Scale validation shows strong psychometric properties in measuring self-efficacy in foreign trade correspondence, indicating the need for diverse samples.
With the growing importance of English as a global lingua franca in international trade, the ability to write effective foreign trade correspondence has become an essential skill. However, beyond acquiring knowledge and skills, learners’ self-efficacy—their confidence in applying business knowledge, navigating cultural differences, following letter formatting conventions, and using the English language appropriately plays a decisive role in their performance. Despite its importance, little research has systematically examined self-efficacy in this domain. This study aimed to create and validate the Self-efficacy Scale for English Foreign Trade Correspondence Writing. Exploratory factor analysis, conducted with 399 participants, identified four key dimensions: Business Knowledge, Cultural Awareness, Letter Formatting, and Language Proficiency, which were consistent with the proposed dimensions derived from the elements of Foreign Trade Correspondence. Confirmatory factor analysis, involving 690 participants, indicated a strong fit between the proposed factor structure and the data. The scale demonstrated convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity. However, the study acknowledged limitations, including sample bias from a single institution, the cross-sectional study design and lack of predictive validity evidence. Future research should aim to increase sample diversity and employ a longitudinal design to assess test-retest reliability. Additionally, practical tests and performance data should be included to validate the scale's predictive validity. Overall, the Self-efficacy Scale for English Foreign Trade Correspondence Writing exhibited robust psychometric properties and can be used to measure individuals' self-efficacy levels in this area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: