Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Dec 7.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Serv Rev. 2022 Oct 28;143:106707. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106707

Self-efficacy, academic performance and school transition among orphaned adolescents in southern Uganda

Proscovia Nabunya a,*, William Byansi b, Christopher Damulira c, Fred M Ssewamala a
PMCID: PMC9728805  NIHMSID: NIHMS1847181  PMID: 36483662

Abstract

Introduction:

Self-efficacy is critical to adolescents’ development. This study examined the relationship between self-efficacy, academic performance and transition to post primary education among orphaned adolescents in southern Uganda.

Methods:

Longitudinal data from a cluster randomized clinical trial for orphaned adolescents was analyzed. Adolescents (N = 1410) between 10 and 16 years at study initiation, in their last three years of primary schooling were eligible to participate in the study. Data collected at baseline, 12, 24, 36 and 48-months follow-up were analyzed. Ordinary least square and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between adolescents’ self-efficacy, academic performance –as measured by Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE) scores, and transition to post primary education.

Results:

Results indicate that adolescents’ self-efficacy was associated with better PLE grades (lower scores indicate better performance [b = −0.05, 95 % CI = −0.09, −0.01, p≤0.01]) and a higher likelihood of transition to post primary education (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = −0.09, 1.00, 1.03, p≤0.01).

Conclusion:

Findings point to the importance of integrating components focused on promoting self-efficacy among adolescents –especially those made vulnerable by poverty and HIV/AIDS in low resource settings.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, Academic performance, School transition, Orphaned adolescents, Uganda

1. Introduction

Self-efficacy—defined as one’s perceived capability to perform a target behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1984), has been documented as an important predictor of health behaviors (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Holden, 1992; O’Leary, 1985). Efficacious people are more likely to be optimistic about performing tasks, take on challenges easily, have a greater sense of commitment, cope better with unexpected events, and are less likely to focus on negative thoughts about their inability to achieve a goal (Turner, Rimal, Morrison, & Kim, 2006). On the other hand, non-efficacious people are more likely to avoid challenges, fail at tasks perceived to be beyond their abilities, and are less likely to persevere when faced with difficult situations (Caprara et al., 1998). Prior studies have documented positive health behaviors associated with self-efficacy, including health eating (AbuSabha & Achterberg, 1997), smoking cessation (Gwaltney, Metrik, Kahler, & Shiftman, 2009), alcohol abstinence (Adamson, Sellman, & Frampton, 2009), and adherence to treatment protocols (Hirai et al., 2002; Okuboyejo, Mbarika, & Omoregbe, 2018; Oshotse, Zullig, Bosworth, Tu, & Lin, 2018; Park & Gaffey, 2007). Given that childhood self-efficacy predicts subsequent developmental outcomes (Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli, & Caprara, 1999; Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997), strategies that target timely cultivation of positive self-efficacy during early adolescence, are critical. This study examines the relationship between self-efficacy and school outcomes, including academic performance and transition from primary to post primary education among orphaned adolescents in Southern Uganda.

1.1. Adolescents’ self-efficacy and associated outcomes

Self-efficacy is critical to adolescents’ development (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004; Tsang, Hui, & Law, 2012). Successful transition from childhood through adolescence depends on a child’s efficacy built up over time through their prior and recent experiences. Specifically, this study is positioned within Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), in which he identifies five major sources of self-efficacy, including mastery experiences (history of personal behavior or performance accomplishment), vicarious experiences (observing others and drawing conclusions for one’s own behaviors), verbal persuasion (feedback and instructions from others), as well as experiences of emotional or physiological arousal (emotions). Among adolescents and youth, self-efficacy has been associated with both psychological and behavioral adjustments, including lower levels of depression and loneliness (Bandura et al., 1999; Caprara, Gerbino, Paciello, Di Giunta, & Pastorelli, 2010; Hermann & Betz, 2006), withdrawal and internalizing symptoms (Han, Weisz, & Weiss, 2001; Kim & Cicchetti, 2003; Wichmann, Coplan, & Daniels, 2004) and delinquent behaviors (Caprara et al., 2010).

