuals with low self-efficacy generally believe that such actions and
choices have little effect on events in their lives and that the course that their lives take
falls more or less outside their personal control (Bandura, 2001). Some studies, such as
Judge et al. (2002), have asserted that psychological constructs such as generalized
self-efficacy, self-esteem, neuroti-cism, and locus of control, in fact, measure the same
underlying factor and are thus highly related concepts. Other studies have highlighted
the importance of variables related to self-efficacy such as perseverance, confidence,
and motivation (Boaler, 1998; Dweck, 2007). For example, the effect of stereotyping in
math education has been shown to have a negative effect on a student’s confidence.
Similarly, when students make mistakes and do not have adequate teacher support, they
may develop a fixed mind-set and equate their mistakes with their lack of ability in
problem-solving (National Association of Mathematics Advisers (NAMA), 2015).
Such fixed mind-sets can permanently hinder learning and have long-term
consequences (Boaler, 2013; Dweck, 1986).

Prior research has suggested that in an educational context a student’s self-efficacy

may be task- or goal specific (Chiu and Xihua, 2008; McConney and Perry, 2010). This
means, for instance, that an individual’s self-efficacy in achieving learning goals in
mathematics may have different determinants as compared to that student’s self-
efficacy in achieving learning goals in reading. Such differences can arise due to the
different nature of the two subjects, leading to differences in corresponding tasks to be
completed and goals to be accomplished. Thus, when examining the effect of self-
efficacy on performance in a certain subject, self-effi-cacy specific to that subject
should be employed as opposed to a general measure of self-efficacy (Pajares and
Miller, 1994). For example, when looking at mathematics achievement, self-efficacy is
a student’s self-perceived confidence to complete certain mathematical tasks that are
considered essential for such achievement.
In context of academic performance, as a prerequisite for many natural science
disciplines such as physics, computer science, and engineering, the subject of
mathematics tends to enjoy a special attention (Akinwunmi et al., 2014; Tularam,
2010). The learning of mathematics relies heavily on fluency, reasoning,
Cheema 3

and problem-solving skills. These three dimensions interact with each other and need to
be developed in tandem, with metacognitive abilities and psychological constructs such
as self-efficacy and self-regulation playing a prominent role in order for learning to be
effective (Kramarski and Mevarech, 2003; Robbins, 2011; Zimmerman, 2000). In order
to see how self-efficacy affects academic per-formance in mathematics, it is important
to use a math-specific measure of such self-efficacy (Pajares and Miller, 1994). In this
context, math performance can be either thought of as math achievement or math
literacy. Although most self-effi-cacy-related empirical research tends to use these
measures as substitutes (e.g. Cheema and Galluzzo, 2013; Martin and Veiga, 2010),
they are not the same. For example, math achievement focuses on the knowledge that a
student has acquired through formal schooling, while literacy measures the student’s
ability to use that knowledge in order to solve everyday problems in mathematics.
What is important, however, is that prior studies have shown self-efficacy to be an
import-ant determinant of math performance regardless of how it is defined (Hacket
and Betz, 1989; Multon et al., 1991). Recent research has suggested that in the U.S.,
math-specific self-efficacy can explain as much as one-fifth of the total variation in
individual math performance over and above that attributable to demographic
differences (Kitsantas et al., 2010, 2011). Although this hints at a strong relation-ship,
there is evidence in the literature that the nature of this association may not be the same
across cultures (Bandura, 2002; Klassen, 2004), thus necessitating a sep-arate
examination for each country. An examination of nature and causes of such country-
level differences is important because the determinants of academic per-formance vary
across countries. For example, in some countries, academic per-formance is seen as
largely being individual-centered with school-level differences playing a very small
role in its variation, while in others between-school differences may be more important
(Reynolds et al., 2002). As a result of such differences in the determinants of academic
performance are not identical across countries. In countries where academic
performance tends to be determined by student-level characteristics, demographic
differences such as gender, parental education, socio-economic status (SES), etc. play a
relatively more important role, as opposed to school-level characteristics such as school
type, student–teacher ratio, school SES, etc. (Chatterji, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2002).
Stobart (2005) suggests that even after controlling for individual- and school-level
characteristics, issues such as equity and fairness in assessment can distort observed
relationships among variables of interest. Thus, for instance, a student with a high level
of self-efficacy may perform poorly on a mathematics test simply because the test items
may be set in a socio-economic or cultural context that is foreign to the student. An
examination of such factors usually cannot be accomplished without relying on large-
scale samples. Results based on such samples are readily generalizable to large
populations and thus tend to have national relevance.

Several past empirical studies have looked at the relationship between math-specific
self-efficacy and math achievement using nationally representative samples from inside
and outside the U.S. For example, using a U.S. sample of 4784 students
4 Research in Education 0(0)

nested in 264 schools, Kitsantas et al. (2011) looked at the effect of data aggrega-tion
and disaggregation on the relationship between math self-efficacy and math
achievement. Their results were based on aggregated and disaggregated ordinary least
squares (OLS) multiple regression equations, and hierarchical linear models (HLMs),
and indicated that regardless of the analytical method used, self-efficacy consistently
came out as a major predictor of math achievement, with a one stand-ard deviation
(SD) increase in math self-efficacy being associated with anywhere between two-fifths
and one-half of an SD increase in math achievement. This study controlled for
demographic differences such as age, gender, race, and SES at both student and school
levels. In a related study, Kitsantas et al. (2010) used a nation-ally representative
sample of 5200 high school students from the U.S in order to examine how the
relationship between math self-efficacy and math achievement was moderated by the
amount of time spent on math homework. Their results were based on OLS multiple
regression and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and indicated that
although the effect of amount of time spent on math homework was small and there
was no interaction effect between math self-efficacy and the amount of time spent on
math homework, math self-efficacy managed to explain as much as 20% of the total
variation in math achievement after controlling for individual student differences such
as gender, race, amount of time spent on math homework, and availability of math-
related educational resources at home. This study did not include any school-level
variables, and its results were generalizable only to the U.S. population.

