Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for the Secondary Education level. A study conducted in Spain

RESEARCH ARTICLE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for the Secondary Education level. A study conducted in Spain Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrezID ☯ *, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero ☯ , Elisabet Montoro- Ferna ´ndez ☯ Department of Theory and History of Education and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Education Sciences, Seville University, Seville, Spain ☯These authors contributed equally to this work. *[email protected] Abstract Introduction The impact of entrepreneurship training on the levels of compulsory education has been weak until now. Complementarily to the demand of greater effectiveness in entrepreneurship education, it is a priority to make scientifically verified instruments available to provide useful information about the achievement of the competences needed for the development of entrepreneurial capacities. Our research is focused on the design and assessment of entrepreneurship competency, tackling one the dimension concerning business skills or competences. Specifically, the aim of the study consists in the development, validation and reliability of an instrument, intended for secondary education, created with the purpose of detecting the strictly indispensable entrepreneurial competencies in the basic training of the business profile, the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies (BSEC). Methods The research was developed in three phases via qualitative and quantitative methods. In the development phase the items were generated and the dimensions and components of entrepreneurship competency were identified. Also, the content and face validity were carried out, where experts (n = 48) and students (n = 24) took part. In the recruitment phase a multi-stage sampling stratified by conglomerates was performed, obtaining a sample of 1440 students, aged between 11 and 17 years old (M = 14.6, SD = 1.597) and a composition by sex of 679 girls and 761 boys. Construct validity was evaluated in the assessment stage through factor analysis (EFA and CFA). Later, the reliability was studied via the Cronbach´s αcoefficient and the stability and reproducibility over time with the test-restest technique. Finally, the convergent and divergent validity were evaluated through the average variance extracted (AVE), the composite reliability (CR) and the square root of the AVE. PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 1 / 21 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez AR, Bernal-Guerrero A, Montoro-Ferna ´ndez E (2021) Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for the Secondary Education level. A study conducted in Spain. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0249903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0249903 Editor: Frantisek Sudzina, Aalborg University, DENMARK Received: January 4, 2021 Accepted: March 26, 2021 Published: April 15, 2021 Copyright: ©2021 Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files. Funding: We confirm that the investigation has been funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of the Government of Spain, State Plan 2013-2016 Excellence - R & D Projects, under Grant number. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to Results 44 items were developed in the phase of generating items. After carrying out the validity of the content, there were 14 items with acceptable values in the Content Validity Ratio (CVR.89) and in the Content Validity Index (CVI.92). During the validation of the scale, the results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a first-order trifactorial structure and a second-order factor. The scale’s stability was appropriate, having an ICC = .92. The convergent validity results with Composite Reliability (CR) scores >0.7 and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) >. 0.50, along with the square root values of the AVE greater than the correlations between the other constructs show us important evidence of the validity of the Scale. The structure of the BSEC is made up of 13 items and three domains: Operations and Marketing Competencies (OMC), Competencies in Socio-Busi- ness and Legal Organization (CSBLO) and Economic-Financial Competencies (EFC). Conclusions The results of the research reflect its validity and reliability. This Scale has an evident usefulness for the training and assessment of entrepreneurship competence. Specifically, it is efficient for the valuation of entrepreneurial competencies in adolescent students in the stage prior to their incorporation into the work environment or their integration into the itineraries leading to higher education levels. Introduction The new economy is directly linked to the relevance of knowledge. The improvement of quality of life is more related to learning than to the effectiveness of resource allocation, the traditional concern of economists. As Joseph E. Stiglitz and Bruce C. Greenwald [1] have expressed, resource allocation is a slow process if we compare it with the speed with which we can reduce knowledge gaps. Due to its association with innovation, entrepreneurship and economy, human capital has therefore become a focus of the utmost attention [2–5]. In fact, the challenges currently posed to the development of the economy require training to tackle the face- to-face global transformations in the business field, to compete in the business world and to remain open to continuous renovation in the face of constant demanding changes. This training requires specific knowledge, certain attitudes and concrete competences or precise behavior features. This can be seen in Order ECD/65/2015 [6], where entrepreneurial competence is defined as a feeling of initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, as a competence which favors the transformation of ideas into acts. This becomes specific in the capacity to select, plan and manage knowledge, skills and attitudes on one’s own terms to attain a particular purpose. More concretely, and in relation with our study aim, this Order indicates that entrepreneurial competencies are related with the organization and functioning of firms through business planning, organization and management, without ignoring the ethical aspects of the business activity. In this way, entrepreneurial competencies would be defined within a global approach of the business competence and would be linked to certain business actions, such as management, organization, operations, marketing, financing or entrepreneurial strategy [7]. The new firm’s ecosystem, made up of incubators, intermediaries, accelerators, assessors, etc., tends to recognize the difference between the two phases characterized by their particular PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 2 / 21 publish, or preparation of the manuscript. EDU- 2013-42936-P. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. activities: exploration and exploitation. This distinction highlights the need of knowledge prior to beginning business creation per se, trying to minimize the gap between learning and innovation [8–10]. Moreover, it is evident that entrepreneurs’ competences greatly affect their decisionmaking, which also contributes to the business efficiency, as has been stressed by some recent studies [11–13]. There seems to be an international consensus concerning the relevance conceded to entrepreneurship as one of the main economic activities in the current context [14,15]. The business spirit fosters self-employment in the new generations, raises their level of employability and nurtures the fundamental social skills for professional development [16,17]. Hence, immersive proposals have been done based on real problems of firms with the aim of training in entrepreneurial competences [18,19]. In general, it appears to be deduced from the majority of studies performed that specific business education programs maintain a positive link with entrepreneurship, affecting the very choice of becoming an entrepreneur, as well as later business success [20–22]. Nonetheless, although the global consensus about the importance of entrepreneurial culture for economic and human development has for a long time been integrated into the political plans of the majority of countries, it can be considered that the influence of political guidelines on the need for training in entrepreneurship in compulsory education (Middle School and High School), in the basic stages of formal education, has until now been generally weak [23]. It is also true that education and training policies should reflect a greater theoretical and practical solidity, showing in the best way possible the nature and the development of business skills and offering a more consistent training panorama to the whole educational system [24]. This is particularly so in the compulsory education levels as a basic shaping of the entrepreneurial identity that entrepreneurs will later need [25,26]. This necessary political orientation especially includes the professionals of entrepreneurship education [27]. The considerable volume of research works carried out, although still insufficient in the basic levels of education [28], shall constitute a determinant material for a better demarcation of the school policies and practices linked to business education. In this sense, as an indispensable supplement of the generalized demand for greater effectiveness in entrepreneurship education, it is fundamental to dispose of validated and operational instruments capable of providing useful information concerning the achievement of the competences needed for the development of entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, the adoption of diverse perspectives about business competence causes different problems concerning the valuation of the skills needed, giving rise to the convergence, at times confusing, of different factors of a social, political and economic character [29]. Though we could state that competence, in general, alludes to the virtue or status of being an entrepreneur, competency refers to some specific attribute possessed by someone within a set of related competences. Linked with the context, competences delimit an essential perspective of entrepreneurship education [30]. Consequently, research on the design and evaluation of entrepreneurial competency is an indispensable area for the efficient development of the training of entrepreneurs. But, however, there are very few questionnaires which go thoroughly into this training dimension of entrepreneurship. Particularly, one notes a significant gap in the levels of compulsory education. The innovative behavior of employees has been explored through an evaluative scale of the intrapreneurial competences [31] (promotion of opportunities, proactiveness, flexibility, impetus and risk taking) with the idea of furthering the line of a robust model of intrapreneurial competences in the framework of firms, singularly in its role of a diagnosis test to enhance the development of workers in areas associated with the generation and innovation of enterprisess [31]. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 3 / 21 Likewise, within the theoretical perspective of professional construction, entrepreneurship has been analyzed as an adaptive vocational behavior driven by a person’s capacity of self-regu- lation to prosper in the framework of their professional career. The Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS) has been validated in a sample of business students, showing evidence of its psychometric properties and offering elements for the comprehension of the successful adaptation in the context of business careers. It is positively associated with business intentions and with prior experience in family businesses [32]. There exists some psychometric research related to a specific element of the set of entrepreneurial competences. Thus, the recognition of business opportunities is one of the outstanding skills of entrepreneurs and, therefore, needs attention in business education. Starting out from existing models to measure the creativity and the recognition of opportunities, the questionnaire Perception of Opportunity Recognition Ability (PORA) has been created, showing an acceptable internal consistency [33]. In some countries representative of a great part of the global population, such as India, studies have been performed via the creation of questionnaires capable of diagnosing the common start-up problems and the success factors which contribute to the entrepreneurial process according to differences of sex [34], among adults interested in entrepreneurship and business development. We observe that the assessment of entrepreneurship competency has a long track record and is mainly oriented toward adults in pre-business or business training contexts [35–41]. In this sense, a lack of assessment instruments related with entrepreneurship competency in the compulsory education stages has been detected. This research work proposes to study the validity and reliability of an instrument created with the aim of palliating the deficiency identified: the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies (BSEC) intended for adolescents in the Secondary Education stage. Materials and methods This research is part of the project “Educating in Entrepreneurship: Evaluating Programs for the Training of Entrepreneurial Identity in Compulsory Education”, financed within the State Plan of Excellence of the Government of Spain (Reference: EDU2013-42936-P). Among other results stemming from this R+D+i (Research, development and innovation) project, initial research has emerged concerning the study of the validity and the reliability of the Basic Business Knowledge Scale for secondary education students [42]. In parallel to this first study about business knowledge, and following the methodological orientations proposed in it, this second study has been developed concerning the psychometric properties of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies (BSEC). Study design We have carried out a transversal study with a design of mixed three-phase methods [43]: Phase 1) development and construction of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies (BSEC); phase 2) recruitment of the sample; and phase 3) assessment of the reliability and validation of the Scale (Table 1). Phase 1: Development of the questionnaire. 