In addition, high academic self-efficacy –defined as personal judgments of one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action and attain designated types of educational performances, such as the ability to focus on school work, avoid distractions and complete homework on time (Artino, 2012; Caprara et al., 2008; Zimmerman, 1995), have all been associated with scholastic achievement, educational aspirations (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Carroll et al., 2009; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016), and lower levels of school dropout rates (Caprara et al., 2008).

However, the majority of this research has largely been conducted in high income countries (Artino, 2012; Caprara et al., 2008, 2010; Han et al., 2001; Hermann & Betz, 2006; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016; Kim & Cicchetti, 2003). Limited research exists in developing countries and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in particular, specifically targeting orphaned adolescents (Goodman et al., 2016; King, De Silva, Stein, & Patel, 2009; Mueller, Alie, Jonas, Brown, & Sherr, 2011; Yendork & Somhlaba, 2015). Moreover, very few studies have examined the role of self-efficacy on school outcomes of orphaned youth (Oyuga, Raburu, & Aloka, 2019). Yet, self-efficacy has been documented as a significant positive predictor of resilience among poor vulnerable children (Wood, Crapnell, Lau, Bennett, Lotstein, Ferris, & Kuo, 2018), including orphans (Yendork & Somhlaba, 2015). Moreover, given that orphaned adolescents experience more negative social and psychological outcomes compared to those orphaned due to other causes (Atwine, 2005; Bicego, Rutstein, & Johnson, 2003; Case, Paxton, & Ableidinger, 2004; Cluver, Gardner, & Operario, 2007; Pelton & Forehand, 2005), self-efficacy traits may be essential to support their coping with past and current vulnerabilities, as well as improve their beliefs in their ability to overcome future obstacles and perform well in school (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

2. Methods

2.1. Sample and study site

This study utilized longitudinal data from the Bridges to the Future study, funded by the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD). The overall goal of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an innovative family-based economic empowerment intervention that utilized child development accounts (CDAs), for orphaned adolescents in Uganda. The study was implemented in 4 political districts of Rakai, Masaka, Lwengo and Kalungu in Southern Uganda – a region heavily affected by HIV (Uganda AIDS Commission, 2021) A total of 1410 adolescents (n = 621 boys and n = 789 girls), between 10 and 16 years at study initiation, were recruited from 48 public primary schools with comparable socioeconomic status and academic performance. The inclusion criteria were: 1) an orphaned child, i.e., had lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS, 2) living within a family, not in an institution, and 3) enrolled in primary 5 and 6 (an equivalent of 6th and 7th grades in the U.S. educational system) in a public or government-aided primary school in the study area.

2.2. Study design

Details on the intervention design are documented elsewhere (Ssewamala et al., 2021; Wang, Malaeb, Ssewamala, Neilands, & Brooks-Gunn, 2021). In summary, the study utilized a cluster randomized control design. Randomization was conducted at the school level to avoid cross arm contamination. Each of the 48 primary schools was randomly assigned to either the control condition receiving bolstered standard of care (BSOC) services for orphaned adolescents in the region (school lunches and scholastic materials), or one of the two treatment conditions the BSOC plus a packaged economic empowerment intervention comprising of a family-based economic empowerment intervention, workshops on financial education and microenterprise development for both adolescents and their caregivers; and 3) a mentorship program, guided by a 9-session curriculum, intended to help adolescents develop the ability to identify specific future goals and educational aspirations through building their self-esteem, encouraging hopefulness and building stronger communication skills with their caregivers (Nabunya et al., 2015; Ssewamala et al., 2014).

2.3. Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was voluntary. Caregivers provided written consent for their children to participate, and children provided written assent –obtained separately from their caregivers to avoid coercion. The study received approval from the Columbia University Institutional Review Board (IRB-AAA11950) and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (SS2586).

2.4. Data and measures

This study utilized data collected at baseline, 12 months and 24 months post intervention initiation. All measures were tested from our previous studies among children and adolescents affected by HIV/AIDS in the study region (Ssewamala et al., 2010; Ssewamala et al., 2016). Data were collected using a 90-minute interviewer administered survey. Survey instruments were translated into Luganda – the most widely spoken language in the study region – and back translated into English to ensure accuracy. This process was overseen by certified language experts at the Makerere University in Uganda. Each interviewer received Good Clinical Practice training and obtained the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Certificate before interacting with study participants.