McConney and Perry (2010) used a nationally representative sample of 12,500 15-
year-old students from 320 schools in Australia in order to investigate the rela-tionship
between SES and academic achievement as moderated by math-specific self-efficacy
and reported that within both low and high socioeconomic groups, students with high
self-efficacy outperformed their low-efficacy counterparts by as much as one full SD
on math achievement. Their results had important Australia-specific implications, such
as the effect of school SES on math achievement is strongest for students who have
low SES but high self-efficacy, and weakest for those with high SES but low self-
efficacy.
Using a multilevel mediation model, Yıldırım (2012) investigated, among other
variables, the relationship between math self-efficacy and math achievement in a
nationally representative sample of 4855 Turkish high school students. Her findings
suggested the existence of a strong relationship between math self-efficacy and math
achievement. Ignoring the effect of any other variables, math self-efficacy explained
approximately 21% of the variation in math achievement. After control-ling for gender
and SES, math self-efficacy and math anxiety together accounted for approximately
16% of the total variation in math achievement. These reported percentages are low
relative to those from comparable U.S. samples (Kitsantas et al., 2010; Malpass et al.,
1999).
In addition to these examples of nationally representative survey-based studies,
several recent small-scale empirical studies have also reported evidence of a strong
relationship between math self-efficacy and math achievement. For example, using
Cheema 5

a sample of 144 primarily Asian American students, Malpass et al. (1999) showed that
self-efficacy had a strong effect on math achievement. Ignoring the effect of any other
variables, math self-efficacy explained approximately 32% of the vari-ation in math
achievement in this sample. In a similar but comparative study of Taiwanese (n ¼ 188)
and U.S. (n ¼ 107) students, Chen and Zimmerman (2007) found significant
differences in self-efficacy, math performance, and the association among these
variables between these two groups of students. More specifically, they found that on
average Taiwanese students had higher math self-efficacy and exhibited superior math
performance, with American students reporting their self-efficacy less accurately as
compared to their Taiwanese counterparts. Although such small-scale studies are
important, as these two examples show their findings have very limited application
because they are based on very small samples (Chen and Zimmerman, 2007, n ¼ 295;
Malpass et al., n ¼ 144) and because the analytical models considered in these studies
do not account for important school-level dif-ferences (this latter limitation being a
function of the former). In addition to the effect of self-efficacy, past research has
identified individual-specific factors such as gender, race, SES, parental education, etc.,
and school-specific variables such as school type (private, public), school SES, school
climate, student–teacher ratio, etc. as important determinants of mathematics
performance, factors that have the potential to modify the relationship between self-
efficacy and math performance. A detailed discussion of these factors is beyond the
scope of this paper. For exam-ples of published literature reviews, we refer the readers
to Harris and Herrington (2006) for race, Haynes et al. (1997) for SES, Hembree
(1990) and Ma (1999) for anxiety, Martin and Veiga (2010) for parental education,
Zimmerman and Kitsantas (2005) for self-efficacy, and Carbonaro (2006) and
Heyneman (2005) for school type and student–teacher ratio. Inclusion of such student-
and school-specific factors in empirical models of student performance is important in
order to avoid a specification bias (Gujarati, 2003).

In context of the relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance using

large-scale surveys, the case of Greece is interesting for several reasons. First, large-
scale assessments such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
have received attention in Greek media and political forums, where low scores of
Greek students relative to other OECD countries have been seen as a source of concern
(Anagnostopoulou et al., 2010). Second, despite this attention, there remains a
significant lack of empirical research based on nationally represen-tative samples that
can help shed more light on the nature and causes of low performance among Greek
students (Apostolopoulos et al., 2008). Given the importance of self-efficacy as a
determinant of mathematics performance, an empirical study of this relationship with
findings generalizable to a large segment of Greek student population can thus be
invaluable toward understanding the variation in student math performance.

The examples of empirical studies provided earlier in this section indicate not only
that the relationship between math achievement and math self-efficacy is important and
can differ between countries but also that, given the potential
6 Research in Education 0(0)

existence of strong moderating effects, any analytical study examining the relation-ship
between these two variables must adequately control for individual- and school-level
characteristics. In this study, we investigate the relationship between math self-efficacy
and math literacy using a large-scale survey from Greece. To our knowledge, no prior
study has investigated this relationship for the high school student population in Greece
and given cross-country differences in educational systems, findings from other
countries may not be relevant or fully applicable to Greece (e.g. Chen and Zimmerman,
2007; McConney and Perry, 2010). Our study bridges this gap by specifically linking
the variables of interest to a Greek popula-tion. By relying on recent data, this study
provides information about our variables of interest that is current for Greece. The
specific research questions that this study examines are: (1) is there a relationship
between math self-efficacy and math liter-acy? and, if such relationship exists then, (2)
does it persist after controlling for important student- and school-level differences?

Method
Sample and participants
We extracted student- and school-level data from the PISA (OECD, 2012, 2014b)
student and school data files. PISA is an international assessment of literacy of 15-
year-old students in areas such as mathematics, reading, and science that is overseen by
the OECD and administered by national educational authorities across 65 OECD and
non-OECD participant countries. In addition to the assess-ment component, PISA
contains separate surveys for students and school admin-istrators who collect a variety
of information covering background characteristics, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions
about various topics of interest (OECD, 2013). PISA has a three-year assessment and
survey cycle with one of the three literacy areas, mathematics, reading, and science
being the focus in a given survey year. The focus area for 2012 was mathematics, and
results from this assessment/survey cycle were made available by OECD in December
2013. PISA samples are nation-ally representative and are selected using a two-stage
process in which schools across the entire country are randomly selected in stage 1
using a stratified design. This is followed by a random selection of students within each
selected school in the second stage. The next PISA assessment with focus on
mathematics will take place in 2021.

For the purposes of this study, we extracted the sample of all students from Greece
who responded to items forming the math self-efficacy scale and who had valid values
for all other variables of interest in this study. This resulted in an overall sample of
2748 students from 142 schools, of whom 51% (n ¼ 1403) were girls and 49% (n ¼
1345) were boys. All of the students in our sample were 15 years old with variation in
age measurable in months and all were enrolled in grade 10. A majority of these
students attended public schools (n ¼ 2540, 92.4%), while the rest attended private
schools (n ¼ 208, 7.6%). About nine-tenths of funding for public schools came from
the government (M ¼ 88.57%, SD ¼ 12.82%) with the
Cheema 7

rest accounted for by private sources and minor student fees. For private schools,
almost all funding came from student fees (M ¼ 98.0%, SD ¼ 2.12%) with the balance
attributable to private sources. School size ranged from 20 to 1172 students (M ¼
286.05, SD ¼ 159.91), while student–teacher ratio at school ranged from 1.09:1 to
34.47:1 (M ¼ 9.13, SD ¼ 3.40).

