Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 48, No. 1 - 75

RQ3 was addressed by the two-track
analyses of the data using the original
4-point response scale format and 3-point
response scale format. Results indicated that
both response category scales had similar
patterns of model fit, reliability, item quality,
and item and person locations. However, the
thresholds for the 3-category format RASE
provided more optimal results than did the
original 4-category scale.
Concerning the Keyforms (Figures 3 and
4) and associated thresholds (Table 2), the
person reliability results for both response
scale formats indicated that the RASE was
able to distinguish between varying levels of
RA abilities. Item reliability (.87) approached
the preferred threshold (.90), which flagged
minor concerns about the spread of the items
to reflect the continuum of the construct but
ultimately supported the extent of the RASE
statements to collectively measure the construct.
Reliability results provided sufficient
evidence for the appropriate use of the RASE
as a local measure of RA self-efficacy, as
defined by the major jobs and duties established
by the host institution. In addition,
reliability results provide evidence that there
are quantifiable distinctions (at least three)
among RAs who responded to the RASE.
Evidence from these Rasch analyses
suggested that the distribution of the person
and item means were in different locations.
For example, for the analysis of the 4-category
RASE, MPerson = 4.04; MItems = .00.
This misalignment was most obvious upon
visual inspection of the Wright maps (see
Figures 1 and 2). This extreme response
style, also known as a ceiling effect, can be
interpreted as construct underrepresentation
(Messick, 1996) but was an expected trend,
as evidenced by other self-efficacy studies
(Chang & Englehard, 2016; Toland & Usher,
2016). One way to overcome this issue in future
instruments would be the inclusion of
known job duties that would be more difficult
for RAs to accomplish (endorse) unless
training was provided. Doing so would allow
housing administrators to identify potentially
problematic job duties and inform future
RA training.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Commonly, RAs participate in fall and spring
training related to various aspects of their job.
The results from the RASE could aid in creating
a customized RA training schedule that
would select the areas in which the RA needs
more support. If an institution facilitates
conference-style training, RAs can attend
the sessions that best fit their professional
development needs. Additionally, RAs can
participate in regular one-on-one meetings
with their supervisors, where their RASE
scores and self-efficacy are discussed. Using
the RASE can assist supervisors in having
professional development and/or coaching
conversations that cater to the needs of the
RA. Also, hall directors can utilize the RASE
to create professional development opportunities
(perhaps during staff meetings) that
cover areas of concern that may benefit several
of their staff members as indicated in their
RASE score.
Although it should not be used as the
sole method for selecting candidates, the
RASE can be administered during the RA
hiring process to gauge the overall selfefficacy
of the RA candidate pool and the
. . . the optimal measurement of RA self-efficacy is one that is based
on an intentional purpose (i.e., hiring, training, evaluation) and guided
by collaborative relationships with experts.
Volume 48, No. 1 * 2021
75
Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 48, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 48, No. 1