Academic performance was measured using official scores from Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE), a national standardized examination administered by the Uganda Ministry of Education to all students completing primary school in Uganda. PLE scores were collected directly from the schools’ administrative records between 24-and 48-months follow-up. PLE scores are measured in aggregates, ranging from 4 (best) to 36 (worst). To illustrate, a total aggregate of 4 means that a child received Distinction 1 (also presented at D1 –the best grade one could get in any given subject) for each of the four subjects on which each student is tested, i.e., English, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. Likewise, if a child gets a total aggregate of 36, it means that he/she got Failure 9 (also presented as F9—the worst grade one could get) for each of the four subjects outlined above.

School transition was measured by participants’ enrollment into post-primary education, (i.e., secondary/high school or vocational institutions). This data was collected between 24 and 48- months follow-up. Specifically, participants were asked: “Which class/grade are you currently in?” Responses were then coded as “1” for those who had transitioned to post-primary education and “0” for those who had not transitioned.

Adolescents’ self-efficacy was measured using 29-items adapted from the Youth Self-Efficacy Survey (Earls & Buka, 1997). The survey assesses five domains of efficacy for children and adolescents, including social, school, home, neighborhood, and future efficacy. For each pair of items, participants were asked to indicate whether they were more like the person on the left (positive efficacy) or the person on the right (negative efficacy). Following their choice, participants were asked whether the statement was either “very true” or “sort of true,“ coded as “4” and “3” for positive efficacy and “2” or “1” for negative efficacy, respectively. Sample items include: “Some kids feel they can understand math if they work at it, BUT other kids feel that no matter how hard they work at it, it is still very hard to learn math.” Reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79. Items in the inverse direction were reverse coded to create summary scores, with higher scores indicating higher levels of child self-efficacy.

Baseline participants’ and household-level characteristics included in the models as covariates included: age, gender, orphanhood status, household size (total number of people and total number of children in the household), and a measure of household asset ownership (comprising of home ownership, land or rental property, means of transportation, gardens and livestock, and any ownership of a family microenterprise business). Participating in the intervention was coded as “1″ for the treatment condition and “0” for non-participation (control condition).

2.5. Analysis procedures

All data analysis procedures were conducted in STATA 15. To account for within-school correlation, bivariate comparisons (Rao-Scott F-statistic and design-based F) (Rao & Scott, 1984) using Taylor-linearized variance estimation were conducted on participants’ and household characteristics between the intervention and control group. Second, ordinary least square (for academic performance) and logistic regression (for school transition) analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between self-efficacy, academic performance and school transition. Robust standard errors were utilized to adjust for heteroscedasticity. Unstandardized regression coefficients (b), odds ratio (OR), and the 95 % confidence interval (CI) are presented. Statistical significance was set a prior at the 5 % level.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive and bivariate analysis results

Baseline sample characteristics are presented in Table 1. The average age was 12.7 years. Female participants were more likely to be younger compared to males (χ2 = 73.13, p =.001). The majority of participants (79 %) were single orphans i.e., they had one surviving biological parent. Female participants were more likely to be single orphans compared to their male counterparts (χ2 = 8.08, p≤0.01). Household size consisted of on average 6 adults, and 3 children below 18 years of age. In terms of household asset holding, the average asset ownership reported was 9.73 items out of the possible 20, indicating moderate levels of household asset ownership at baseline. The average self-efficacy score was 98.02 and was not statistically different between males and females.

Table 1.

Baseline Sample characteristics.

