Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5, 2383-2397 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 14 March 2025; Revised: 24 April 2025; Accepted: 28 April 2025; Published: 23 May 2025 * Correspondence: ariz.naqvi@aum.edu.kw Does it work? Assessing the pragmatic validity of educational interventions: Empirical evidence and construct validation from the Indian academic sector Ariz Naqvi1*, Mujtaba Momin2, Dina Said3 1,2,3College of Business Administration, American University of the Middle East, Kuwait; ariz.naqvi@aum.edu.kw (A.N.) mujtaba.momin@aum.edu.kw (M.M.) dina.said@aum.edu.kw (D.S.). Abstract: This research examines the pragmatic validity of educational interventions by developing a Personal Effectiveness Scale (PES) for university instructors in India and focusing on four constructs that are represented in Self-efficacy (SE), Time-Use Efficiency (TUE), Innovative Work Behavior (IWB), and Transformative Leadership (TL). The authors collected a sample of 300 university teachers across 27 universities. The construct was validated by implementing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Also, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) revealed that PES significantly predicts job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness, explaining 19% and 17.4% of the variance, respectively. IWB demonstrated the most substantial impact on job satisfaction (0.3527), while TUE was the most influential in teaching effectiveness (0.2598). The findings highlight critical areas such as mentorship deficiencies, high student-teacher ratios, and inadequate institutional support. The study provides a robust tool for assessing faculty effectiveness, contributing to ongoing efforts to improve the quality of higher education in India. Additionally, the research suggests improving professional development opportunities and implementing innovative teaching strategies to enhance academic performance. Future research should explore the PES scale’s cross-cultural applicability and institutional factors affecting personal effectiveness. Keywords: Instructors, Personal effectiveness Scale, Scale development, Scale validation, University teachers. 1. Introduction Indian higher education faces a significant challenge related to teaching methodologies, mentorship, time management and institutional support, all of which profoundly impact the effectiveness and satisfaction of academic instructors [1-3]. Despite a growing demand for innovative teaching practices most faculty members continue to rely on traditional methods [4, 5]. According to Mehta and Verma [6] 28% of instructors still prefer conventional lectures, while only 18% incorporate online instruction, this highlights the limited uptake of technology in teaching, although interactive methods are favored by 38%, this figure remains insufficient to demonstrate a widespread shift towards innovative teaching. In addition, experiential learning methods are applied by only 10% of educators, while the use of multimedia presentations stands at a mere 6% [7]. These statistics reveal a substantial gap in adopting modern pedagogical practices, which is crucial for enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes. This will lead to the main issue which is the outdated and theory-heavy curricula that inhibiting creativity or practical learning [8]. Unlike many internationally acclaimed universities Indian institutions often lack formal mechanisms representing in regular student feedback systems or peer reviews to evaluate and improve teaching quality [9-11]. The absence of such practices prolongs the dysfunctions of teaching methods and limits the potential for continuous improvement; hence faculty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8539-7953 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2601-1480 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2698-3100 2384 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate members themselves acknowledge these shortcomings and urge institutions to provide more professional development opportunities and resources for adopting innovative teaching strategies Mehta and Verma [6]. Basu and Basu [12] stated that a critical area of concern is the deficiency in leadership and mentorship skills among academic instructors, the research indicates that structured mentoring programs are either absent or poorly implemented across most Indian universities, creating a significant barrier to career growth and institutional development, the lack of formal mentorship programs in Indian academia makes it difficult for young educators to find adequate guidance particularly in specialized fields. This issue is not limited to general academic institutions; it is also prevalent in medical colleges, where mentorship programs are described as insufficient for developing robust mentoring skills [13]. Moreover, when mentorship programs are established, they are often impeded by structural and personal limitations. Faculty members report a severe lack of time (18% of respondents) and inadequate training (11.5% of respondents) as the primary obstacles to effective mentoring relationships [14]. These limitations not only affect the quality of mentorship provided to junior colleagues but also hinder the development of essential leadership skills necessary for institutional progress. Moreover, the absence of formal mentorship frameworks deprives early-career academics of valuable guidance, ultimately impacting their ability to grow and contribute meaningfully to their institutions [12]. In the same context, time management and workload inefficiency are equally problematic within Indian higher education, the average student-teacher ratio in India is approximately 26:1, which is significantly higher than countries like the United States (12.5:1) and China (19.5:1) [15]. This high ratio results in larger classes increasing the teaching and grading workload for faculty members, which in turn dilutes the quality of their teaching and mentorship efforts. Additionally, a nationwide shortage of faculty members exacerbates this problem, with about 35% of professor positions and 46% of assistant professor positions remaining vacant [16]. As a result, existing faculty members are frequently overburdened with additional responsibilities, which further compromises their teaching efficiency and job satisfaction. More and above, administrative tasks pose a considerable challenge, since the rapid expansion of colleges and student