Measures
Math literacy. The main objective of the math literacy assessment in PISA is to
determine the readiness of students who are about to approach the end of their
compulsory schooling in coping with math-related challenges that they are expected to
face in their everyday lives after leaving school. In this respect, PISA does not measure
the extent to which students have mastered math skills at school, but rather it focuses
on measuring what students are capable of doing with what they have learned (OECD,
2012). This is different from achievement that focuses on the measurement of
knowledge that has been accumulated during time spent at school. PISA procedures for
ensuring that this measure has construct validity are very comprehensive and involve
expert panels and extensive pilot testing of math-ematics assessment items in
participating countries before the final set of items is fielded (OECD, 2012).

The math literacy assessment in PISA 2012 was based on multiple-choice, open-
ended, and fill-in-the-blank type items with scores for each individual student reported
as a set of five plausible values. While actual test items are not released by PISA,
sample items are available that can be examined in order to form an overall idea about
what is measured by an assessment of math literacy (OECD, 2014a). A sample item
included, ‘‘Mount Fuji is only open to the public for climb-ing from 1 July to 27
August each year. About 200,000 people climb Mount Fuji during this time. On
average, about how many people climb Mount Fuji each day?’’ Response choices for
this item were A (340), B (710), C (3400), D (7100), and E (7400). More sample items
for mathematics assessment are available at OECD (2006b). The plausible values for a
student represent random draws from the posterior distribution of all scores that can be
reasonably assigned to that student (Mislevy, 1991; Mislevy et al., 1992). The plausible
value approach allows explicit modeling of uncertainty associated with measuring a
true score (Wu, 2005). The method of dealing with multiple plausible values is the
same as that for dealing with multiple imputation estimates as outlined by Rubin
(1987), which involves repeating statistical analyses separately with each plausible
value and then calculating a weighted average of parameter estimates and their standard
errors. In order to avoid artificially reducing the variability in parameter estimates,
plausible values should not be averaged, rather the analyst should either choose one of
those values for analysis or, as stated earlier, repeat the calculations as many times as
there are plausible values (Brown and Mickleright, 2004; Von Davier et al., 2009). In
this study, we have followed the former approach. We note that each
8 Research in Education 0(0)

plausible value vector is a measure of the same unidimensional math literacy con-struct
for students included in our sample.
The student math literacy scores were reported in PISA 2012 as standardized values
with a mean of 500 and an SD of 100 for OECD countries. Since our sample includes
students from Greece only, we rescaled these scores to have a mean of 0 and an SD of
1 in our sample. The inter-plausible value correlations ranged between .89 and .90 (p
< .001 for all r; M ¼ .89, SD ¼ .003) suggesting a very high degree of substitutability
among the five values. Given such high associations, we elected to use one plausible
value for analysis. For this purpose, we randomly chose one of the five available
plausible values and used it for all statistical analyses. After standardization the mean
literacy, score ranged between 3.25 and 3.16 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1) for the 2748 students in
our sample. A histogram of the distribution of student mathematics literacy in our
sample is presented in Figure 1.

Math self-efficacy. This scale measures a student’s perception of own efficacy in

completing math-related tasks. The scale had eight underlying items with Cronbach’s
alpha of .83 in our sample. The inter-item correlations ranged between
.13 and .73 (M ¼ .38, SD ¼ .11). A sample item included, ‘‘How confident do you feel
about having to do the following calculation: Calculating how many square meters of
tiles you need to cover a floor?’’ The response categories for each item were 1 (very
confident), 2 (confident), 3 (not very confident), and 4 (not at all con-fident). The scale
was inverted, so that higher scores on the scale are representative of higher self-
efficacy. Responses from the eight self-efficacy items were combined into a weighted
likelihood estimate (WLE) using an item response theory (IRT) model based on Warm
(1989) that was adapted for PISA (OECD, 2006a).

Figure 1. Histogram of student mathematics literacy score in the Greek portion of

PISA 2012 sample (n ¼ 2748).
Cheema 9
The value for math self-efficacy scale in our sample ranged between 3.54 and 2.36

(M¼0, SD¼1).

Student-specific controls. We used student-specific variables in order to control for

between-student differences in our analysis. These variables include gender, parental
education, parental occupation, family wealth, cultural possessions, and availability of
educational resources at home.
Gender: This is a nominal variable that takes a value of 0 for boys and 1 for girls.
Thus, the reference category is boys.
Parental education: This variable equals the higher of the number of years of
schooling for a student’s father or mother. In our sample, this variable ranged between
3 years and 17 years (M ¼ 14.06, SD ¼ 2.94). Standardized values of this variable
ranged between 3.77 and 1.00 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1).
Parental occupation: The index of parental occupation is based on the International
Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) developed by Ganzeboom et al.
(1992) and adapted for the PISA student questionnaire. In our
sample, the value of this index ranged between 11.01 and 88.96 (M ¼ 49.31, SD ¼
22.94) before standardization and between 1.67 and 1.73 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1)
after standardization. Higher values on this index represent more prestigious
occupations.
Family wealth: This variable indexes a student’s family wealth based on stu-dent’s
access to resources such as a personal room, availability of internet at home, and
household ownership of items such as dishwasher, DVD player, etc. The value of this
index ranged between 5.83 and 3.84 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1) in our sample.
Cultural possessions: This variable indexes cultural resources such as classical
literature, books of poetry, and works of art possessed by a student’s family. This is a
standardized variable and in our sample, and the value of this index ranged between
1.51 and 1.27 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1).
Home educational resources: This variable indexes the educational resources
available to a student at home and is based on the student’s access to resources such as
a study desk, a computer that can be used for school work, a dictionary, educational
software, etc. The value of this index ranged between 4.01 and 1.32 (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1) in
our sample.
In addition to the aforementioned student-specific controls, our sample auto-
matically controlled for age and grade as all students were 15-year-old and enrolled in
grade 10.

School-specific controls. We used school-specific variables in order to control for

between-school differences in our analysis. These variables include school SES, school
size, school type, and student–teacher ratio at school.
School SES: This variable is the average SES level of all students in a school. As a
standardized variable, school SES has a mean of 0 and an SD of 1. In our sample,
school SES ranged between 2.91 and 2.70.
10 Research in Education 0(0)

School size: This is the total school population that comprises of total number of
boys and total number of girls enrolled in a school. This variable was also stan-
dardized and ranged between 1.66 and 5.54 in our sample (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1).
School type: This is a categorical variable that takes a value of 0 for private schools
and a value of 1 for public schools. Thus, the reference category is private school. A
public school is defined as any school managed directly or indirectly by a government
department or agency, while private schools are those that are directly or indirectly
managed by private bodies and include those run by private businesses, churches, and
other nongovernmental organiza-tions (OECD, 2011).