1) Theoretical foundations and generation of items. To implement this sub-phase we have developed the PRISMA-P protocol [44] (S1 Checklist), although applying only 4 items corresponding to the sections of methods and results, as it is an educational bibliometric review [44,45], with the aim of generating the composition and dimensionality of the basic business competences, we carried out a systematic bibliometric review in January 2018 in the main databases (WOS, ERIC and Scopus), applying PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 4 / 21 the following search strategy with the protocol: “Entrepreneur�competencies” OR “Entrepreneur�competency”. The bibliographic search was limited to scientific articles from January 1st. 2000 to December 31st. 2017. Later, four university field experts with broad and acknowledged experience and scientific careers in business education valued the potential articles. The articles which had the following keywords either in their titles or their abstracts were selected: a) competency/ies; b) entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial education or business education; c) compulsory education; d) Middle School and High School; and e) evaluation and assessment. The eligibility requirements were: a) Type of sample studied, including studies centered on the compulsory and post-compulsory stages of formal education; and b) typology of study, including theoretical, empirical and qualitative research works. As an exclusion criterion, we adopt that the article must be classified as “not relevant” (studies related to non-formal education) by at least two experts. Having selected the articles, they were submitted to a content analysis through an inductive coding [46]. Lastly, to find out the degree of agreement between the experts the Fleiss’ kappa index was used [47], since it is valid to measure the agreement with three or more experts [48]. Later, between February 1st. and March 29th. 2018, two series of detailed interviews were done via a convenience sampling (S1 and S2 Files). On the one hand, there were 8 teachers, experts in business education in Compulsory Secondary Education centers, being selected two teachers per course of this stage. The choice of these experts was done through the criterion of Table 1. Construction process and chronological axis of the research design. Phase 1: Development and construction of the BSEC Sub-phases Dates and participants 1) Theoretical foundations and generation of items From January 7th. to March 29th. 2018 Bibliographic review in databases Experts (n = 4) Interviews of experts Expert teachers (n = 8) Interviews of students Students (n = 12) Experts´judgment Experts from university-educational centers (n = 16) 2) Content validity From April 2nd. to April 30th. 2018 Assessment of experts about formal aspects of the items Experts (n = 10) Assessment of experts CVR and CVI Experts (n = 10) 3) Face validity May 11th. 2018 Focus group Students (n = 12) Phase 2: Recruitment of the sample Sub-phases Dates and participants 1) Recruitment and data collection From April 5th. to July 15th. 2018 Characteristics of the sample Sample (n = 1440) 679 girls and 761 boys Phase 3: Evaluation of the validity and reliability Sub-phases Dates and participants 1) Construct validity From July 18th. to July 22th. 2018 Exploratory factor analysis Sub-sample (n 1 = 720) Confirmatory factor analysis Sub-sample (n 2 = 720) 2) Reliability From July 25th. to August 18th. 2018 Cronbach Alpha Test-retest time stability Sample (n = 50) 3) External Validity From August 20th. to August 25th. 2018 Convergent validity Divergent validity https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903.t001 PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 5 / 21 participation as coordinators of business education programs during 3 academic courses. On the other hand, 12 students from Compulsory Secondary Education centers were interviewed with the criterion of having taken part in business education programs during the 2016-17 academic course. All the interviews lasted between 35 and 50 minutes and were analyzed via an analysis of their content with the NVivo 11 Plus software. The experts’ judgment technique was applied to attain a high degree of validity of the scripts of the interviews, eight of them from the university area and another eight from educational centers [49,50]. All of them had a broad professional and academic experience in the area of entrepreneurship education. In order to attaining a high consensus among the experts and reducing the variability of their valuations, a criterion of surpassing 80% of concordance in the indications given by them in the two evaluation sessions was established. 2) Content validity. Two sub-phases were performed. In the first one, 10 experts (two for each of the following areas: business education in compulsory education, firm organizational and legal management, marketing, economics and assessment of instruments) carried out an assessment related with the formal and written aspects of each of the 44 items developed by the research team. The items were revised with the criterion of at least one of the experts explicitly indicating the need for a revision. In the second, the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Content Validity Index (CVI) were studied. To do so, another 10 specialists, two for each of the areas previously mentioned, analyzed, on the one hand, the CVR, evaluating each item with a 3-point Likert scale from non-essential to highly essential. Those items whose score was �.62 were kept in the instrument [51,52]. On the other hand, the CVI was calculated for each item [53,54] via a 4-point Likert scale from not relevant to highly relevant [55], those items which attained scores equal to or greater than.80 were selected. Later, the total CVR and CVI of the Scale were calculated. 