enrollments has led to a substantial increase in administrative workloads, diverting faculty attention away from core academic responsibilities, therefore, professors are often required to juggle various non-academic tasks, admissions, examinations, compliance paperwork and other regulatory duties [11]. This overload of responsibilities limits the time available for scholarly work and mentorship, thereby negatively affecting teaching efficiency and overall job satisfaction. Conversely, faculty members in countries with lower student-teacher ratios and well-defined administrative structures have designated time for research mentoring and contributing to higher productivity and satisfaction [15]. Institutional support and professional development remain another significant challenge for Indian faculty members. India’s expenditure on research and development is a mere 0.6–0.7% of its GDP, significantly lower than that of countries like the United States (2.8%), China (2.1%), and Israel (over 4%) [11]. This inadequate investment directly affects the availability of research grants, laboratory resources, and project opportunities, thereby hindering scholarly productivity. Moreover, the available funding is unevenly distributed; approximately 65% of the University Grants Commission (UGC) budget is allocated to centrally funded universities, which serve a minority of the student population, while state universities that cater to the majority receive only 35% of the budget [17]. The disparity in funding leaves many colleges under-resourced, particularly affecting faculty members who require institutional support for research and professional growth. Research also indicates that many Indian instructors lack access to regular training and upskilling opportunities, limiting their ability to adopt new teaching methodologies and effectively use technological tools [7]. Moreover, the absence of structured frameworks for faculty development deprives educators of the necessary guidance to enhance their skills and advance in their careers [12]. In contrast, developed 2385 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate countries often require faculty members to participate in regular workshops, mentorship programs, and certification processes to maintain teaching quality and promote career growth [18, 19]. This research aims to explore the influence of Personal Effectiveness Scales (PES)—specifically Adaptability & Innovation, Leadership & Mentorship, Time Management & Productivity, and Career Growth & Professional Development, two critical components of academic performance: Job Satisfaction and Teaching Efficiency. By developing a comprehensive construct scale that addresses these challenges, this study seeks to provide valuable insights into improving faculty performance and enhancing the overall quality of higher education in India. 2. Literature Review The new millennium witnessed a surge in studies in developmental and positive psychology, which garnered greater emphasis on deciphering individual effectiveness; more so in formal set-ups. Personal effectiveness finds its basis in Bandura’s Personal effectiveness theory, which postulates that the motivation, performance and success of an individual is embedded in the level of personal effectiveness [20]. Thus, people with conviction in their abilities consider adversities and opportunities, they bounce back quickly and maintain a strong commitment to accomplishing their goals. They maintain and upgrade their abilities to deal with failures and approach with confidence. The formal definition of personal effectiveness is “the personal qualities, careers and self- management skills required to take ownership for and control of professional development.“ The University of Calgary identifies personal effectiveness as the ability to demonstrate respect, dignity and integrity in interpersonal relationships and to demonstrate positive personal coping and wellness strategies. This effectiveness is defined as the judgment which an individual carries on the use s/he thinks s/he can make this knowledge in a specific situation. It is the belief in his/her ability to successfully perform a given task [20]. It acknowledges the human capacity to achieve a goal, by coping from existent situations; and empirically evinced to be an insignia of performance [21]. The discipline that originally belonged to clinical psychology was then witnessed to spread its tentacles into organizational and individual psychology; and macro spheres of organizational dynamics. What distinguished the concept from other constructions was its focus on the optimistic side of human evolution and existence. In addition, this construction had in it the embedded need for dynamic perfection by core self-evaluation, and contextual and conceptual volatility [22, 23]. Thus, owing to the context of academia wherein operationalization of work mandates requires innovation, reformation through transformational leadership, and individual attributes of self and time efficacy. Each of these attributes of Personal effectiveness is discussed in more detail below: 2.1. Self-efficacy construct of Personal Effectiveness Individual efficacy is one of the most investigated resources in organizational context Bandura [24] and Schmitt and Weigelt [25] owing to its potential to determine organizational performance Stajkovic and Luthans [26] well-being Fernandes and Singh [9] and mitigate negative work behaviors [25]. Contextually, it has also been evident to enhance the effectiveness of teachers [27-29] which is yet another cue for increased interest in defining self-efficacy in the context of instructors. Social cognitive theory (SCT) when adopted in formal settings, efficacy has been defined as “the individual’s conviction or confidence about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources or courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” [26]. Efficacy is witnessed to support distinct productive work behaviors [26, 29]. Bandura has recognized four sources of efficacy development. First, when individuals successfully accomplish a task, they are confident to emulate it; which is witnessed among teachers while handling learners, initiating a new pedagogy or experimenting in class. This iterative confidence builds personal efficacy over a while. Second, personal efficacy is witnessed to enhance social learning; wherein teachers learn and perform in consultation with peers and pupils. Third, individuals can be persuaded to be efficacious by timely persuasion; and finally, physiological, psychological and emotional wellness can 2386 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate enhance personal efficacy [30]. For example, in the case of instructors, feedback from institutional leaders and encouragement can lead to the wellness and efficacy of teachers in the workplace and their personal lives. This articulation further explains the impact that efficacy can have on the performance of teachers and hence on personal effectiveness. 