Student–teacher ratio at school: This variable is the ratio of total number of students
to total number of teachers at school. The ratio was standardized to have a mean of 0
and SD of 1 and ranged between 2.37 and 7.46 in our sample.

Analytical method
We used both bivariate and multivariable methods in order to examine the rela-tionship
of math literacy scores with math self-efficacy, and student and school characteristics.
For bivariate analysis, we used zero-order Pearson product moment and point biserial
coefficients of correlation in order to test for significant associ-ations. For
multivariable analysis, the nested structure of our data makes multi-level modeling
methods such as HLM, an attractive choice (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ¼
0.39). However, we note that the number of students sampled from some schools
included in our data set was as small as two which is not sufficient for HLM purposes.
As an alternative, we chose OLS multiple regression for our multivariable analysis.
Since this method has the potential to produce inflated standard errors, we encourage
the readers to pay careful attention to clinical significance by looking at effect sizes
rather than relying on statistical significance alone. We estimated three nested multiple
regression models where math literacy score was the dependent variable, and student
characteristics, school characteristics, and self-efficacy were predictors. Model 1
included only stu-dent-level predictors, Model 2 included both student- and school-
level predictors, and Model 3 included all predictors from Model 2 in addition to self-
efficacy and its corresponding two-way interactions with other predictors. This
approach allowed us to separate the unique contribution of student characteristics,
school characteris-tics, and self-efficacy towards explaining the variation in math
literacy scores. The three regression models are given by expressions (1) to (3).

¼ 6 þ ðÞ
Yi 0
þ X "i
jXij 1
j¼1

¼ þ 6 þ 4 þ ðÞ

Yi
X X kZik
0 X j ij i 2
j¼1 k¼1
Cheema 11
6 4 6 4

X X X X
Yi ¼ 0 þ jXij þ kZik þ 7SEi þ j SE Xj i þ kð SE ZkÞi þ i
j¼1 k¼1 j¼1 k¼1
ð3Þ

where Yi is the math literacy score of student i; ’s, ’s, ’s, ’s, ’s, ’s, and ’s denote
regression coefficients; X’s denote J ¼ 6 student-level control variables; Z’s denote K
¼ 4 school-level control variables; and ", , and are student-specific error terms.

In order to aid interpretation, all continuous independent variables were standar-

dized to have M ¼ 0 and SD ¼ 1 in our sample. It should be noted here that although
such transformation affects parameter estimates and their standard errors, however,
2
since it is a linear transformation, it has no effect on coefficients of correlation, R
values, and the results of tests of hypotheses (Cohen et al., 2003). We examined the
distribution of each variable included in the analysis in order to ensure that the
interpretation of z-scores remained valid and was not affected by the presence of
outliers. For each multiple regression model, all relevant variables were entered sim-
ultaneously in the regression equation. We evaluated assumptions underlying multiple
2
regression, examined the residuals for randomness, and computed R values to assess
adequacy of fit (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Unless indicated otherwise, all tests of
hypotheses were evaluated at the 5% level of significance. We used normalized
sampling weights and performed all computations with SPSS 22.0. All effect size
interpretations are based on guidelines recommended by Cohen (1992).

Results
Bivariate results
Descriptive statistics for math literacy and its determinants are presented by gender and
by school type in Table 1. The Pearson correlations for math literacy and its
determinants are presented in Table 2. Since gender and school type are dichot-omous
variables, any correlation involving these determinants is a point biserial correlation
estimate.
Figures in Table 1 suggest that both boys and girls in private schools tend to have
higher means on all 10 continuous variables as compared to their public counterparts.
On the other hand in general, with few exceptions, within each school type, the
difference between boys and girls seems to be small and bidirec-tional on the 10
continuous variables. These figures give the overall impression that there is no
systematic difference between boys and girls in terms of means on included variables.
However, there is a systematic difference on those same vari-ables between private and
public schools, where students in private schools tend to have higher literacy scores,
higher self-efficacy, parents with more education and higher occupational status, more
cultural possessions, family wealth, and home educational resources, and their schools
tend to have higher SES, and larger student populations.
12 Research in Education 0(0)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for math literacy score and its predictors by gender by
school type.a

Boys Girls
Variable n M SD n M SD

Public schools
Math literacy score 1244 0.04 1.04 1296 0.14 0.93
Cultural possessions 1244 0.12 1.00 1296 0.02 0.99
Family wealth 1244 0 0.98 1296 0.12 0.95
Home educational resources 1244 0.04 1.01 1296 0.04 0.99
Parental education 1244 0.02 0.98 1296 0.12 1.02
Parental occupation status 1244 0.03 0.97 1296 0.09 1.00
School SES 1244 0.17 0.88 1296 0.11 0.87
School size 1244 0 0.91 1296 0.03 1.00
Student–teacher ratio at school 1244 0.07 0.90 1296 0.06 1.08
Math self-efficacy 1244 0.09 1.06 1296 0.17 0.90
Private schools
Math literacy score 101 0.74 1.00 107 0.49 0.96
Cultural possessions 101 0.71 0.97 107 0.30 1.01
Family wealth 101 0.70 0.87 107 0.85 0.76
Home educational resources 101 0.70 0.72 107 0.64 0.63
Parental education 101 0.40 0.82 107 0.77 0.82
Parental occupation status 101 0.39 0.94 107 0.48 0.80
School SES 101 0.69 1.02 107 0.73 1.24
School size 101 0.18 1.43 107 0.22 1.46
Student–teacher ratio at school 101 0.02 0.95 107 0.06 1.05
Math self-efficacy 101 1.74 0.82 107 1.64 0.89

SES: socioeconomic status.

Note: n ¼ 2748.
a
All continuous variables are standardized with M ¼ 0 and SD ¼ 1 for the overall sample.

Figures in Table 2 show associations among math literacy and its predictors with
effect sizes ranging from small to large. This interpretation is adapted from Cohen
(1992) who classified correlation-based effect size estimates for r ¼ .10, .30, and .50 as
small, medium, and large, respectively. Math literacy had a significant relationship
with all 11 predictors, with the highest associations observed for self-efficacy, r ¼ .49
(large effect), p < .001, school SES, r ¼ .42 (large effect), p < .001, and parental
occupation status, r ¼ .35 (medium effect), p < .001, suggesting that in a bivariate
context, these variables individually account for 24%, 18%, and 12% of the total
variation in math literacy. To summarize, the correlation matrix presented in Table 2
shows the strongest association of math literacy, our dependent variable, with math
self-efficacy, our primary independent variable.
Cheema 13

Table 2. Pearson product moment coefficients of correlation for math literacy, student
and school characteristics, and math self-efficacy.

ra
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Math literacy score —

2. Cultural possessions .25*** —
3. Genderb .09*** .08*** —
4. Family wealth .14*** .22*** .05** —
5. Home educational resources .27*** .35*** 0 .32*** —
6. Parental education .28*** .33*** .07*** .28*** .23*** —
7. Parental occupation status .35*** .34*** .02 .28*** .22*** .60***
8. School SES .42*** .35*** .03 .30*** .27*** .42***
9. School size .07*** .07*** .01 .05** .04* .10***
10. School typeb .18*** .17*** 0 .20*** .12*** .19***
11. Student–teacher ratio at school .10*** .10*** .06** .04* .09*** .07***
12. Math self-efficacy .49*** .25*** .14*** .17*** .24*** .20***
7 8 9 10 11 12
7. Parental occupation status —
8. School SES .47*** —
9. School size .07*** .21*** —
10. School type .22*** .48*** .06** —
11. Student–teacher ratio at school .08*** .19*** .60*** .01 —
12. Math self-efficacy .24*** .24*** .05** .14*** .08*** —

SES: socioeconomic status.

Note: n ¼ 2748.
a
Effect size interpretation: r ¼.10, small; r ¼.30, medium, r ¼.50, large.
b
Reference category is male for gender and private for school type.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Multiple regression results

Multiple regression results for Models 1 and 2 are presented in Table 3, and results for
Model 3 are presented in Table 4.

Model 1. This model predicted the effect of six student-level predictors on math
literacy. With the exception of family wealth, b ¼ 0.03, p ¼ .086, all other predictors
had a significant effect on math literacy, p < .001. A 1 SD increase in cultural
possessions, home educational resources, parental education, and parental occupation
status, was associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.09, 0.18, 0.07, and 0.25
SDs, respectively, after controlling for all other predictors in the model, p < .001. The
difference in mean literacy between boys and girls was significant with boys
outperforming girls by 0.20 SDs after controlling for all other
14 Research in Education 0(0)

Table 3. Multiple regression models predicting literacy in mathematics from student

and school characteristics.

95% CI
t
Predictor b SE(b) p Lower Upper

Model 1
Student effects
Cultural possessions 0.09 0.02 4.76 <.001 0.05 0.13
Gendera 0.20 0.03 5.71 <.001 0.27 0.13
Family wealth 0.03 0.02 1.72 .086 0.07 0.00
Home educational resources 0.18 0.02 9.56 <.001 0.14 0.22
Parental education 0.07 0.02 3.29 <.001 0.03 0.12
Parental occupation status 0.25 0.02 11.20 <.001 0.20 0.29
Model 2
Student effects
Cultural possessions 0.05 0.02 2.60 .009 0.01 0.09
Gender 0.23 0.03 6.80 <.001 0.29 0.16
Family wealth 0.06 0.02 3.47 <.001 0.10 0.03
Home educational resources 0.15 0.02 8.23 <.001 0.11 0.19
Parental education 0.03 0.02 1.33 .184 0.01 0.07
Parental occupation status 0.16 0.02 7.15 <.001 0.11 0.20
School effects
School SES 0.33 0.02 14.71 <.001 0.28 0.37
School size 0.05 0.02 2.58 .010 0.10 0.01
School typea 0.12 0.07 1.66 .097 0.02 0.26
Student–teacher ratio at school 0.06 0.02 2.80 .005 0.02 0.10

CI: confidence interval; SES: socioeconomic status.

2
Note: n ¼ 2748. R is .18 and .25 for models 1 and 2, respectively.
a 2
Reference category is male for gender and private for school type. R ¼ 0.07, p < .001.

predictors in the model, p < .001. This model explained slightly under one-fifth of the
2
total variation in math literacy, R ¼ .18, p < .001. In summary, results for Model 1
suggest that in general student-level factors play an important role in explaining
variation in math literacy.

Model 2. This model predicted the effect of six student-level determinants and four
school-level determinants on math literacy. For the set of student-level variables, the
signs and magnitudes of parameter estimates were similar to those in Model 1, but the
pattern of significance was slightly different. With the exception of parental education,
b ¼ 0.03, p ¼ .184, all other predictors had a significant effect on math literacy, p < .
01. A 1 SD increase in cultural possessions, home educational resources, and parental
occupation status, was associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.05, 0.15, and
0.16 SDs, respectively, p < .01, while a 1 SD increase in family wealth was associated
with a decrease in math literacy of 0.06 SDs, p < .001, after
Cheema 15

Table 4. Multiple regression model predicting literacy in mathematics from student

and school characteristics, and math self-efficacy.

95% CI
Predictor b SE(b) t p Lower Upper

Model 3
Student effects
Cultural possessions 0.01 0.02 0.32 .752 0.04 0.03
Gendera 0.11 0.03 3.52 <.001 0.17 0.05
Family wealth 0.07 0.02 4.16 <.001 0.10 0.04
Home educational resources 0.10 0.02 5.96 <.001 0.07 0.13
Parental education 0.02 0.02 1.10 .272 0.02 0.06
Parental occupation status 0.12 0.02 5.84 <.001 0.08 0.16
School effects
School SES 0.29 0.02 14.17 <.001 0.25 0.33
School size 0.05 0.02 2.71 .007 0.09 0.01
School typea 0.20 0.07 2.91 .004 0.07 0.34
Student–teacher ratio at school 0.05 0.02 2.53 .012 0.01 0.09
Math self-efficacy 0.37 0.06 5.97 <.001 0.25 0.49
Interaction effects
Math self-efficacy cultural possessions 0.02 0.02 0.90 .371 0.05 0.02
Math self-efficacy gendera 0.08 0.03 2.49 .013 0.02 0.14
Math self-efficacy family wealth 0.04 0.02 2.70 .007 0.08 0.01
Math self-efficacy home educational 0 0.02 0.27 .791 0.04 0.03
resources
Math self-efficacy parental education 0.02 0.02 0.92 .360 0.02 0.06
Math self-efficacy parental 0.05 0.02 2.36 .018 0.01 0.09
occupation status
Math self-efficacy school size 0.03 0.02 1.60 .111 0.01 0.07
Math self-efficacy school SES 0.03 0.02 1.56 .120 0.01 0.07
Math self-efficacy school typea 0.02 0.06 0.37 .712 0.15 0.10
Math self-efficacy student–teacher 0.04 0.02 2.37 .018 0.08 0.01
ratio at school

CI: confidence interval; SES: socioeconomic status.