3) Face validity. This sub-phase was developed through a focus group made up of 12 students chosen through a convenience sampling with similar age range characteristics to the studied sample. The selection criterion was to have participated during more than two academic courses in entrepreneurial education programs. The age of the students ranged from eleven to sixteen years old, the focus group being made up of two students per age. The duration of the focus group was 90 minutes and the Think-aloud protocols [55–60] were used as a comprehension technique to find out the ideas, suggestions and changes made by the students for each item. The focus group was guided, recorded, transcribed and analyzed with the NVivo 11 Plus program. The content analysis was done inductively via the following categories: formal problems and conceptual problems. Phase 2: Recruitment and sample. 1) Recruitment. The sample design was a multi-stage sampling stratified by conglomerates. The study population were the education centers which had taken part in at least two editions of the entrepreneurial education program. The sample selection criteria are listed below: Criterion 1. Entrepreneurial education strategies: the Oslo Agenda [61] defines three strategies in entrepreneurial education: specific, general and isolated initiatives. Two autonomous communities were chosen with this criterion for each strategy: Andalusia and Galicia, with a specific strategy; Asturias and the Region of Murcia, with a general strategy; and Madrid and Catalonia with an isolated initiatives’ strategy [62]. Criterion 2. The selection of education centers supported by public funds which were teaching YEE (Young European Enterprise) entrepreneurial education programs in Compulsory Secondary Education. Information was gathered from the databases of the UECOE (Spanish Union of Teaching Cooperatives) and of VALNALO ´N (a public firm under the PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 6 / 21 authority of the Ministry of Employment, Industry and Tourism of the Government of Asturias). 16 centers fulfilled these two criteria. Criterion 3. The YEE program should have been implemented during at least two editions. The 11 education centers of the six autonomous communities which fulfill this requirement were selected with this inclusion criterion. All the education centers accepted participating. The recruitment lasted from April 5th. to June 27th. 2018. 2) Characteristics of the sample. In Spain, during the academic year 2017/2018, the research was implemented in a population made up of 1,964,787 students of the ESO (Compulsory Secondary Education) stage (Ministry of Education and Professional Training). First, there were 1,473 students in the sample, but 33 questionnaires were eliminated in the data tabulation process due to the fact that many items were not answered. The sample is representative of the ESO stage (�= 3.4% y P = 99%). (Table 2) describes the sample’s characteristics. The composition of the final sample according to sex was 679 girls (47.2%) and 761 boys (52.8%), aged between eleven and seventeen years old (M = 14.6, SD = 1.597). Phase 3: Assessment of the validity and reliability. 1) Descriptive analysis and discrimination indices. The descriptive analysis of the items was done with descriptive statistics, such as the mean (μ), standard deviation (σ), kurtosis (K) and asymmetry. The discrimination indices (corrected item-total correlation) were calculated for each item. 2) Construct validity. The construct validation of the BCES was implemented through two factorial analyses (a and b). The total sample (1440) was divided into two random samples, each made up of 720 participants. a) Exploratory Factor Analysis. An EFA was applied to the first half of the sample (720) [63]. The degree of suitability to factor analysis was done through Kaiser’s KMO, along with Bartlett’s Sphericity Test [64,65]. The OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) method was used in the estimation of the factors and, within this, the ULS (Unweighted Least Squares) method, being [66] the most recommendable method. Having estimated the factors and to achieve a high degree of simplicity and interpretability of the factorial solution obtained, rotation was applied with the direct Oblimin technique, given that we presuppose correlations between the latent variables or factors analyzed [67]. Lastly, the factors were selected with the Parallel Analysis (AP), taking into account criteria such as eigenvalues greater than one and variance explained [68]. Also, the items with saturations less than.40 were refined. b) Confirmatory Factor Analysis. With the second half of the sample, CFA was carried out for the purpose of checking the hypothesized model [69]. This analysis was done according to the following methodological process: 1) the ULS (Unweighted Least Squares) technique; 2) oblique rotation with the direct Oblimin criterion; and 3) the use of a set of absolute fit indicators (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual -SRMR, Goodness of Fit Index -GFI- and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation -RMSEA) and an incremental (Tucker-Lewis Index TLI) and Comparative Fit Index -CFI-) to interpret the model extracted, as it has been studied that the χ2 statistic has a high sensitivity to the variations of the sample size [70–73]. The interpretation of the adjustment criteria is established according to the scores obtained in each indicator. First, scores equal to or greater than.96 and.95, respectively in the CFI, GFI and TLI, along with scores equal to or less than 0.5 in RMSEA, are considered a good fit. Second, scores equal to or greater than.90 in the CFI, GFI, TLI and scores below.08 in the RMSEA are estimated as an average fit. Third, scores in the CFI, GFI and TLI equal to or above.90 and the RMSEA with a score equal to or less than.10 are interpreted as a low fit. Fourth, the SRMSR with scores less than.08 are accepted as a suitable fit [70,73]. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 7 / 21 3) Reliability. To evaluate the reliability, the internal consistency was analyzed with the Cronbach´s αcoefficient of the three subscales and of the global instrument. The composite reliability (CR) was also evaluated, scores above.7 being interpreted as an appropriate internal consistency [65]. Later, the scale’s reliability was studied to find out the stability and reproducibility over time with the test-retest technique. Thus, 50 subjects filled out the scales at two different measurement moments with fourteen days between both applications [74]. Scores Table 2. Sample descriptione. Andalusia Asturias Catalonia Madrid Murcia Region Galicia Age; M 14.02 16.03 16.57 14.86 12.2 13.92 Participants; n (%) 962 (66.80%) 213 (14.80%) 60 (4.16%) 104 (7.22%) 53 (3.69%) 48 (3.33%) Sex; n (%) Female 519 (53.96%) 86 (40.37%) 22 (36.67%) 83 (79.81%) 31 (58.50%) 30 (62.5%) Male 443 (46.04%) 127 (59.63%) 38 (63.33%) 21 (20.19%) 22 (41.50%) 18 (37.5%) Education level in ESO; n (%) 1ºESO 38 (71.69%) 2ºESO 392 (40.75%) 13 27.08% 3ºESO 435 (45.22%) 78 (36.61%) 93 (89.42%) 35 (72.92%) 4ºESO 135 (14.03%) 135 (63.39%) 60 (100%) 11 (10.58%) 15 (28.31%) Sex by education level in ESO; n (%) 1ºESO F 18 (33.97%) M 20 (37.73%) 2ºESO F 240 (24.95%) 9 (18.75%) M 152 (15.80%) 4 (8.33%) 3ºESO F 213 (22.14%) 26 (12.20%) 38 (36.53%) 20 (41.67%) M 222 (23.07%) 52 (24.42%) 55 (52.89%) 15 (31.25%) 4ºESO F 66 (6.87%) 60 (28.17%) 48 (80%) 13 (24.52%) M 69 (7.17%) 75 (35.21%) 12 (20%) 11 (10.58) 2 (3.78%) Centers with YEE 6 2 2 1 2 2 Centers studied with YEE, n (%) 4 (66.66%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%) Type of educational center Public NA NA NA NA NA NA Private NA NA NA NA NA NA Supported with public funds 4 (100%) 1 (100%) 2 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) Educational strategies for entrepreneurship Specific General Isolated initiatives Isolated initiatives General Specific Notes. a ESO (Educacio ´n Secundaria Obligatoria-Compulsory Secondary Education). b EJE (Empresa Joven Europea-Young European Enterprise). c In Spain educational centres and students participate voluntarily in entrepreneurial education programs. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903.t002 PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 8 / 21 above.75 were considered good in the interpretation of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) [75,76]. 4) External Validity. The validity of the scale has been carried out via the analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent validity was evaluated by means of the Composite Reliability Index (CRI) and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), which provide information about the amount of variance explained of the construct for each of its indicators; the reference values must be �.70 and �.50, respectively [77]. The Fornell and Larcker [77] method was used to find out the discriminant validity because of its sensitivity. Here it is proposed that the discriminant validity is established when the AVE is greater than the square root of the correlations between each factor and the rest of the latent variables. The FACTOR 10.4 [78]; EQS 6.2 [79]; Smart PLS 2.0 M3 [80] and the SPSS 23.0 [81] were used of the data analysis. Procedure The educational centers which had the possibility of choosing were informed about carrying out the research. Next, the directors and coordinators of the YEE who accepted to be part of the study gave their consent via a signed agreement. This study was implemented in the weekly hours corresponding to the tutorial hours of each course. In the participating educational centers, the directors informed the parents and the legal tutors, all families provided their written informed consent before starting this investigation. Once the participation of the educational centers was confirmed, the researchers agreed with the directors a specific date to visit the center and hand out the scale. The data collection in the educational centers was done between May 15th and July 15th 2018. The research team presented the fulfillment regulations and counseled the participants when they had doubts about filling out the scale. The aim of the investigation was explained to the students and anonymous participation in the data treatment was obtained. The tutors were present at all times. The scale was presented online [82] and was filled out in the computer classrooms in a 60-minute session. Ethical declaration This investigation was approved and reviewed, including ethical aspects, by committee of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain, EDU2013-42936-P). Results Qualitative results 1) Theoretical foundations and generation of items. 237 research works were identified in the bibliographic search. 8 articles were excluded due to duplications and 201 articles were eliminated, as they were studies related with non-formal education (an exclusion criterion). Hence, on the expert judgment 28 studies were evaluated (Fig 1). The degree of agreement concerning the content analysis among the experts in the Fleiss’ Kappa index [47] was K = .79, considered as acceptable [83,84]. Basing ourselves on the literature reviewed about the conceptualization, composition and evaluation of entrepreneurship competency, he progressive model of entrepreneurship education in the EU countries [85], and the levels defined in the “EntreComp Proggresion Model” of the European Framework for Entrepreneurial Competence [86], a conceptual base was created to do the qualitative study with detailed interviews to expert teachers (8) and students (12). The systematic review of the bibliography, along with the data extracted from the detailed interviews with both groups of participants, enabled the research team to, on the one hand, configure the Basic Scale of PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 9 / 21 Conclusion The results of the study indicate that the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education has good psychometric properties. Centered on entrepreneurial competency, this Scale aims to offset the current lack of validated instruments in the basic levels of formal education (S3 and S4 Files). It is also useful for future researches related with the training of entrepreneurial competencies within the school system, as well as for the design and development of innovative entrepreneurial practices which mean to explore new forms of business education, including a fundamental range of business activities. Supporting information S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist. (PDF) S1 File. Interview guides in English version. (DOC) S2 File. Interview guides in Spanish version. (DOC) S3 File. Basic Scale Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education Students (BSEC)- Spanish version. (DOC) S4 File. Basic Scale Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education Students (BSEC)- English version. (DOC) Author Contributions Conceptualization: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Data curation: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Formal analysis: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Funding acquisition: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Investigation: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Methodology: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Project administration: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Resources: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Software: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro- Ferna ´ndez. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 16 / 21 Supervision: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Validation: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Visualization: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Writing – original draft: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. Writing – review & editing: Antonio Ramo ´n Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez, Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Elisabet Montoro-Ferna ´ndez. References 1. Stiglitz JE, Greenwald BC. Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development and Social Progress. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014. 2. Barnard A, Pittz T, Vanevenhoven J. Entrepreneurship education in U.S. community colleges: A review and analysis. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2019; 26(2): 2–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED- 06-2018-0178 3. Gachino CG, Worku GB. Learning in higher education: Towards knowledge, skills and competency acquisition. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2019; 33(7): 7–1770. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-0303 4. Martin BC, McNally JJ, Kay MJ. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J Bus Ventur. 2013; 28(2): 2–224. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002 5. Unger JM, Rauch A, Frese M, Rosenbusch N. Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A metaanalytical review. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011; 26(3): 3–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004 6. Order ECD/ 65/2015, of January 9, describing the relationships between the competences, content and evaluation criteria of primary education, compulsory secondary education and high school. (BOE, Official State Bulletin, number 25, of 29-01-2015). 7. Mitchelmore S, Rowley J. Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and development agenda. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 2010; 16(2): 2–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13552551011026995 8. Mehta A, Yoon E, Kulkarni N, Finch D. An exploratory study of entrepreneurship education in multidisciplinary and multicultural environment. Res. Econ. 2000; 54(1): 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1006/reec. 1999.0225 9. Menke C. Unravelling entrepreneurial competencies and their relation to entrepreneurial intent. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018; 10(6): 6–687. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.095304 10. Rippa P, Ponsiglione C, Bocanet A, Capaldo G, Zollo G. Do new ventures explore, exploit of both? A case-based analysis of six innovative Italian sturp-ups. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 2019; 25 (7): 7–1536. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2018-0817 11. Al Mamun A, Fazal SA. Effect of entrepreneurial orientation on competences and micro-enterprise performance. APJIE. 2018; 12(3): 3–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-05-2018-0033 12. Kadam R, Rao S, Abdul WK, Jabeen SS. Impact of cultural intelligence on SME performance. The mediating effect of entrepreneurial orientation. JOEPP. 2019; 6(3): 3–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JOEPP-12-2018-0101 13. Wang SM, Yueh HP, Wen PC. How the New Type of Entrepreneurship Education Complements the Traditional One in Developing Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention. Front. Psychol. 2019; 10: 2048. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02048 PMID: 31572260 14. Fey THC, Ahmad NH, Ramayah T. Entrepeneur education: does prior experience matter? J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2012; 15: 65–82. 15. Vanevenhoven J, Liguori EW. The impact of entrepreneurship education: introducing the entrepreneurship education project. J. Small Bus. Strategy. 2013; 51(3): 3–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jsbm.12026 16. Patel PC, Ganzach Y. Returns to balance in cognitive skills for the self-employed: evidence from 18 countries. Small. Bus. Econ. 2019; 52(1): 1–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0018-4 PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 17 / 21 17. Samad NA, Ahmad WMRW, Sern LC, Harun H, Awang H, Noor SNFM. Exploring domains and elements for behavioral competency and employability skills. JTET. 2018; 10(1): 1–90. 18. Buzady Z, Almeida F. FLIGBY-A Serious Game Tool to Enhance Motivation and Competencies in Entrepreneurship. Informatics. 2019; 6(27): 27–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6030027 19. Kassean H, Vanevenhoven J, Liguori E, Winkel DE. Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection real-world experience and action. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 2015; 21(5): 5–708. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0123 20. Dickson PH, Solomon GT, Weaver KM. Entrepeneurial selection and success: does education matter? J. Small. Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2008; 15(2): 2–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871655 21. Machi L, McEvoy B. The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; 2016. 22. Pittaway L, Cope J. Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. ISBJ. 2007; 25 (5): 5–510. 23. Lackeus M, Savetun C. Assessing the Impact of Enterprise Education in Three Leading Swedish Compulsory Schools. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019; 57 (Special Issue, Supplement 1): 33–59. https://doi. org/10.1111/jsbm.12497 24. Dinning T. Articulating entrepreneurial competencies in the undergraduate curricular. Educ. Train. 2019; 61(4): 4–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2018-0197 25. Choi M, Park E. The effects of youth education on entrepreneurship. International Information Institute (Tokyo). 2015; 18(5): 5–1990. 26. Liña ´n F, Ceresia F, Bernal A. Who intends to enroll in intrepreneurship education? Entrepreneurial self-identity as a precursor. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. 2018; 1(3): 3–242. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2515127418780491 27. Fayolle A, Gailly B. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2008; 32(7): 7–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838 28. Fayolle A. (editor) A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2018. 29. Chell E. Review of skill and the entrepreneurial process. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 2013; 19 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551311299233 30. Brophy M, Kiely T. Competencies: A new sector. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2002; 26(2/3/4): 165–276. https:// doi.org/10.1108/03090590210422049 31. Vargas-Halabi T, Mora-Esquivel R, Siles B. Intrapreneurial competencies: development and validation of a measurement scale. EJM BE. 2017; 26(1): 1–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006 32. Tolentino LR, Sedoglavich V, Lu VN, Garcı ´a PRJM, Restubog SLD. The role of career adaptability in predicting entrepreneurial intentions: A moderated mediation model. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2014; 85 (3): 3–412. https://doi.org/10-1016/j.jub.2014.09.002 33. Nab J, Oost H, Pilot A, van Keulen H. Measurement of the Ability of Science Students to Recognize Business Opportunities. In: Marriot N, editor. European Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Winchester, UK: Winchester University; 2008. pp. 189–196. 34. Hazudin SF, Kader M, Tarmuji NH, Ishak M. Ali R. Discovering Small Business Start up Motives, Success Factors and Barriers: A Gender Analysis. In: Sanusi ZM, Zakaria NB, Othman AA, Musirin I, Dahlan JM, editors. BookSeries: Procedia Economics and Finance. 31, 436-443. https://doi.org/10-1016/ S2212-5671(15)01218-6 35. Chandler GN, Jansen E. The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1992; 7(3): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(92)90028-P 36. Bird B. Towards a theory of entrepreneurial competency. In: Katz J, Corbet AC, editors. Seminal Ideas for the Next Twenty-Five Years of Advances (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 21). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2019. pp.115–131. 37. Van der Heijden B.I.J.M. The development and psychometric evaluation of a multidimensional instrument of professional expertise. High Abil. Stud. 2000; 11: 9–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/713669175 38. Man T, Lau T. Entrepreneurial competencies of SME owner/managers in the Hong Kong services sector: a qualitative analysis. J. Enterprising Cult. 2000; 8(3): 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218495800000139 39. Markman GD, Balkin DB, Baron RA. Inventors and new venture formation: the effects of general selfefficacy and regretful thinking. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2002; 27(2): 2–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540- 8520.00009 40. Smith B, Morse E. Entrepreneurial Competencies: Literature Review and Best Practices, Small Business Policy Branch, Industry Canada. Ottawa: ON; 2005. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 18 / 21 41. Kyndt E, Baert H. Entrepreneurial competencies: Assessment and predictive value for entrepreneurship. J. Vocat. Behav. 2015; 90: 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.002 42. Bernal-Guerrero A, Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez AR, Montoro-Ferna ´ndez E. Basic business knowledge scale for secondary education students. Development and validation with Spanish teenagers. PLoS One. 2020; 15(7), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235681 PMID: 32634821 43. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018. 44. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses:The PRISMA Statement. PLoSMed. 2009; 6(7): 1–6. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 45. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analy- sis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046- 4053-4-1 PMID: 25554246 46. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 2–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 47. Fleiss JL, Cohen J, Everitt BS. Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. Psychol Bull. 1969; 72(5): 5–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028106 48. Hallgren KA. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data. An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012; 8(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023 PMID: 22833776 49. Escobar-Pe ´rez J, Cuervo-Martı ´nez A. Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximacio ´n a su utilizacio ´n. Avances en Medicio ´n. 2008; 6: 27–36. 50. Lannoy A. L’utilisation du judgement d’experts en su ˆrete ´de fonctionnement. Paris: Tec & Doc Lavoisier; 2001. 51. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio: Revisiting the Original Methods of Calculation. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2014; 47(1): 1–86. 52. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975; 28: 563–575. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x 53. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. RINAH. 2006; 29: 489–497. PMID: 16977646 54. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity? Appraisal and Recommendations. RINAH. 2007; 30: 459–467. PMID: 17654487 55. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992; 5: 194– 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4 56. Cowan J. The potential of cognitive think-aloud protocols for educational action-research. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2019; 20(3): 3–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735614 57. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal Reports as data. Psychol. Rev. 1980; 87(3): 3–251. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0033-295X.87.3.215 58. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1984. 59. Gu P. To code or not to code: Dilemmas in analysing think-aloud protocols in learning strategies research. System. 2014; 43(1): 1–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.011 60. Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ. J. 2003; 12(2): 2–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 61. European Commission. Entrepreneurship education in Europe: fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. In: Final Proceedings of the Conference on Entrepreneurship Education in Oslo. 2006. [Cited 2020 October 14]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/ entrepreneurship-education-europe-fostering-entrepreneurial-mindsets-through-education-anden. 62. Diego I, Vega JA. La educacio ´n para el emprendimiento en el sistema educativo español. Año 2015. Estudio RediE. Madrid: MEC; 2015. 63. Izquierdo I, Olea J, Abad FC. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema. 2014; 23(1): 1–400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349 PMID: 25069561 64. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale Development Research: Acontent Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. TCP. 2006; 6(34): 34–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127 65. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 19 / 21 66. Flora DB, LaBrish C, Chalmers RP. Old and new ideas for data screening and assumption testing for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Front Psycho. 