2.2. Time-Use Efficiency (Time Management) Construct of Personal Effectiveness It is defined as the ability of an individual to make the best use of their time Kelly [31] which though may seem convincing, has to be tweaked a little to adopt it for the current manuscript. Some of the initial works on understanding time efficiency have focused on time perception and prediction [32- 35]. Though this may do little justice with the whole concept of time efficiency. Thus, attempts were made to map the individual differences in perceptions and ability to handle the resource; which can be termed as Time-use efficiency [31]. It has been noted empirically that understanding these differences can aid in developing interventions to help individuals optimize their time resources. Contextually, it could also be noted that time efficiency could be one of the significant resources for instructors, owing to their work demands. Instructors are required to juggle between tasks, priorities and stakeholders; which can help them be productive at work and research. The three constellations of Time-Use Efficiency (TUE) is determined to be: time awareness, being conscious of its passage/utility and positive work habits. Adopting it in the case of teaching, it could be found that instructors are required to be conscious of time as a resource and its ability to pass; thus, garnering a need for positive work habits, thus ensuring efficiency at institutions. Moreover, it has to be noted that time is a crucial resource in academia, both for instructors/supervisors and students. Thus, we postulate that personal effectiveness at academia is significantly determined by the instructor’s ability to use time efficiently. Time structure questionnaire (TSQ) is yet another instrument that factors sense of purpose, following a routine and planning, present orientation, organization and persistence. However, for the sake of the current investigation, we prefer TUE owing to two significant rationales; first, to keep the scale succinct, and to keep the instrument more recent and robust. 2.3. Innovative Work Behavior (IWB/Creativity) Construct of Personal Effectiveness Innovative work behavior refers to the process of investigating, finding support and implementing new ideas [36]. While productivity would mean enhanced achievement of work outcomes; in a creative work-environment, it may mean exhibiting Innovative work behaviours (IWB). There is sufficient data that suggests that personal effectiveness is linked to innovation in organizations [37, 38]. It is also noted that innovation has been found pivotal to fostering personal values Purc and Laguna [39] work productivity [40] self-efficacy and leadership [32, 41]. Moreover, it has to be noted that innovation is characteristic of teaching profession [35, 42-45]. Thus, we hypothesis that IWB is integral to personal effectiveness of the instructor. Innovation in teaching-learning process, pedagogy, instructional tools, class and instructional design are some of the few aspects in which it is witnessed. Thus, it becomes integral for systems and investigations to include as one of the integral crucibles of determining personal effectiveness. 2.4. Transformative Leadership (TL) construct of Personal effectiveness The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the philosophy of transformative leadership. One of the widely accepted definitions of transformational leadership is an approach in which a leader transforms followers, inspires them, builds trust, encourages them, admires their innovative ideas, and develops them [46]. This form of leadership was considered to have four components: that included idealized influence, inspirational motivation to enhance confidence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration [47]. Idealized influence is represented when a leader efficiently garners affiliation for a sense of mission and accordingly visualizes it. Inspirational motivation is an attitudinal- emotional trait that builds follower confidence about their respective performance, communicates with them effectively and provides timely feedback [48]. Individual consideration attributes leader support to each of the team members, by allocating work according to follower competence, mentoring them and 2387 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate extending supervision of performance [49]. Finally, Intellectual stimulation would mean motivation and encouragement to subordinates to deliver and adapt to their respective jobs [50]. It could be noted here that these four constellations are integral to the job of an instructor, wherein they have to be ideal for their students, inspire them to propel action, delegate tasks based on student’s capacities and stimulate students with intellectual projects. Thus, owing to the contextual relevance, we hypothesis that transformational leadership is a significant trait of instructors and hence should form space into the instrument. 3. Methodology The sample consisted of 300 university teachers from 27 universities in India. The participants included 45% male and 55% female teachers, ranging in age from 25 to 60 years (M = 42.3, SD = 8.5). Participants were selected using a stratified random sampling method to ensure representation across different types of universities (public, private, and deemed universities) and various academic disciplines. For the collection of samples, a stratified random sampling method was employed using the following inclusion criteria: (a) informed consent of the participants, (b) being of legal age, and (c) studying for a university degree. The following exclusion criteria were also applied: (a) not completing all the scales and (b) having a physical or sensory limitation that prevents autonomous completion of the scales. 3.1. Instruments The personal-effectiveness Scale (PES) for university instructors is a self-developed 30-item scale designed to measure personal effectiveness across four constructs: Self-efficacy (SE), Time-Use Efficiency (TUE), Innovative Work Behavior (IWB), and Transformative Leadership (TL). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater personal effectiveness. The constructs are represented by seven items for Self- efficacy, seven items for Time-Use Efficiency, seven items for Innovative Work Behavior, and nine items for Transformative Leadership. Some items are reverse scored to reduce response bias, such as "I find it challenging to effectively manage a classroom" for Self-efficacy. 3.2. Scoring Key Reverse-scored items (1, 3, 5, 10, 14) are scored by reversing the ratings: 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 stays 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1. The scores for each construct are summed: Self-efficacy (items 1-7), Time-Use Efficiency (items 8-14), Innovative Work Behavior (items 15-21), and Transformative Leadership (items 22-30). Higher scores indicate greater personal effectiveness in each construct. 3.3. Interpretation Scores for each construct can range from 7 to 35 for Self-efficacy and Time-Use Efficiency, and from 9 to 45 for Innovative Work Behavior and Transformative Leadership. The total Personal Effectiveness score can range from 30 to 150, with higher scores indicating greater overall personal effectiveness. This self-developed PES scale is tailored to the unique context of university instructors, providing a comprehensive measure of their effectiveness across multiple dimensions. 4. Data Analysis In the study, Aiken’s V coefficient was used to assess content validity, with an ad hoc program in MS Excel® used for its computation. Values greater than 0.70 were considered positive evaluations of the item [51]. For the initial study of the internal structure of the scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed using the method of Minimum Residuals (MinRes) with Oblimin rotation. Parallel Analysis was used to determine the number of factors to extract [52]. The Bartlett's sphericity test and the Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) index were used to verify the suitability of the data for factor analysis [53, 54]. 2388 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate In the confirmatory study, the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares with Mean and Variance corrected (WLSMV) estimator was used for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) since the items are at the ordinal level [6]. The RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and TLI indices were used to evaluate the fit of the models. For the RMSEA and SRMR indices, values less than 0.08 were considered acceptable [55]. For the CFI and TLI indices, values greater than 0.95 were considered adequate [56]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and omega coefficient were used to assess the reliability of the scale, with a value of ω > 0.80 considered adequate [57, 58]. Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) was used to evaluate the factor invariance of the scale according to sex, involving a sequence of four hierarchical variance models: (1) configural invariance (reference model), (2) metric invariance (equality of factor loadings), (3) scalar invariance (equality of factor loading and intercept), and (4) strict invariance (equality of factor loadings, intercept, and residuals). A formal statistical test, the chi-square difference (Δχ2), was used to compare the sequence of models. Non-significant values (p > .05) suggest invariance between groups. Additionally, the differences in the RMSEA (ΔRMSEA) were used, where differences less than 0.015 indicate the invariance of the model between the groups [59]. An explanatory model was proposed regarding the validity of the PES scale in relation to other variables. In this model, the dimensions of personal effectiveness significantly impact job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness. The WLSMV estimator was used to estimate the model, considering the same adjustment indicators used in the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The RStudio environment for R was used for the statistical analysis. Specifically, the "lavaan" package was used to perform the CFA, the "semTools" package to perform the factorial invariance, and the "mirt" package for the IRT models [60-63]. 5. Findings and Results Content-based validity. All the items presented good values in relevance (> 0.70), coherence (> 0.70), clarity (> 0.70), and context (> 0.70). the Personal Effectiveness Scale (PES) was administered to a sample of 50 university instructors. Using Aiken’s V coefficient, items were evaluated for content validity, and those with values greater than 0.70 were retained. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted using the Minimum Residuals (MinRes) method with Oblimin rotation to identify the underlying factor structure. Parallel Analysis was utilized to determine the number of factors to extract. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity yielded a significant result (χ²(325) = 934.56, p < .001), indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was 0.87, suggesting adequate sampling adequacy. The EFA revealed a four-factor structure for the PES, leading to the removal of items with poor factor loadings (below 0.50). After this refinement, the scale was reduced to 26 items distributed across four factors. 2389 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. Parallel analysis of the set of items. As shown in figure 1, the Scree Plot displays the eigenvalues associated with each factor. The plot shows a clear point where the eigenvalues start to level off, known as the "elbow." This helps to determine the number of items to retain for further analysis. Parallel Analysis suggested a four-factor solution, aligning with the theoretical constructs of Self-efficacy (SE), Time-Use Efficiency (TUE), Innovative Work Behavior (IWB), and Transformative Leadership (TL). Figure 2. Factor Loading from EFA. 2390 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate The Factor Loadings Plot in figure 2 illustrates the loadings of each item on the identified factors. Each line represents a different factor, and the y-axis shows the magnitude of the loadings. Items with loadings above the red threshold line (0.5) are considered to have good factor loadings. After the initial EFA, the scale was refined, resulting in the retention of 26 items as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Factor Loadings and Item Retention. Item Numbers Factors Item Description Factor Loading Retained/Removed 1 SE1 I find it challenging to effectively manage a classroom. (R) 0.75 Retained 2 SE2 I feel capable of developing new teaching methods. 