Page 53

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

evaluate whether it was appropriate to use the factor analysis, every run of the factor analysis procedure was preceded by a test of sphericity. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant in all instances which led to rejection of the null hypothesis that any of the correlation matrices was an identity matrix (p < .001). The three teacher efficacy factors together accounted for 55.08% of the variation in their component items. Items comprising the three efficacy scales are presented in Table 1 along with descriptive statistics and factor loadings. Based on the cut-offs recommended for orthogonal rotation by Comrey and Lee (1992), 10 out of 16 factor loadings met the criterion for “excellent,” (loading at .71 or higher); 4 met the criterion for “very good” (loading at .64); and one met the criterion for “good” (loading at .55). The commitment to teaching scale accounted for 48.33% of the variation in underlying items with all of the loadings being either “very good” or “excellent” based on Comrey and Lee (1992) criteria. Items comprising the commitment to teaching are presented in Table 2 along with descriptive statistics and factor loadings. The correlations among commitment to teaching and its teacher-context efficacy predictors are shown in Table 3. Teacher efficacy to enlist administrative direction (T1). This scale included 5 items that measured a teacher’s perception of support provided in their work by the school principal. All items comprising this scale were measured on a 1 = “strongly agree” to 4 = “strongly disagree” Likert scale. Item responses were inverted and scaled in such a way that higher scores on this variable were indicative of higher perception of principal support. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was   .86 . Collective efficacy – Teachers’ influence on decision making (T2). This scale included 6 items that measured a teacher’s perception of his or her own influence on administrative decision-making at school. Teachers responded on a 1 = “no influence” to 4 = “a great deal of influence” Likert scale. Higher scores on this variable were indicative of higher perception of involvement in decision-making. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was   .78 . Teacher efficacy for classroom management (T3). This scale included 5 items that measured a teacher’s perception of control in the classroom. All items comprising this scale had the following four response categories: 1 = no control, 2 = minor control, 3 = moderate control, 4 = a great deal of control. Higher scores on this variable were indicative of higher perception of classroom control. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was   .73 . Commitment to teaching (Y). This scale included 4 items that measured a teacher’s perception of their own commitment to teaching. The wording of all items except one (item 349) required inversion of response categories in order for all items to have an identical scale. Two of the items (item 349 and item 350) for this scale had the following four response categories: 1 = strongly agree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3 = 43

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1

Advertisement