2012; 3(55), 1–21. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2012.00055 PMID: 22403561 67. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. 68. Courtney MGR, Gordon M. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: Using the SPSS R- Menu v2.0 to make more judicious estimations. Pract. Assess. Res. Evaluation. 2013; 18(8): 8–14. https://doi.org/10.2147/JHL.S35483 69. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2015. 70. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Black WC, Multivariate data analysis. 8nd ed. Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA; 2018. 71. Hoyle R. Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications. London: Sage; 1995. 72. Valera J, Rial A, Garcı ´a E. Presentacio ´n de una escala de satisfaccio ´n con los servicios sanitarios de atencio ´n primaria. Psicothema. 2003; 15(4): 656–661. 73. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999; 6(1): 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10705519909540118 74. Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Diseño de la investigacio ´n clı ´nica un enfoque epidemiolo ´gico. Barcelona: Ediciones Doyma, S.A.; 1993. 75. Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep. 1966; 19: 3– 11. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1966.19.1.3 PMID: 5942109 76. Terry KK, Mae YL. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun; 15(2): 2–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 77. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981; 18(1): 1–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 78. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2006; 38(1): 1–91. https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03192753 79. Bentler PM. EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Mulivariate Software, Inc; 2006. 80. Chin WW. PLS-Graph. Version 3.00. build 1060. Texas: University of Houston; 2004. 81. IBM. SPSS statistics for Windows. Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM; 2012. 82. Drasgow F, editor. Technology and testing. Nueva York: Routledge; 2016. 83. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1991. 84. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 1–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 PMID: 843571 85. McCoshan A, Lloyd P, Blakemore M, Gluck D, Betts J, Lepropre M, et al. Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in Entrepreneurship Education. Report and Evaluation of the Pilot Action High Level Reflection Panels on Entrepreneurship Education initiated by DG Enterprise and Industry and DG Education and Culture. 2010. [cited 2020 November 14]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/policies/sme/promotingentrepreneurship/educationtrainingentrepreneurship/ reflectionpanels/files/entreducatinpanelen.pdf. 86. Bacigalupo M, Kampylis P, Punie Y, van den Brande G. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union; 2016. 87. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014; 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop. 12046 PMID: 24844115 88. Muñiz J. Introduccio ´n a la Psicometrı ´a. Teorı ´a cla ´sica y TRI. Madrid: Pira ´mide; 2018. 89. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res. 2006; 99(6): 6–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/ JOER.99.6.323-338 90. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York and London: The Guilford Press; 2016. 91. Nunnally J. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. 92. Hair J, Hult G, Ringle C, Sarstedt M, Gudergan S. Advanced issues in Partial least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Los Angeles: Sage; 2017. PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 20 / 21 93. Hanushek E, Woessmann L. The role of cognitive skills in economic development. J. Econ. Lit. 2008; 46(3): 3–668. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.3.607 94. Bernal A. Competencia emprendedora e identidad personal. Una investigacio ´n exploratoria con estudiantes de Educacio ´n Secundaria Obligatoria. Rev. de Educ. 2014; 363: 384–411. https://doi.org/10. 4438/1988-592X-Re-2012-363-192 95. Martin BC, McNally JJ, Kay MJ. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013; 28(2): 2–224. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002 96. Fayolle A, Gailly B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015; 53(1): 1–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jsbm.12065 97. Jayawama D, Jones O, Macpherson A. Becoming an entrepreneur: the unexplored role of childhood and adolescent human capital. In: Rae D, Wang C.L, editors. Entrepeneurial Learning: New Perspectives in Research, Education and Practice. London-New York: Routledge; 2015. pp. 45–72 98. Mendez MJ, Vollrath DA, Ritter L. I and We: Does Identity Explain Undergraduates´ Ethical Intentions? J. Bus. Ethics Educ. 2018; 15: 75–98. https://doi.org/10.5840/jbee2018155 99. Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D. The sustainable development goals and business. IJSRM. 2016; 5(2): 2–48. 100. Lacke ´us M. Entrepreneurship in education–What, why, when, how. Paris: OECD. [cited 2020 April 2]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf 101. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. 102. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Bustamante RM, Nelson JA. Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2010; 4(1): 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809355805 103. Mitchelmore S, Rowley J. Entrepreneurial competencies: A literature and development agenda. International. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 2010; 16(2): 2–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13552551011026995 104. Palacios-Marque ´s D, Guijarro M, Martı´M, Alguacil MP. Social entrepreneurship and organizational performance: A study of the mediating role of distinctive competencies in marketing. J. Bus. Res. 2019; 101: 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.004 105. Davies P, Syed F, Appleyard L. Secondary School Students’ Understanding of the Financial System In: Wuttke E, Seifried J, Schumann S, editors. Economic Competence and Financial Literacy of Young Adults: Status and Challenges. Opladen-Berlin-Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich; 2016. pp. 45-72. 106. Organic Law 8/2013, of December 9, for the improvement of quality educational. (BOE, Official State Bulletin, number 295, of 10-12-2013). 107. Sa ´nchez JC. The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013; 51(3): 3–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12025 PLOS ONE Construction and validation of the Basic Scale of Entrepreneurial Competencies for Secondary Education level PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 April 15, 2021 21 / 21