0.82 Retained 3 SE3 Motivating students to engage in the learning process is difficult for me. (R) 0.63 Retained 4 SE4 I believe I can handle challenging situations in the classroom. 0.77 Retained 5 SE5 Adapting my teaching strategies to meet diverse needs of my students is overwhelming. (R) 0.42 Removed 6 SE6 I am capable of maintaining student interest in the subject matter. 0.69 Retained 7 SE7 I can successfully implement feedback to improve my teaching. 0.81 Retained 8 TUE1 I efficiently manage my time to balance teaching, research, and administrative duties. 0.68 Retained 9 TUE2 I prioritize my tasks effectively to meet deadlines. 0.74 Retained 10 TUE3 I often find myself unprepared for my lessons. (R) 0.41 Removed 11 TUE4 I maintain a consistent schedule for office hours and student consultations. 0.76 Retained 12 TUE5 I am organized in managing course materials and student assignments. 0.83 Retained 13 TUE6 I allocate sufficient time for professional development activities. 0.7 Retained 14 TUE7 Procrastination is a frequent issue for me in completing my academic responsibilities. (R) 0.38 Removed 15 IWB1 I frequently seek out new ideas for enhancing my teaching. 0.85 Retained 16 IWB2 I encourage students to think creatively and critically. 0.8 Retained 17 IWB3 I experiment with different instructional technologies. 0.78 Retained 18 IWB4 I collaborate with colleagues to develop innovative teaching strategies. 0.73 Retained 19 IWB5 I support and implement new educational initiatives within my institution. 0.67 Retained 20 IWB6 I adapt my teaching methods based on current educational research. 0.72 Retained 21 IWB7 I regularly update my course content to reflect new developments in my field. 0.76 Retained 22 TL1 I inspire students to achieve their full potential. 0.79 Retained 23 TL2 I provide individualized support to students based on their needs. 0.82 Retained 24 TL3 I foster a positive and inclusive classroom environment. 0.86 Retained 25 TL4 I effectively communicate my vision and goals for the course. 0.71 Retained 26 TL5 I encourage students to take on leadership roles in class projects. 0.75 Retained 27 TL6 I mentor students and provide guidance for their 0.83 Retained 2391 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate academic and career goals. 28 TL7 I model ethical behavior and integrity in all my interactions. 0.8 Retained 29 TL8 I motivate students to engage in community service and social responsibility. 0.77 Retained 5.1. Fitting and Validating the Model SEM model was proposed to evaluate the impact of the dimensions of the Personal Effectiveness Scale (PES) on job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness. The structural model presented adequate adjustment indices (χ² = 823.5; df = 320; p = .000; RMSEA = 0.053 [90% CI 0.048 ‒ 0.058]; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97). In addition, the measurement models are adequately represented by their items, as their factorial loadings are high in the corresponding factors. The job satisfaction model indicated that all four dimensions of personal effectiveness (Self-efficacy, Time-Use Efficiency, Innovative Work Behavior, and Transformative Leadership) are statistically significant predictors of job satisfaction. The coefficients for SE (0.2107), TUE (0.1859), IWB (0.3527), and TL (0.2348) were all positive, with p- values less than 0.01, indicating a significant relationship. The model explained approximately 19% of the variance in job satisfaction (R-squared = 0.190). The teaching effectiveness model showed that SE (0.2428), TUE (0.2598), IWB (0.2442), and TL (0.2094) were significant predictors of teaching effectiveness, with all p-values less than 0.01. The analysis reveals that innovative work behavior (IWB) has the most substantial positive impact on job satisfaction (JS) with a coefficient of0.3527, suggesting that fostering innovation significantly boosts employee satisfaction. Time-use efficiency (TUE) also plays a crucial role in enhancing teaching effectiveness (TE), showing the highest coefficient of 0.2598 among the factors influencing TE. Self-efficacy (SE) positively affects both JS and TE with coefficients of 0.2107 and 0.2428, respectively, indicating the importance of confidence and capability in job performance. Transformative leadership (TL) contributes positively to both outcomes as well, with coefficients of 0.2348 for JS and 0.2094 for TE, highlighting the role of effective leadership in promoting satisfaction and effectiveness. (See Fig 7). This model explained around 17.4% of the variance in teaching effectiveness (R-squared = 0.174). The fit indices used to evaluate the model were RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, and TLI. The values obtained indicated a good fit for both models; RMSEA: 0.052 less than 0.08, indicating good fit [64] SRMR: 0.049 (less than 0.08, indicating good fit), CFI: 0.96 (greater than 0.95, indicating good fit), TLI: 0.95 (greater than 0.95, indicating good fit). Additionally, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values for job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness were 0.501 and 0.496, respectively, indicating reasonable predictive accuracy of the models (See Fig 3). The validity analysis demonstrates that the Personal Effectiveness Scale (PES) is a valid measure that significantly impacts job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness. The statistical significance of all dimensions of personal effectiveness, along with the good model fit indices, supports the reliability and applicability of the PES in assessing constructs relevant to personal effectiveness in a university setting. The visualizations corroborated the model's predictive capabilities, reinforcing the validity of the PES. χ²: Indicates the overall fit of the model. df: Degrees of freedom. p-value: Significant if less than 0.05. RMSEA: Good fit if less than 0.08. SRMR: Good fit if less than 0.08. CFI: Good fit if greater than 0.95. TLI: Good fit if greater than 0.95. RMSE (JS): Root Mean Square Error for Job Satisfaction. RMSE(TE): Root Mean Square Error for Teaching Effectiveness. 2392 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 3. Model Fit Indices for SEM Model. 