2
Note: n ¼ 2748. R ¼ .38.
a 2
Reference category is male for gender and private for school type. For Models 2 and 3, R ¼
0.13, p < .001.

controlling for all other predictors in the model. The difference in mean literacy
between boys and girls was again significant with boys outperforming girls by 0.23
SDs after controlling for all other predictors in the model, p < .001.
For the set of school-level variables, a 1 SD increase in school SES and student–
teacher ratio at school was associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.33 (p < .
001) and 0.06 (p ¼ .005) SDs, respectively, while a 1 SD increase in school size was
associated with a decrease in math literacy of 0.05 SDs (p ¼ .010), after
16 Research in Education 0(0)

controlling for all other predictors in the model. The difference in mean literacy
between private and public was not significant, b ¼ 0.12, p ¼ .097. This model
2
explained about one-quarter of the total variation in math literacy, R ¼ .25, p < .001,
suggesting that school-level predictors explained an additional 7% of the total variation
2
in math literacy over and above that accounted for student-level predictors, R ¼ 0.07,
p < .001. In summary, results for Model 2 suggest that in general both student and
school level factors play an important role in explaining variation in math literacy.

Model 3. This model retained all variables from Model 2 but added self-efficacy and
all possible two-way interactions between self-efficacy and other predictors to the
regression equation. Estimation results suggest that after self-efficacy was included in
the model, among the student-level predictors, the partial effect of cultural possessions
(b ¼ 0.01, p ¼ .752) and parental education (b ¼ 0.02, p ¼ .272) on math literacy was
statistically not significant. All remaining student-level predictors had a significant
effect on math literacy with a 1 SD increase in home educational resources and
parental occupation status associated with an increase in math lit-eracy of 0.10 and
0.12 SDs, respectively, p < .001, while a 1 SD increase in family wealth was associated
with a decrease in math literacy of 0.07 SDs, p < .001, after controlling for all other
predictors in the model. With all else in the model held constant, the difference in mean
literacy between boys and girls was again signifi-cant with boys outperforming girls by
0.11 SDs after controlling for all other predictors in the model, p < .001.

For the set of school-level predictors, with all else held constant, school SES and
student ratio had a significant and positive effect on math literacy with a 1 SD increase
in these variables associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.29 and 0.05 SDs,
respectively, p < .05. A 1 SD increase in school size was associated with a decrease in
math literacy of 0.05 SDs, p ¼ .007. The difference in mean literacy between private
and public school students was significant, b ¼ 0.20, p ¼ .004, with public school
students outperforming their private school counterparts after con-trolling for all other
variables in the model.
The partial effect of math self-efficacy on math literacy was large and significant
with a 1 SD increase in such efficacy associated with a 0.37 SD increase in math
literacy, p < .001. Of the 12 possible two-way interactions involving math self-efficacy,
only 4 were statistically significant, p < .05. The self-efficacy gender
interaction effect suggested that the effect of self-efficacy on math literacy differed
significantly between boys and girls, b ¼ 0.08, p ¼ .013. After taking this interaction
into account, a 1 SD increase in self-efficacy was associated with an increase in math
literacy of 0.45 SDs for girls as compared to 0.37 SDs for boys suggesting that
improvements in self-efficacy were associated with a relatively better math literacy
performance in girls. The self-efficacy family wealth interaction effect suggested that
the effect of self-efficacy on math literacy varied with family wealth, b ¼ 0.04, p ¼ .
007. Substituting family wealth values of M 1 SD, M, and M + 1 SD, for low, medium,
and high family wealth, a 1 SD increase in self-efficacy caused math
Cheema 17

literacy to increase by 0.41 SDs when family wealth was low; by 0.37 SDs when
family wealth was medium; and by 0.33 SDs when family wealth was high. Thus, an
increase in family wealth weakened the positive association between self-efficacy and
math literacy.
The self-efficacy parental occupation status interaction effect suggested that the
association between self-efficacy and math literacy varied with parental occu-pation
status, b ¼ 0.05, p ¼ .018. Substituting parental occupation status values of
M 1 SD, M, and M + 1 SD, for low, medium, and high parental occupation status, a 1
SD increase in self-efficacy was associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.32
SDs when parental occupation status was low; 0.37 SDs when parental occupation
status was medium; and 0.42 SDs when parental occupation status was high. Thus, an
increase in parental occupation status augmented the
positive association between self-efficacy and math literacy. The self-efficacy stu-
dent–teacher ratio interaction effect suggested that the association between
self-efficacy and math literacy varied with student–teacher ratio at school,
b ¼ 0.04, p ¼ .018. Substituting student–teacher ratio values of M 1 SD, M,
and M + 1 SD, for low, medium, and high student–teacher ratio, a 1 SD increase in
self-efficacy was associated with an increase in math literacy of 0.41 SDs when
student–teacher ratio was low; 0.37 SDs when student–teacher ratio was medium; and
0.33 SDs when student–teacher ratio was high. Thus, an increase in student–teacher
ratio weakened the positive association between self-efficacy and math literacy.

A visual presentation of the four significant interaction effects of model 3 is

provided in Figures 2 through 5. In order to aid interpretation and comparison, all

Figure 2. Visual representation of the effect of math self-efficacy on math literacy with separ-
ate lines for boys (solid line) and girls (dotted line), with dotted reference lines drawn at mean
values of plotted variables. Quantities on both axes have standard deviation units.
18 Research in Education 0(0)

Figure 3. Visual representation of the effect of math self-efficacy on math literacy with
separ-ate lines for low (dotted line), medium (solid line), and high (solid bold line)
parental occupa-tion status, with dotted reference lines drawn at mean values of plotted
variables. Quantities on both axes have standard deviation units.

