Cross-cultural validity of the CAMI 
6 
getting help from the teacher). As noted by Skinner et al. (1988b; and see Chapman & Skinner, 
1989; Little, Oettingen, Stetsenko & Baltes, 1995; Stetsenko, Little, Oettingen, & Baltes, 1995; 
Oettingen, Little, Lindenberger, & Baltes, 1994) the agency beliefs are most closely related, 
conceptually, to self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., Bandura, 1977). Two points of differentiation exist, 
however, between the definitions of agency beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs. First, agency 
beliefs, unlike self-efficacy beliefs, are defined for a broad range of potentially important 
means, including those that are generally located both within agents (effort, ability) and outside 
agents (teachers and luck). Second, agency beliefs specifically assess the extent to which the 
child thinks he/she possesses certain means, independent of the degree to which the child thinks 
this means is effective. In contrast, self-efficacy beliefs generally refer to a global assessment 
of the accessibility of many means (and generally only effective ones). 
The dimensions of the second action-related belief system are termed Means-ends beliefs. 
They refer to the utility (or effectiveness) of certain means (or causes) to achieve a positive 
outcome and avoid a negative outcome. In the school performance domain, five means by 
which a positive outcome is achieved and a negative outcome is avoided are specified: Effort 
(e.g., trying hard), Ability (e.g., being smart), Luck (e.g., having luck), Teachers (e.g., getting 
help from the teacher) and, lastly, Unknowns (i.e., unknown factors). As noted by Skinner et 
al. (1988b), the means-ends belief dimensions are most closely related, conceptually, to 
causality beliefs. However, in this conceptualization and unlike other frameworks (e.g., 
strategy beliefs; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990; Skinner, in press), these beliefs about the 
relations between causes and outcomes refer to others, in general, and not to the particular child. 
That is, they reflect generalized contingency-based reasoning about the various means that stem 
from personal experiences as well as those of others (see Little & Lopez, 1995). 
The third action-related belief system is termed Control Expectancy. It refers to the agent's 
belief that s/he can produce the desired outcome, without reference to any specific means that 
are potentially involved in this process. That is, Control Expectancy pertains directly to the 
child's general judgement of the likelihood that s/he is able to achieve school success (e.g., 
good school grades) and avoid failure (e.g., bad school grades). 
Both theoretically and empirically, the differentiation between the three sets of beliefs and