Saturday, 15 January 2005 - 12:00 PM

This presentation is part of: Poster Session II

Neighborhood and Organizational Collective Efficacy: Factor Structure, Reliability and Relationship to Participation in Neighborhood Organizations

Purpose: This study analyzed the factor structure and reliability of two measures of collective efficacy, and their relationship to participation in neighborhood organizations. Neighborhood collective efficacy is defined as “the linkage of cohesion and mutual trust with shared expectations for intervening in support of neighborhood social control” (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999, pp. 612-613). Organizational collective efficacy is defined as a group’s perception of its problem solving skills and its ability to improve the lives its members (Pecukonis & Wenocur, 1994). Perkins and Long (2002) argue that organizational collective efficacy is more closely related to the efficacy of collective action than a more generalized measure of neighborhood collective efficacy because it is an appraisal of group behavior that is democratic and organized. Bandura (2001) argues that collective efficacy measures must be tailored to a particular domain or task.

Methods: This study used a cross sectional survey of members of neighborhood organizations distributed door to door, at organizational meetings, and through the mail (N=124); 54% response rate. Neighborhood collective efficacy was measured using a 9-item scale developed by Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) in their study of Chicago neighborhoods; Cronbach’s alpha = .68 and .80 at the tract and neighborhood cluster levels, respectively. The measure for organizational collective efficacy (8 items) adapted a scale developed by Perkins and Long (2002) in their study of block associations in New York City; Cronbach’s alpha = .82. The measure for participation in neighborhood organizations (11 items) adapted scales from Perkins and his colleagues (1990) and York (1990). Reliability and principal components analyses were conducted. To compare the two measures of collective efficacy in terms of participation in neighborhood organizations, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted, with age, sex, and race as covariates.

Results: The factor analysis of the neighborhood collective efficacy scale replicated the same factors as Sampson & Raudenbush (1999): (1) informal social control, and (2) social cohesion/trust (KMO = .82; Cronbach’s alpha = .85). After varimax rotation the first component accounted for 38% of the total variance and the second component for 25%. Similar Sampson & Raudenbush, the two factors were combined to create a more parsimonious and readily interpretable measure of collective efficacy. The factor analysis of the organizational collective efficacy resulted in one component accounting for 99% of the total variance (KMO = .96; Cronbach’s alpha = .99). For the participation scale; KMO = .90; Cronbach’s alpha = .95. Regression results indicated that the overall model was significant for organizational collective efficacy (p < .01), but not for neighborhood collective efficacy, controlling for age, sex, and race. Resident participation in neighborhood organizations accounted for 13% of the variance in organizational collective efficacy.

Implications for Practice: This study used collective efficacy theory and was supported by literature that found that participation in neighborhood organizations was associated with collective efficacy (Chavis, Florin, Rich & Wandersman, 1987; Perkins, Brown, & Taylor, 1996). The results demonstrate the utility of a domain specific measure of collective efficacy for analyzing resident participation in neighborhood improvement efforts.

See more of Poster Session II
See more of Oral and Poster

See more of Celebrating a Decade of SSWR (January 13 - 16, 2005)