Figure 4. Visual representation of the effect of math self-efficacy on math literacy with
separ-ate lines for low (dotted line), medium (solid line), and high (solid bold line) family
wealth, with dotted reference lines drawn at mean values of plotted variables.
Quantities on both axes have standard deviation units.

figures have identical variables and scales on the vertical and horizontal axes. This
2
model explained about two-fifths of the total variation in math literacy, R ¼ .38, p < .
05, suggesting that math self-efficacy and its interactions with other variables
explained an additional 13% of the total variation in math literacy over
Cheema 19

Figure 5. Visual representation of the effect of math self-efficacy on math literacy with
separ-ate lines for low (dotted line), medium (solid line), and high (solid bold line)
student–teacher ratio at school, with dotted reference lines drawn at mean values of
plotted variables. Quantities on both axes have standard deviation units.

2
and above that accounted for by other student and school-level variables, R ¼ 0.13, p
< .001. In summary, results for Model 3 suggest that self-efficacy is an important
predictor of math literacy even after controlling for student- and school-level effects.
2
The R values of .18, .25, and .38 from Models 1, 2, and 3 translate into effect size
2
estimates, f ¼ .22, .33, and .61, which can be classified as medium, large, and large,
respectively (Cohen, 1992).

Discussion
Prior research has suggested a strong link between student-level psychological
constructs such as self-efficacy, and academic achievement. In this study, we looked at
the relationship between math self-efficacy and mathematics literacy using a large-scale
survey from Greece. Our specific research questions were (1) Is there a relationship
between math self-efficacy and math literacy? and, if such relationship exists then, (2)
does it persist after accounting for individual- and school-level characteristics. In order
to answer these questions, we employed both simple bivariate methods and a
multivariable scheme of hierarchical regres-sion models. Our analytical results showed
that there is a strong association between math self-efficacy and math literacy among
Greek high school students and that this association persists even after controlling for
student- and school-level characteristics. In addition to self-efficacy, availability of
home educational resources, parental occupation status, school SES, school type, and
student–teacher ratio had a positive association with math literacy, while gender, family
wealth, and
20 Research in Education 0(0)

school size had a negative association with such literacy. In this respect, our findings
tie in with those reported by past research such as Cheema and Galluzzo (2013) for
gender, Caldwell (2010) and Levy (2012) for school type, and McConney and Perry
(2010) for variables such as parental education, family wealth, etc. that are related to
SES. These findings have several implications.
First, self-efficacy was strongly and positively associated with math performance
both before and after controlling for demographic differences. By itself, self-efficacy
accounted for anywhere between 13% (with covariates) and 24% (without covari-ates)
of the total variation in math performance. These estimates are not as high as for some
other countries such as the U.S. (e.g. Kitsantas et al., 2010), but still, represent
medium-to-large effect sizes. An implication for empirical analysts here is that any
serious modeling of math performance of Greek high school students should not omit
self-efficacy. Such omission has the potential to cause a specification error that in turn
can lead to inaccurate estimation of parameter estimates and their standard errors.

Second, we found evidence of a significant interactive effect of gender, parental

occupation, family wealth, and student–teacher ratio on the relationship between math
self-efficacy and math performance. For each covariate, an increase in self-efficacy
was associated with an increase in math performance at all levels of that covariate, with
a faster rate of increase observed for girls, students associated with high parental
occupation status, low family wealth, and low student–teacher ratio. The implications
of these observed interactions are that: (1) If school resources for addressing gender
achievement gap due to differences in psychological perceptions are scarce and a
choice has to be made about their allocation, then our findings suggest that girls should
be given preference over boys because the marginal rate of return from investing such
resources in girls exceeds that of boys (these findings are in con-trast to those from
other countries, e.g. Cheema and Galluzzo (2013) who did not find a significant
interaction between gender and self-efficacy for U.S. 15-year-old stu-dents); (2)
although an increase in self-efficacy is associated with an increase in per-formance at
all levels of parental occupation status, as self-efficacy improves the literacy gap
between low and high groups based on parental occupation status also increases. This
finding is in line with prior studies that have positively associated SES with academic
performance (e.g. Martin and Veiga, 2010). There is little that school administrators
can do to change social norms and perceptions about status of various occupations;
however, they can use this information to divert school resources in order to further
improve self-efficacy and performance of students who come from relatively low
occupational status families; (3) since improvements in self-efficacy were asso-ciated
with an increase in math literacy at a faster pace for students who belonged to low-
wealth families as compared to those who came from high-wealth families, an
administrator interested in reducing the math literacy gap between low and high-wealth
students should focus on improving self-efficacy of the latter group (our finding is in
line with prior research (McConney and Perry, 2010) when we consider the fact that
family wealth is one component of SES); and (4) low stu-dent–teacher ratio has a
stronger effect on the positive relationship between self-
Cheema 21

efficacy and performance as compared to a high ratio. This finding is in line with past
research such as Lubienski et al. (2008) and makes intuitive sense because when a
teacher has fewer students to work with, that teacher can devote more individual time
to them which in turn is expected to raise self-efficacy and performance.
Although our statistical procedures revealed several important relationships between
math literacy and its predictors, the findings of this study are applicable only to the
target population of Greek students considered in this study. Generalizations to other
samples in Greece or other countries thus may not be relevant. Another limitation of
our study is that student responses to self-efficacy items were based on self-report and
not on direct observation. Any bias in those responses thus becomes an inherent
weakness of the data subsequently used for statistical analyses. Finally, we note that
many of our results, including those related to interactions between self-efficacy and
control variables, were highly significant. This is expected when the sample size is
large because standard errors of most parameter estimates are inverse functions of
sample size. For this reason, wherever applicable, readers should pay careful attention
to reported effect sizes. For any researchers interested in extending this line of research,
we suggest replication of our study with samples from other populations both inside
Greece and from other countries. Other possible extensions of this study include adding
additional predictors in the analysis, evaluating sensitivity of observed results to
method of analysis, and replicating our method using alternative constructions of math
self-efficacy.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-ship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Akinwunmi K, Ho¨veler K and Schnell S (2014) On the Importance of Subject Matter in
Mathematics Education: A Conversation with Erich Christian Wittmann. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 10(4): 357–363.
Anagnostopoulou K, Hatzinikita A and Christidou V (2010) Assessed students’ competen-cies in
the Greek school framework and the PISA survey. Review of Science, Mathematics & ICT
Education 4(2): 43–61.
Apostolopoulos C, Psalidas A, Hatzinikita V, et al. (2008) Studying Greek students’ per-formance
on PISA science items. International Journal of Learning 15(8): 1–8.
Bandura A (1988) Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management 13(2): 275–302.
22 Research in Education 0(0)

Bandura A (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist 28(2): 117–148.
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 1–26.
Bandura A (2002) Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An
International Review 51: 269–290.
Boaler J (1998) Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings.
Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 29(1): 41–62.
Boaler J (2013) Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping educa-
tion. FORUM 55(1): 143–152.
Brown G and Micklewright J (2004) Using International Surveys of Achievement and Literacy:
A View From the Outside. Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Caldwell B (2010) Is private schooling becoming the preferred model of school choice in
Australia? Journal of School Choice 4: 378–397.
Carbonaro W (2006) Public-private differences in achievement among kindergarten stu-dents:
Differences in learning opportunities and student outcomes. American Journal of Education
113(1): 31–65.
Chatterji M (2005) Achievement gaps and correlates of early mathematics achievement:
Evidence from the ECLS-K first grade sample. Education Policy Analysis Archives 13(46):
1–35.
Cheema J and Galluzzo G (2013) Analyzing the gender gap in math achievement: Evidence
from a large scale U.S. sample. Research in Education 90: 98–112.
Chen P and Zimmerman B (2007) A cross-national comparison study on the accuracy of self-
efficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics students. The Journal of Experimental
Education 75(3): 221–244.
Chiu M and Xihua Z (2008) Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement:
Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction 18: 321–336.
Cohen J (1992) Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin
112(1): 155–159.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West S, et al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dweck C (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist 41(10):
1040–1048.
Dweck C (2007) Boosting achievement with messages that motivate. Education Canada 47(2):
6–10.
Ganzeboom H, de Graaf P and Treiman D (1992) A standard international socio-economic index
of occupational status. Social Science Research 21: 1–56.
Gujarati D (2003) Basic Econometrics, 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hacket G and Betz N (1989) An exploration of the mathematics efficacy/mathematics per-
formance correspondence. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 20: 261–273.
Harris D and Herrington C (2006) Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap:
Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education 112(2): 209–238.
Haynes N, Emmons C and Ben-Avie M (1997) School climate as a factor in student adjust-ment
and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 8(3): 321–329.

Hembree R (1990) The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal or Research in
Mathematics Education 21(1): 33–46.
Heyneman S (2005) Student background and student achievement: What is the right ques-
tion? American Journal of Education 112(1): 1–9.
Cheema 23

Judge T, Erez A, Bono J, et al. (2002) Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control,
and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 83(3): 693–710.
Kitsantas A, Cheema J and Ware H (2011) Mathematics achievement: The role of home-
work and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Advanced Academics 22(2): 310–339.
Kitsantas A, Ware H and Cheema J (2010) Predicting mathematics achievement from math-
ematics efficacy: Does analytical method make a difference? The International Journal of
Educational and Psychological Assessment 5(1): 25–44.
Klassen R (2004) A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs of south Asian immi-grant
and Anglo Canadian nonimmigrant early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology 96:
731–742.
Kramarski B and Mevarech Z (2003) Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The
effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research
Journal 40(1): 281–310.
Levy D (2012) How important is private higher education in Europe? A regional analysis in
global context. European Journal of Education 47(2): 178–197.
Lubienski S, Lubienski C and Crane C (2008) Achievement differences and school type: The role
of school climate, teacher certification, and instruction. American Journal of Education 115:
97–138.
Ma X (1999) A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30(5): 520–540.

Malpass J, O’Neil H Jr and Hocevar D (1999) Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy,

worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students.
Roeper Review 21(4): 281–289.
Martin L and Veiga P (2010) Do inequalities in parents’ education play an important role in PISA
students’ mathematics achievement test score disparities? Economics of Education Review
29: 1016–1033.
McConney A and Perry L (2010) Socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and mathematics
achievement in Australia: A secondary analysis. Educational Research for Policy and Practice
9: 77–91.
Mislevy R (1991) Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex sam-ples.
Psychometrika 56: 177–196.
Mislevy R, Beaton A, Kaplan B, et al. (1992) Estimating population characteristics form sparse
matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement 29: 133–161.
Multon K, Brown S and Lent R (1991) Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic out-comes: A
meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology 38: 30–38.
National Association of Mathematics Advisers (NAMA) (2015) Five Myths of Mastery in
Mathematics. Available at: www.nama.org.uk (2015, 14 November 2017).
OECD (2006a) PISA 2003 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2006b) PISA Released Items – Mathematics. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2011) School Questionnaire for PISA 2012. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2012) PISA 2009 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
OECD (2014a) PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do—Student Performance in
Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
24 Research in Education 0(0)

OECD (2014b) Program for international student assessment [Data file]. Available at: http://
pisa2012.acer.edu.au/ (accessed 14 November 2017).
Pajares F and Miller MD (1994) Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathemat-ical
problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 86: 193–203.
Reynolds D, Teddlie C, Stringfield S, et al. (2002) World Class Schools: International
Perspectives on School Effectiveness. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Robbins J (2011) Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom envir-
onment. The Behavior Analyst Today 12(1): 41–48.
Rubin D (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Stobart G (2005) Fairness in multicultural assessment. Assessment in Education 12(3):

275–287.
Tabachnick G and Fidell L (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Tularam A (2010) Mathematics in finance and economics: Importance of teaching higher order
mathematical thinking skills in finance. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of
Teaching 7(1): 43–73.
Von Davier M, Gonzalez E and Mislevy RJ (2009) What are plausible values and why are they
useful? IERI Monograph Series: Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments 2: 9–
36.
Vygotsky L (1978) Interaction between learning and development. In: Guavain M and Cole M
(eds) Readings on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific American Books, pp.
34–40.
Warm T (1989) Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory.
Psychometrika 54: 427–445.
Wu M (2005) The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys. Studies in Educational
Evaluation 31(2): 114–128.
Yıldırım S (2012) Teacher support, motivation, learning strategy use, and achievement: A
multilevel mediation model. The Journal of Experimental Education 80(2): 150–172.
Zimmerman B (2000) Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 25: 82–91.
Zimmerman B and Kitsantas A (2005) Homework practices and academic achievement: The
mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 30: 397–417.