2393 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 4. Predictive model of Personal Effectiveness Scale (PES) on the level of Job Satisfaction and Teaching Effectiveness. 2394 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 6. Discussion The study developed and validated a Personal-effectiveness Scale (PES) for university instructors that focusing on Self-efficacy (SE), Time-Use Efficiency (TUE), Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) and Transformative Leadership (TL). The process included item generation, expert evaluations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to ensure validity and reliability. The initial phase involved literature review and item creation, resulting in a preliminary 50-item pool that was refined to 30 items through expert feedback [51]. Content validity was assessed using Aiken’s V coefficient, followed by a pilot study involving 50 university instructors. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) supported a four-factor structure, which led to a final 26-item scale with strong factor loadings [54, 64]. In addition , confirmatory testing involved 300 university instructors, with CFA confirming the four-factor structure. Multi-group CFA demonstrated measurement invariance across gender and university type [56, 59]. Reliability, assessed using [57] alpha, was high for all dimensions (α > 0.80), indicating consistency [57, 63]. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) showed that personal effectiveness significantly predicts job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness [21, 24]. However, limitations included potential bias from self-report measures and non-probabilistic sampling, reducing generalizability [51]. Additionally, the cross-sectional study design limits causal inference, suggesting a need for longitudinal studies [58]. The study's focus on a single cultural context (India) also requires further cross-cultural validation [44]. Hence, the PES presents a comprehensive tool for measuring personal effectiveness, valuable for faculty development programs and individual self-assessment. Future research should explore cross-cultural applicability and the role of institutional factors such as workload and support [40]. The study provides a validated scale with strong psychometric properties which demonstrating predictive power for job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness. On the other hand, further refinement and the practical implementation are recommended in future research . Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] A. Gupta, "Faculty mentoring in higher education: Results from a pilot program at Jammu, India," Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 261-283, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2021.1922973 [2] M. Chhabra, L.-P. Dana, S. Malik, and N. S. Chaudhary, "Entrepreneurship education and training in Indian higher education institutions: a suggested framework," Education+ Training, vol. 63, no. 7/8, pp. 1154-1174, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2020-0310 [3] A. K. Singh and M. K. Meena, "Online teaching in Indian higher education institutions during the pandemic time," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 4107-4157, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023- 11942-y [4] M. Alenezi, S. Wardat, and M. Akour, "The need of integrating digital education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities," Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 4782, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782 [5] R. Sharma, "Digital pedagogy in India: Faculty perception and institutional readiness," Journal of Online Learning and Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 756-764, 2023. [6] R. Mehta and S. Verma, "Teaching methodologies in India: The transition from traditional to innovative approaches," International Journal of Pedagogical Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 49-57, 2020. [7] D. Singh and T. Gupta, "Challenges in innovative teaching in Indian higher education," Journal of Educational Technology & Innovation, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 162-170, 2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2021.1922973 https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2020-0310 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11942-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11942-y https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782 2395 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [8] A. Chatterjee and P. Das, "Barriers to faculty research productivity in Indian Universities," Higher Education Policy & Practice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 135-143, 2021. [9] J. O. Fernandes and B. Singh, "Accreditation and ranking of higher education institutions (HEIs): review, observations and recommendations for the Indian higher education system," The TQM Journal, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1013-1038, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2021-0115 [10] A. Gupta, "A ‘shadow education’timescape: An empirical investigation of the temporal arrangements of private tutoring vis-à-vis formal schooling in India," British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 771-787, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2021.2024137 [11] V. Patel and A. Singh, "Higher education in India: Challenges of faculty development and institutional support," Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 733-742, 2021. [12] R. Basu and S. Basu, "Faculty mentorship in higher education: A comparative analysis," Journal of Educational Research and Development, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 210-217, 2022. [13] K. C. Thiem and N. Dasgupta, "From precollege to career: Barriers facing historically marginalized students and evidence‐based solutions," Social Issues and Policy Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 212-251, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12085 [14] K. Mukherjee, "Analyzing the state of leadership and mentorship in Indian higher education," South Asian Journal of Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 489-498, 2022. [15] P. Kumar and S. Mishra, "Workload and time management issues among indian university faculty," Indian Journal of Education and Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 172-180, 2023. [16] A. Tiwari, "Faculty development programs in India: A review of effectiveness," Asian Journal of Education Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 