Variable Total Sample
(N = 1410)		 Females (n
= 789)		 Males (n
= 621)		 Design-
Based- F
Age (Mean, SD) 12.7 ± 0.04 12.43 ± 1.18 13.00 ± 1.22 73.13***
Orphanhood status
 Single Orphan 78.9 78.94 75.85 8.08**
 Double orphan 21.1 21.06 24.15
Treatment condition
 Treatment 64.82 65.4 64.09 0.24
 Control 35.18 34.6 35.91
Household size
 Number of people in the HH (Mean ± SD) 6.35 ± 0.08 6.34 ± 2.75 6.38 ± 2.84 0.08
 Number of children in the HH (Mean ± SD) 3.18 ± 0.09 3.21 ± 2.12 3.14 ± 2.30 0.20
Asset holdings
Household Assets 9.73 ± 0.09 9.49 ± 3.19 10.04 ± 3.25 6.31**
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy 98.02 ± 0.35 97.29 ± 12.23 98.96 ± 11.59 2.37
Completed PLE
 Yes 60.71 64.64 55.72 12.58***
 No 39.29 35.36 44.28
PLE scores (mean ± SD) 24.57 ± 6.98 24.73 ± 6.77 24.34 ± 7.29 0.61
Transitioned to post-primary
 Yes 41.53 44.58 37.7 7.47**
 No 58.47 58.42 62.7
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p <.05

**

p <.01

***

p <.001

Of the 1410 participants, about 61 % had completed primary education (with the completion of PLE), with female participants more likely to complete primary education compared to males (χ2 = 12.58.08, p≤0.001). On average participants received a score of 24.57 points on PLE (with lower points indicating better performance). Overall, about 42 % of the total sample – representing about 67 % of all those who completed PLE, transitioned from primary to post primary education, with female participants more likely to transition compared to males (χ2 = 7.47, p≤0.01). Those who had not transitioned to post primary education at 48-months follow-up had either dropped out of school before or after completing primary school, had not completed primary school at the time of interviews, or were lost to follow up.

3.2. Regression on self-efficacy, academic performance and school transition

Table 2 illustrates the regression analysis results assessing the relationship between adolescents’ self-efficacy, academic performance and school transition. Self-efficacy was associated with better PLE grades (lower scores indicate better performance [b = −0.05, 95 % CI = −0.09, −0.01, p≤0.01]) and a higher likelihood of transitioning to post primary education (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 1.00, 1.03, p≤0.01). Similarly, being in the treatment arm compared to the control arm was associated with better PLE grades (b = −3.05, 95 % CI = −5.42, −0.69, p≤0.01) and a higher likelihood of school transition (OR = 1.73, 95 % CI = 1.01, 2.96, p≤0.001). On the other hand, increase in age was associated with poor PLE grades (b = 0.89, 95 % CI = 0.53, 1.26, p≤0.001) and a lower likelihood of transitioning to post-primary education (OR = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.58, 0.73, p≤0.001). In addition, being female (b = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.03, 2.09, p≤0.05), and household assets (b = 0.32, 95 % CI = 0.07, 0.56, p≤0.01) were inversely associated with PLE grades. Double-orphaned compared to single orphaned participants were less likely to transition to post-primary education (OR = 0.64, 95 % CI = 0.46, 0.88, p≤0.01). No other statistically significant results were observed.

Table 2.

Regression analysis results.

Academic Performance
 School Transition
Variable b(SE) 95 % CI OR(SE) 95 % CI
Self-efficacy −0.05 (0.02) ** −0.09, −0.01 1.02 (0.01) ** 1.00, 1.03
Treatment condition −3.05 (1.17) ** −5.42, −0.69 1.73 (0.47) ** 1.01, 2.96
Age of the child 0.89 (0.18) *** 0.53, 1.26 0.65 (0.04) *** 0.58, 0.73
Female child 1.06 (0.51) * 0.03, 2.09 1.07 (0.12) 0.86, 1.33
Double orphan 0.42 (0.44) −0.46, 1.30 0.64 (0.12) ** 0.46, 0.88
Number of people 0.002 (0.18) −0.35, 0.36 1.08 (0.06) ** 0.98, 1.19
Number of children 0.004 (0.20) −0.41, 0.41 0.93 (0.05) 0.83, 1.04
Household assets 0.32 (0.12) ** 0.07, 0.56 0.99 (0.02) 0.95, 1.04
Constant 16.71 (3.67) *** 9.33, 24.08 20.69 (22.60) ** 2.45, 175.95
F-value (df) or X2 (df) 5.46(8) *** 77.25(8) ***
N 856 1375
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p <.05

**

p <.01

***

p <.001, b = coefficient, SE = Robust standard error, OR = Odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.

4. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between self-efficacy, academic performance, and transition from primary to post primary education among orphaned adolescents in southern Uganda. Study findings indicate that adolescents’ self-efficacy was associated with better academic performance (i.e., better PLE grades), as well as a higher likelihood of transitioning from primary to post primary education. It is possible that adolescents with more self-efficacy traits were able to cope with difficulties associated with parental loss, including poverty, limited social support and psychosocial challenges related to orphanhood (Nabunya & Ssewamala, 2014), and were able to maintain their beliefs in their ability to overcome obstacles and perform well in school, and ultimately continue to post primary education. These findings are consistent with previous findings that documented the positive relationship between self-efficacy and school outcomes among adolescents and youth (Bandura et al., 1996; Carroll et al., 2009; Honicke & Broadbent, 2016).

Previous studies, including our own studies in the study region have documented the positive impact of a family-based economic empowerment intervention on orphaned adolescents’ self-efficacy, academic achievement, and school transition (Nabunya et al., 2019; Ssewamala et al., 2018; Ssewamala et al., 2010). Similarly, findings from the current study indicate that adolescents who received the intervention were more likely to perform better and exhibited a higher likelihood of transitioning to post primary education. Given that experiencing poverty is associated with lower levels of self-efficacy (Callander & Schofield, 2016), poor orphaned adolescents participating in the intervention –with an opportunity to accumulate matched savings –money they could use to pay for post-primary education and or start a microenterprise business, helped to increase their confidence and beliefs in their future abilities –reflected in their academic performance and ultimately moving on to post primary education.

Other significant findings, including gender, age and double orphanhood are also consistent with the overall primary school performance rates in Uganda – where girls are less likely to perform as well as boys (The New Vision, 2020 ). Similar findings have also been documented among older adolescents and adolescents who have lost both parents –especially to HIV/AIDS (Bicego et al., 2003; Case et al., 2004).

These findings should be interpreted considering the following limitations. First, the study sample was limited to participants situated in rural primary schools. Findings could be different among schools and participants in an urban school setting. Second, we do not have a comparison group for non-orphans.

5. Conclusions

Successful transition from childhood through adolescence depends on a child’s efficacy built up over time. Study findings point to role of self-efficacy in promoting adolescent’ school outcomes –which are critical to their human capital development. As such, outcomes of national policies such as universal primary education could be improved and strengthened by incorporating components focused on promoting adolescents’ self-efficacy traits to improve their abilities in making both current and future health coping choices and to work towards achieving their future goals. Future analysis will explore the mechanisms through which self-efficacy impacts adolescents’ outcomes, including health-related outcomes over time.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the staff and the volunteer team at the International Center for Child Health and Development (ICHAD) field offices in Masaka- Uganda for monitoring the study implementation process. Our special thanks go to all children and their caregiving families who agreed to participate in the study.

Funding

Financial support for the Bridges to the Future study came from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD, Grant# R01HD070727; PI: Fred M. Ssewamala). NICHD had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of findings and preparing this manuscript. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NICHD or NIH.

Footnotes

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Proscovia Nabunya: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. William Byansi: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing. Christopher Damulira: Data Curation, Writing - review & editing. Fred M. Ssewamala: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical Considerations

The Bridges to the Future study received approval from the Columbia University Institutional Review Board (IRB-AAA11950) and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (SS2586). The study is registered in the Clinical Trials database (NCT01447615).

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Participation in the Bridges to the Future study was voluntary. All caregivers provided written consent for their children to participate in the study. Similarly, all adolescents provided written assent to participate. This was obtained separately from their caregivers to avoid coercion.

