BackgroundThe Collective Efficacy Scale Short-Form (CES-SF) is a short and reliable instrument that assesses collective efficacy in schools at a group level. Previous research has shown a two-factor structure considering the perception of the group competence about their teaching capabilities and task analysis that refers to the opportunities inherent to a specific task. However, there is no conclusive evidence that collective efficacy corresponds to a two-factor model or single-factor structure.MethodsA cross-sectional research was conducted on a 693 sample of teachers (Mage = 39.4; SD = 11.8) from schools in the 16 regions of Chile. They were assessed using the CES-SF, Personal Well-being Index, Social Well-Being Scale, and satisfaction with the school. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess the construct validity of the CES-SF.ResultsThe CES-SF showed mixed results about its construct validity. Best fit has been found to retain two new factors (opportunities and challenges for collective efficacy) with eight items each, yielding a McDonald’s ω of 0.803. Convergent validity was also established.ConclusionThe psychometric results suggest that a two-factor structure for the CES-SF is a valid and reliable measure for this construct for Chilean teachers. However, collective efficacy might not strongly relate to subjective wellbeing but to school-context variables.

Trust and team communication are central aspects for the achievement of both individual and common goals, which affect not only work efficiency but also the well-being of its members. In addition, organizational justice could affect these indicators, as well as the perception of collective efficacy within organizations, in this case, schools. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of organizational justice on teachers’ subjective well-being, and how this is affected/mediated by collective efficacy. We worked with a sample of 693 teachers across Chile. Multiple mediation analysis was carried out, where the latent variables of the study were estimated (subjective well-being, organizational justice, and two dimensions of collective efficacy). The results indicate that there is full mediation of the collective efficacy dimensions between the predictor–criterion relationship. Our findings allow us to hypothesize that perceptions of collective efficacy are central to explaining well-being as an intrinsic factor.