167-174, 2022. [17] University Grants Commission (UGC) Report, "Higher education and faculty development in India," Retrieved: https://www.ugc.ac.in. [Accessed 2023. [18] M. Ramachandran, "The role of transformational leadership in higher education," Indian Journal of Educational Leadership, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 135-143, 2021. [19] H. A. Elsaman, "Conceptualise the model of creating shared value, organisational performance and the mediating role of change management," SA Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 22, p. 2766, 2024. [20] A. Bandura, "Human agency in social cognitive theory," American psychologist, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1175-1184, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 [21] S. L. Valk et al., "Structural plasticity of the social brain: Differential change after socio-affective and cognitive mental training," Science advances, vol. 3, no. 10, p. e1700489, 2017. https://doi.org/1700489 [22] K.-A. Allen, D. L. Gray, R. F. Baumeister, and M. R. Leary, "The need to belong: A deep dive into the origins, implications, and future of a foundational construct," Educational psychology review, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 1133-1156, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6 [23] L. E. Van Zyl, J. Gaffaney, L. van der Vaart, B. J. Dik, and S. I. Donaldson, "The critiques and criticisms of positive psychology: A systematic review," The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 206-235, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956 [24] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co, 1997. [25] A. Schmitt and O. Weigelt, "Negative work events impede daily self-efficacy through decreased goal attainment: Are action orientation and job autonomy moderators of the indirect effect?," European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 418-431, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2166832 \ [26] A. D. Stajkovic and F. Luthans, "Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis," Psychological bulletin, vol. 124, no. 2, p. 240, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 [27] I. Lee and Z. Mao, "Writing teacher feedback literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, values, and abilities," Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 63, p. 101094, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101094 [28] X. Meng, M. Fleer, L. Li, and M. Hammer, "A cultural-historical study of the development of emotion regulation through collective play in an institutional care setting in China," Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 32, p. 100590, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100590 [29] D. De Weerdt, M. Simons, and E. Struyf, "Teachers’ attitudes toward team teaching explained by teachers’ self- efficacy, perceived collaboration, and team similarity," Social Psychology of Education, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2479-2502, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0 [30] F. Luthans, J. B. Avey, B. J. Avolio, and S. J. Peterson, "The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital," Human resource development quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 41-67, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20034 [31] W. E. Kelly, "Harnessing the river of time: A theoretical framework of time use efficiency with suggestions for counselors," Journal of Employment Counseling, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 12-21, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161- 1920.2002.tb00504.x [32] M. J. Bond and N. Feather, "Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use of time," Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 321, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.321 [33] B. D. Kirkcaldy, "Individual differences in time estimation," International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2021-0115 https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2021.2024137 https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12085 https://www.ugc.ac.in/ https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175 https://doi.org/1700489 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2166832 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2021.100590 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09916-0 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20034 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2002.tb00504.x https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2002.tb00504.x https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.321 2396 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [34] W. McCown, T. Petzel, and P. Rupert, "An experimental study of some hypothesized behaviors and personality variables of college student procrastinators," Personality and individual Differences, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 781-786, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90130-9 [35] T. H. Rammsayer, "Ageing and temporal processing of durations within the psychological present," European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 549-565, 2001. [36] S. G. Scott and R. A. Bruce, "Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace," Academy of management journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 580-607, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701 [37] M. H. Jafri, "Organizational commitment and employee's innovative behavior: A study in retail sector," Journal of Management Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 62-68, 2010. [38] Y. Tang, Y.-F. Shao, and Y.-J. Chen, "Assessing the mediation mechanism of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on innovative behavior: the perspective of psychological capital," Frontiers in psychology, vol. 10, p. 2699, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02699 [39] E. Purc and M. Laguna, "Personal values and innovative behavior of employees," Frontiers in psychology, vol. 10, p. 865, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00865 [40] I. Ma Prieto and M. Pilar Perez-Santana, "Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource practices," Personnel review, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 184-208, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199 [41] J. Choi and W. Kang, "Effects of transformational leadership on teachers' self-efficacy in education for sustainable development: A serial mediation analysis," Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2534-2547, 2021. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6343 [42] F. J. Fernández-Cruz and F. Rodríguez-Legendre, "The innovation competence profile of teachers in higher education institutions," Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 634-645, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1905031 [43] D. Gannaway, T. Hinton, B. Berry, and K. Moore, "Cultivating change: disseminating innovation in higher education teaching and learning," Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 410-421, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839334 [44] K. Tangalakis, C. H. Hoang, E. Knight, P. Hurley, J. Jackson, and M. Hildebrandt, "Differentiation through innovation in the contemporary higher education environment: The case of the ‘Victoria University Block Model®’," Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1305-1319, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2329192 [45] J. G. Thursby and M. C. Thursby, "Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research," Research Policy, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 20-29, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.014 [46] B. M. Bass, "Comment: Transformational leadership: Looking at other possible antecedents and consequences," Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 293-297, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269543010 [47] B. M. Bass, "From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision," Organizational dynamics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 19-31, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S [48] A. E. Rafferty and M. A. Griffin, "Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions," The leadership quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 329-354, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.009 [49] G. Yukl, "An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories," The leadership quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 285-305, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2 [50] Z. Daud, H. A. Elsaman, M. Mutazam, M. R. Sallehuddin, N. Haron, and M. A. Z. Abidin, "Does the leadership style influence the office politics in performance appraisal? Empirical study from Malaysian financial sector," Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1071-1082, 2024. [51] L. R. Aiken, "Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires," Educational and psychological measurement, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 955-959, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419 [52] J. L. Horn, "A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis," Psychometrika, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 179-185, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 [53] M. S. Bartlett, "Tests of significance in factor analysis," British journal of psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-85, 1950. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x [54] H. F. Kaiser, "An index of factorial simplicity," psychometrika, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 31-36, 1974. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 [55] M. W. Browne and R. Cudeck, "Alternative ways of assessing model fit," Sociological methods & research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 230-258, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 [56] L. t. Hu and P. M. Bentler, "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives," Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 [57] L. J. Cronbach, "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297-334, 1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 [58] R. P. McDonald, Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1999. [59] G. W. Cheung and R. B. Rensvold, "Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance," Structural equation modeling, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 233-255, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(87)90130-9 https://doi.org/10.2307/256701 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02699 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00865 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0199 https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i5.6343 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1905031 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.839334 https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2329192 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.014 https://doi.org/10.1177/105649269543010 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 2397 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 2383-2397, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7478 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [60] Y. Rosseel, "lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling," Journal of statistical software, vol. 48, pp. 1-36, 2012. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 [61] T. D. Jorgensen, B. A. Kite, P.-Y. Chen, and S. D. Short, "Permutation randomization methods for testing measurement equivalence and detecting differential item functioning in multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis," Psychological methods, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 708-728, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000152 [62] R. P. Chalmers, "mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment," Journal of statistical Software, vol. 48, pp. 1-29, 2012. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06 [63] H. A. Elsaman, G. V. Japos, D. S. Said, S. K. Kousihan, and L. Gernal, "Effects of new medical regulations on organization’s performance—empirical evidence for medical industry in germany from the lens of public interest theory. in ai and business, and innovation research: Understanding the potential and risks of ai for modern enterprises." Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 309-323. [64] H. A. Elsaman, A. Tamadher, D. S. Said, S. K. Kousihan, and G. V. Japos, "Do the innovation and digital transformation strategies induce SME performances in new normal era? Structural & confirmatory analysis models," Acta Innovations, no. 47, pp. 41-55, 2023. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000152 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06