References

  1. AbuSabha R, & Achterberg C (1997). Review of self-efficacy and locus of control for nutrition-and health-related behavior. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97 (10), 1122–1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamson SJ, Sellman JD, & Frampton CM (2009). Patient predictors of alcohol treatment outcome: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(1), 75–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Armitage CJ, & Conner M (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Artino AR (2012). Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Atwine B, Cantor –Graee E & Bajunirwe F (2005). Psychological distress among AIDS orphans in rural Uganda. Social Service Review, 61, 555–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bandura A (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura A (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(3), 231–255. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, & Pastorelli C (1996). Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 1206–1222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bandura A, Pastorelli C, Barbaranelli C, & Caprara GV (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bicego G, Rutstein S, & Johnson K (2003). Dimensions of the emerging orphan crisis in sub-Saharan Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1235–1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Callander EJ, & Schofield DJ (2016). The impact of poverty on self-efficacy: An Australian longitudinal study. Occupational Medicine, 66(4), 320–325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Caprara GV, Fida R, Vecchione M, Del Bove G, Vecchio GM, Barbaranelli C, & Bandura A (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 525. [Google Scholar]
  13. Caprara GV, Gerbino M, Paciello M, Di Giunta L, & Pastorelli C (2010). Counteracting depression and delinquency in late adolescence. European Psychologist, 15(1), 34–48. [Google Scholar]
  14. Caprara GV, Scabini E, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C, Regalia C, & Bandura A (1998). Impact of adolescents’ perceived self-regulatory efficacy on familial communication and antisocial conduct. European Psychologist, 3(2), 125–132. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carroll A, Houghton S, Wood R, Unsworth K, Hattie J, Gordon L, & Bower J (2009). Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school students: The mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 797–817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Case A, Paxton C, & Ableidinger J (2004). Orphans in Africa: Parental death, poverty, and school enrollment. Demography, 41, 483–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Catalano RF, Berglund ML, Ryan JA, Lonczak HS, & Hawkins JD (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cluver L, Gardner F, & Operario D (2007). Psychological distress amongst AIDS-orphaned children in urban South Africa. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), 755–763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Earls F, & Buka SL (1997). Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods. In NIJ Research Report, Technical Report I. NCJ 163495. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fergus S, & Zimmerman MA (2005). Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual review of public health, 26, 399–419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodman ML, Lloyd LE, Selwyn BJ, Morgan RO, Mwongera M, Gitari S, & Reiser PH (2016). Factors associated with general self-efficacy and resilience among youth heads of households in Kenya. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(10), 2229–2246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gwaltney CJ, Metrik J, Kahler CW, & Shiffman S (2009). Self-efficacy and smoking cessation: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(1), 56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Han SS, Weisz JR, & Weiss B (2001). Specificity of relations between children’s control-related beliefs and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hermann KS, & Betz NE (2006). Path models of the relationships of instrumentality and expressiveness, social self–efficacy, and self–esteem to depressive symptoms in college students. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(10), 1086–1106. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hirai K, Suzuki Y, Tsuneto S, Ikenaga M, Hosaka T, & Kashiwagi T (2002).A structural model of the relationships among self-efficacy, psychological adjustment, and physical condition in Japanese advanced cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology: Journal of the Psychological, Social and Behavioral Dimensions of Cancer, 11 (3), 221–229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Holden G (1992). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health Care, 16(1), 53–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Honicke T, & Broadbent J (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim J, & Cicchetti D (2003). Social self-efficacy and behavior problems in maltreated and non maltreated children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32 (1), 106–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. King E, De Silva M, Stein A, & Patel V (2009). Interventions for improving the psychosocial well-being of children affected by HIV and AIDS. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mueller J, Alie C, Jonas B, Brown E, & Sherr L (2011). A quasi-experimental evaluation of a community-based art therapy intervention exploring the psychosocial health of children affected by HIV in South Africa. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 16(1), 57–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nabunya P, Namatovu P, Damulira C, Kivumbi A, Byansi W, Mukasa M, … Ssewamala FM (2019). Assessing the impact of an economic empowerment interventions on educational outcomes of orphaned children and adolescents: Findings from a Randomized Experiment in Uganda. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work Development, 29(1), 59–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Nabunya P, & Ssewamala FM (2014). The Effects of Parental Loss on the Psychosocial Wellbeing of AIDS-Orphaned Children Living in AIDS-Impacted Communities: Does Gender Matter? Children and youth services review, 43, 131–137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nabunya P, Ssewamala FM, Mukasa MN, Byansi W, & Nattabi J (2015). Peer mentorship program on HIV/AIDS knowledge, beliefs, and prevention attitudes among orphaned adolescents: an evidence-based practice. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 10(4), 345–356. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Okuboyejo S, Mbarika V, & Omoregbe N (2018). The effect of self-efficacy and outcome expectation on medication adherence behavior. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 9(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Leary A (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23(4), 437–451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Oshotse C, Zullig LL, Bosworth HB, Tu P, & Lin C (2018). Peer reviewed: Self-efficacy and adherence behaviors in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Preventing Chronic Disease, 15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Oyuga PA, Raburu PA, & Aloka PJ (2019). Relationship between Self efficacy and Academic Performance among Orphaned Secondary School Students in Kenya. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 9 (3), 39–46. doi: 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20190903.02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Park CL, & Gaffey AE (2007). Relationships between psychosocial factors and health behavior change in cancer survivors: An integrative review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 34(2), 115–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Patrick H, Hicks L, & Ryan AM (1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(2), 109–128. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pelton J, & Forehand R (2005). Orphans of the AIDS epidemic: An examination of clinical level problems of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 585–591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rao JN, & Scott AJ (1984). On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated from survey data. The Annals of Statistics, 46–60. [Google Scholar]
  42. The New Vision. (January 17th, 2020). PLE: Boys beat girls, 1512 results withheld. Retrieved May 17, 2021, at: https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1513574/2019-ple-boys-beat-girls-1512-results-withheld.
  43. Tsang SK, Hui EK, & Law B (2012). Self-efficacy as a positive youth development construct: a conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ssewamala FM, Karimli L, Han CK, & Ismayilova L (2010). Social capital, savings, and educational performance of orphaned adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa. Children and youth services review, 32(12), 1704–1710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ssewamala FM, Karimli L, Neilands TB, Wang JSH, Han CK, Ilic V, & Nabunya P (2016). Applying a family-level economic strengthening intervention to improve education and health-related outcomes of school-going AIDS-orphaned children: lessons from a randomized experiment in Southern Uganda. Prevention Science, 17(1), 134–143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ssewamala FM, Nabunya P, Mukasa MN, Ilic V, & Nattabi J (2014). Integrating a mentorship component in programming for care and support of AIDS-orphaned and vulnerable children: Lessons from the Suubi and Bridges Programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Social Welfare, 1(1), 9–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ssewamala FM, Wang JSH, Neilands TB, Bermudez LG, Garfinkel I,Waldfogel J, … Kirkbride G (2018). Cost-effectiveness of a savings-led economic empowerment intervention for AIDS-affected adolescents in Uganda: implications for scale-up in low-resource communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(1), S29–S36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Turner MM, Rimal RN, Morrison D, & Kim H (2006). The role of anxiety in seeking and retaining risk information: Testing the risk perception attitude framework in two studies. Human Communication Research, 32(2), 130–156. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wichmann C, Coplan RJ, & Daniels T (2004). The social cognitions of socially withdrawn children. Social Development, 13(3), 377–392. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wood D, Crapnell T, Lau L, Bennett A, Lotstein D, Ferris M, & Kuo A (2018). Emerging adulthood as a critical stage in the life course. In: Handbook of life course health development (pp. 123–143). Springer, Cham. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Yendork J, & Somhlaba NZ (2015). Do social support, self-efficacy, and resilience influence the experience of stress in Ghanaian orphans? An exploratory study. Child Care in Practice, 21(2), 140–159. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmerman BJ (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In: Bandura A (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202–231. [Google Scholar]
  53. Uganda AIDS Commission [UAC] (2021). Factsheet: Facts on HIV and AIDS in Uganda 2021. Accessed October 1, 2022 at: https://uac.go.ug/media/attachments/2021/09/13/final-2021-hiv-aids-factsheet.pdf.
  54. Ssewamala FM, Shu-Huah Wang J, Brathwaite R, Sun S, Mayo-Wilson LJ, Neilands TB, & Brooks-Gunn J (2021). Impact of a Family Economic Intervention (Bridges) on Health Functioning of Adolescents Orphaned by HIV/AIDS: A 5-Year (2012-2017) Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Uganda. American journal of public health, 111(3), 504–513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang JS, Malaeb B, Ssewamala FM, Neilands TB, & Brooks-Gunn J (2021). A Multifaceted Intervention with Savings Incentives to Reduce Multidimensional Child Poverty: Evidence from the Bridges Study (2012-2018) in Rural Uganda. Social indicators research, 158(3), 947–990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES