Content uploaded by Einar M. Skaalvik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Einar M. Skaalvik
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations
Einar M. Skaalvik
*
, Sidsel Skaalvik
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
article info
Article history:
Received 11 April 2009
Received in revised form
26 August 2009
Accepted 3 November 2009
Keywords:
Teacher self-efficacy
Collective teacher efficacy
Teacher burnout
Teacher job satisfaction
abstract
The purpose of this study was partly to test the factor structure of a recently developed Norwegian scale
for measuring teacher self-efficacy and partly to explore relations between teachers' perception of the
school context, teacher self-efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, teacher burnout, teacher job satisfaction,
and teachers' beliefs that factors external to teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish.
Participants were 2249 Norwegian teachers in elementary school and middle school. The data were
analyzed by means of structural equation modelling using the AMOS 7 program. Teacher self-efficacy,
collective efficacy and two dimensions of burnout were differently related both to school context vari-
ables and to teacher job satisfaction.
Ó2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction and purposes
Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997)avast
number of studieshave shown that students' academic self-efficacy is
predictive of study behaviour as well as academic outcomes (see
Maddux & Gosselin, 2003; Skaalvik & Bong, 2003). During the last
decade the research literature also shows a growing interest in
teacher self-efficacy (e.g., Soodak & Podell, 1996;Wheatley, 2005).
However, a problem with research on teacher self-efficacy is that
there is no common agreement about how the construct should be
conceptualized and how it should be measured. It has been concep-
tualized and measured differently by different researchers (Skaalvik
& Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
One purpose of the study presented in this article was therefore
to test the factor structure of a recently developed Norwegian scale
for measuring teacher self-efficacy. The scale has previously been
tested on smaller samples (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2008)
whereas the present study was based on 2249 teachers. We also
examined relations between individual teacher self-efficacy,
collective teacher efficacy, and external control defined as teachers'
beliefs that factors external to teaching (e.g., students' home
environments) puts limitations to what they can accomplish.
Additionally, we examined relations between teacher self-efficacy
and teacher burnout. Lastly, we explored how teacher self-efficacy
and teacher burnout was related to teachers' perception of the
school context and to their job satisfaction.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Teacher self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is grounded in the theoretical framework of social
cognitive theory emphasizing the evolvement and exercise of
human agency ethat people can exercise some influence over
what they do (Bandura, 2006a). Bandura (2006a) maintains that
in this conception, people are self-organizing, proactive, self-
regulating, and self-reflecting. From this perspective, self-efficacy
affects one's goals and behaviours and is influenced by one's actions
and conditions in the environment (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Effi-
cacy beliefs determine how environmental opportunities and
impediments are perceived (Bandura, 2006a) and affect choice
of activities, how much effort is expended on an activity, and
how long people will persevere when confronting obstacles
(Pajares, 1997).
Based on social cognitive theory teacher self-efficacy may be
conceptualized as individual teachers' beliefs in their own ability to
plan, organize, and carry out activities that are required to attain
given educational goals. Following this conceptualization Bandura's
(1997, 2006b) recommendation for item construction should be
followed when measuring teacher self-efficacy: (a) because self-
efficacy is concerned with perceived capability the items should
contain verbs like “can”or “be able to”in order to make clear that
the items ask for mastery expectations because of personal
competence, (b) the object in each statement should be “I”since the
aim is to assess each teacher's subjective belief about his or her own
capability, and (c) each item should contain a barrier. The latter
point is underlined by Bandura (1997, p. 42) stating that “If there
*Corresponding author. Tel.: þ47 73591954; fax: þ47 73591890.
E-mail address: einar.skaalvik@svt.ntnu.no (E.M. Skaalvik).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
0742-051X/$ esee front matter Ó2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069
are no obstacles to surmount, the activity is easy to perform, and
everyone has uniformly high perceived self-efficacy for it.”
Based on Bandura's definition of self-efficacy several instru-
ments have been developed to measure (personal) teacher self-
efficacy. Most of these instruments either do not measure teacher
self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct, do not reflect the
variety of tasks and demands that are put upon a teacher, or do not
follow Bandura's recommendation for item construction (for an
overview, see Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Despite differences in
item construction teacher self-efficacy has been shown to predict
teachers goals and aspirations (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002), teachers'
attitudes towards innovation and change (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop,
1992; Guskey, 1988), teachers' tendency to refer difficult students
to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988; Soodak & Podell, 1993),
teachers' use of teaching strategies (Allinder, 1994; Woolfolk, Ros-
off, & Hoy, 1990), and the likelihood that teachers stay in the
teaching profession (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991;
Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982).
Based on an analysis of role expectations in Norwegian schools
Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) recently developed a multidimen-
sional 24-item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES)
measuring six dimensions by four items each. The dimensions were
self-efficacy for instruction, adapting education to individual
students' needs, motivating students, keeping discipline, cooper-
ating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and
challenges (see Method). The scale was constructed according to
Bandura's recommendations. One purpose of the present study was
to test the factor structure of the NTSES on a large sample of
Norwegian teachers.
2.2. Perceived collective teacher efficacy and external control
In addition to personal efficacy expectations the individual
teacher may also have beliefs both about the ability of the team and
of the faculty of teachers at the school to execute courses of action
required to produce given attainments. Such beliefs represent
perceived collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard &
Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). Unfortu-
nately, few studies are done exploring relations between perceived
collective efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy. The few
available studies suggest moderate positive relations both between
perceived collective efficacy and individual teacher self-efficacy
(Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
On theoretical ground one may argue that it is reasonable to
predict that perceived collective efficacy affects individual teacher
self-efficacy.Schools characterized by high collective teacher effi-
cacy set challenging goals and are persistent in their effort to meet
these goals. Goddard et al. (2004) argue that these high expecta-
tions create a normative press that encourage all teachers to do
what it takes to excel and discourage them from giving up when
faced with difficult situations. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2008)
proposed that such a cultural context promotes students' achieve-
ments which again enhance individual teachers' sense of self-effi-
cacy. We therefore expect that individual teacher self-efficacy and
collective teacher efficacy are positively related. However, it is not
obvious that being part of a strong team always increases self-effi-
cacy for all team members. Based on social comparison theory (e.g.,
Marsh & Craven, 2000) one may expect that a teacher who perceive
his or her teaching ability to be lower than the ability of other
teachers at school may loose confidence regarding his or her own
teaching ability. Hence, we conceptualize individual teacher self-
efficacy and collective teacher efficacy as different but correlated
constructs.
Based on Rotter's (1966) distinction between external and
internal control teacher self-efficacy has been assumed to increase if
teachers believe that the students' achievement and behaviour can
be influenced by education (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Rose & Med-
way,1981). Accordingly, teacher self-efficacy has also been assumed
to decrease if teachers' believe that factors externaltoteaching(e.g.,
students' abilities and home environments) are more important to
the students' learning than the influence that a teacher may have.
These assumptions has led some researchers to measure teachers'
general beliefs about limitations to what can be achieved through
education, which is often referred to as “teaching efficacy”(e.g.,
Soodak & Podell, 1996). In order to emphasize that this is a measure
of the degree to which teachers believe that factors external to their
teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish, we will refer
to it as “external control”(see also Ho & Hau, 2004). It may also be
conceptualized as a general measure of educational pessimism or
optimism. Because external control may be confounded with
teacher self-efficacy it is important to test how strongly there
constructs are related and if they relate differently to school context
variables and to teacher job satisfaction. One of the purposes of this
study was to test relations between individual teacher self-efficacy,
perceived collective efficacy, and external control.
2.3. Teacher burnout
Burnout is conceptualized as resulting from long term occupa-
tional stress, particularly among human service workers, including
teachers (Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov, 2003). Although the reasons
may differ, all teachers mayexperience stress in their work (Jennett
et al., 2003). Most teachers cope successfully with such stress.
However, burnout may be the endpoint of coping unsuccessfully
with chronic stress (Jennett et al., 2003).
Burnout is often described as a syndrome of emotional exhaus-
tion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment
(Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). Maslach
et al. (1996) identify emotional exhaustion as the key aspect of
burnout whereas Pines and Aronson (1988) include physical
exhaustion characterized by low energy and chronic fatigue. In
teacher burnout depersonalization refers to negative, cynical atti-
tudes and feelings about ones students or colleagues. Reduced
personal accomplishment refers to a tendency that teachers eval-
uate themselves negatively as well as a general feeling that they are
no longer doing a meaningful and important job. Research indicates
that the three dimensions of burnout cannot be added up to a single
measure (Byrne, 1994; Lee & Ashforth, 1996) and Schaufeli and
Salanova (2007) regard emotional exhaustion and depersonaliza-
tion as the central elements of burnout. The analysis of burnout in
this study is limited to the latter two dimensions.
Studies in different cultures show that measures of teacher
burnout predict both subjective and objective health as well as
teachers' motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, Hakanen,
Bakker, and Schaufeli (2006) showed that both emotional exhaus-
tion and depersonalization correlated negatively with self-rated
health as well as work ability among Finnish teachers. Available
research also shows a negative relation between burnout and
motivation (Hakanen et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).
Moreover, Leung and Lee (2006) found, in a study of teachers in
Hong Kong, that the exhaustion dimension of burnout predicted
teachers' intentions of leaving the profession.
Teacher burnout has been shown to be moderately related to
teacher self-efficacy (Chwalisz, Altmaier, & Russell, 1992; Evers,
Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002; Friedman & Farber,1992). However, using
structural equation modelling Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) found
a strong relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout.
There is less agreement about how to explain the relation between
teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout (see for instance Brouw-
ers & Tomic, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069106 0
In this study we will examine relations between teacher self-
efficacy and teacher burnout by means of confirmatory factor
analysis.
2.4. Teacher job satisfaction
Job satisfaction may be defined as positive or negative evalua-
tive judgments people make about their job (see Weiss, 2002).
Hence, we conceptualize job satisfaction as an affective reaction to
one's work. Nevertheless, there is no generally agreed upon defi-
nition of teacher job satisfaction. It is an ambiguous term (Evans,
1997) and has been studied both as an overall construct and as
teachers' satisfaction with different circumstances. A problem with
measuring teachers' satisfaction with different circumstances and
letting those measures indicate overall job satisfaction, is that
different circumstances may be important to different teachers.
Therefore, the problem with such measures is that they overlook
the fact that the impact of different circumstances on overall job
satisfaction is dependent on how important each of the circum-
stances is to the individual teacher. We therefore maintain that
satisfaction with concrete circumstances should not be used as
a measure of teachers' overall job satisfaction.
Several studies indicate that job satisfaction is one of the most
important factors influencing teachers' relations to students (Van
den Berg, 2002), teachers' enthusiasm (Chen, 2007) as well as
teacher retention (Ingersoll, 2001). Moreover, as shown above,
studies in different cultures show that measures of teacher burnout
predict teachers' motivation and job satisfaction (e.g., Hakanen
et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007).
2.5. Perceived school context
One of the purposes of this study was to explore relations
between teachers' perception of school context variables and
teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. The school context vari-
ables examined in this study were discipline problems, time pres-
sure, relations to parents, autonomy, and supervisory support.
Recent research shows that teachers experience an acceleration of
working speed as well as an increasing number of work assignments,
resulting in less time for rest and recovery (Hargreaves, 2003;
Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2006). Furthermore, time pressure and work
overload have been found to correlate positively with teacher
burnout (Hakanen et al., 2006; Kokkinos, 2007; Peeters & Rutte,
2005; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2008). Disci-
pline problems or disruptive student behaviour is also recognized as
a serious work-related stressor, and significant correlations have
been found between discipline problems and measures of burnout
(Hakanen et. al., 2006; Kokkinos, 2007). Research also indicates that
social climate and social support are negatively related to burnout
(Hakanen et al., 2006; Leung & Lee, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Furthermore, teachers are dependent on cooperating with parents
and need positive relations to them. Therefore, experiencing that
one is not trusted by the parents, that they are critical, or that
cooperating with parents are difficult may be a serious strain on
teachers with negative impact on self-efficacy and burnout. It may
increase anxiety, create a feeling thatone is not doing a good job, and
promote a need for self-protection. In a study of German teachers
Stoeber and Rennert (2008) found that pressure and demands from
parents positively predicted teacher burnout. According to the self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) autonomy is
considered a basic psychological need. Research reveals that the
degree of autonomy perceived by teachers is indicative of their job
satisfaction (Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). However, research indi-
cates an international tendency that teacher's autonomy is dimin-
ishing (Ballet, Kelchtermans, & Loughran, 2006).
3. Method
3.1. Participants and procedure
Participants in this study were 2249 teachers from 113
elementary schools and middle schools (1ste10th grade) in
Norway. Norway was divided into five geographical regions. In each
region between 20 and 25 schools were drawn from one large city,
one smaller town and two rural areas by a stratified random
procedure. At each school a particular time was set aside for all
teachers to respond to the questionnaire and the teachers were
instructed not to discuss the items or to collaborate. All teachers
who were present at the school at the time of the data collection
participated in the study.
The sample consisted of 68% females. The age of the teachers
varied from young teachers (the youngest was 24 years old) to
teachers close to retirement (the oldest was 69 years). The mean
age was 45 years. The average number of years in the teaching
profession was 16. The schools varied with respect to size from
schools with 5 teachers to schools with 60 teachers with an average
of 35. The average number of students in the schools was 352.
About half of the teachers in the sample (45%) worked in elemen-
tary schools (grade 1e7), whereas 37% worked in middle schools
(grade 8e10) and 18% in combined elementary schools and middle
schools. Forty-five percent of the teachers worked in schools with
traditional classes of students whereas 47% worked in schools
where a team of teachers shared responsibility for all students at
a given grade level.
3.2. Instruments
3.2.1. Teacher self-efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy was measured by a multidimensional 24-
item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007). The scale had six dimensions measured by four
items each. The dimensions were: instruction, adapting education to
individual students' needs, motivating students, keeping discipline,
cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes
and challenges. The scale was constructed according to Bandura's
recommendations for item construction, including barriers in the
item formulations. Responses were given on a 7-point scale from
“Not certain at all”(1) to “Absolutely certain”(7). The six sub-scales
are extensively described elsewhere (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).
Examples of items are “How certain are you that you can provide
realistic challenge for all students even in mixed ability classes?”
(adapting education to individual needs), and “How certain are you
that you can wake the desire to learn even among the lowest-
achieving students?”(motivating students). Cronbach's alphas for
the scales were .83, .90, .83, .91, .77, and .81, respectively.
3.2.2. Perceived collective teacher efficacy
Perceived collective teacher efficacy was measured by a seven-
item scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). The items focussed on
instruction, motivation, controlling student behaviour, addressing
students' needs, and creating a safe environment. In order to mark
the difference from items in the teacher self-efficacy scale all items
focussed on what “we”or “teachers at this school”were able to do.
An example of an item is: “As teachers of this school we can get
even the most difficult students engaged in their schoolwork.”
Responses were given on a 6-point scale from “False”(1) to “True”
(6). Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .85.
3.2.3. External control
External control was measured by a five-item scale (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007). Each item stated a limitation to what can be
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 1061
achieved through education concerning students' learning,
achievement, motivation, or behaviour. The limitations were
described as students' abilities or home environment. An example
of an item is: “How much students can learn in school is primarily
determined by their abilities.”Responses were given on a 6-point
scale from “False”(1) to “True”(6). Cronbach's alpha for the scale
was .78.
3.2.4. Teacher burnout
According to Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) the central elements
of burnout are emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. These
two dimensions of teacher burnout were measured by means of
eight modified items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory e
Educators Survey (MBI: Maslach et al., 1996). Participants rated
statements indicating that their work makes them feel emotionally
drained or exhausted (emotional exhaustion) and that they do not
care about some students (depersonalization). Responses in the
original scale are given on a 7-point scale from “Never”(0) to “Every
day”(6). In our modification responses were given on a 6-point
scale from “False”(1) to “True”(6). The response scale was modified
because several teachers in a previous study (Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2007) indicated that they found the statements difficult to answer
on a scale ranging from “Never”to “Every day”. Cronbach's alphas
for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were .88 and .70.
3.2.5. Teacher job satisfaction
As pointed out in the introduction we maintain that satisfaction
with concrete circumstances should not be used as a measure of
teachers' overall job satisfaction. Consequently, we measured
teachers' overall job satisfaction or job enjoyment by means of
three items: (a) “All things considered how much do you enjoy
working as a teacher?”Responses were given on a 5-point scale
ranging from “Not at all”to “Very much”. (b) “If you could choose
occupation today, would you choose to be a teacher?”Responses
were given on a 5-point scale ranging from “No, definitely not”to
“Yes, without a doubt”, and (c) “Have you ever thought about
leaving the teaching profession?”Responses were given on a 5-
point scale ranging from “All the time”to “Never”. Cronbach's alpha
for the 3-item scale was .71.
3.2.6. Perceived school context
We measured five dimensions of teachers' perception of the
school context: (a) discipline problems and disrupted student
behaviour (discipline), (b) teachers' feeling of having a heavy
workload, having to prepare for teaching in the evenings and
weekends, and having a hectic school-day with little time for rest
and recovery (time pressure), (c) teachers' experience of being
trusted by the parents, of communicating well with parents, and
that cooperation with parents were easyand adaptive (parents), (d)
teachers' feeling of having autonomy regarding choice of teaching
methods, educational strategies and content within the limit set by
the national curriculum (autonomy), and (e) teachers' feeling of
having cognitive and emotional support from the school leader-
ship, that they could ask the school leadership for advise, and that
their relation to the school leadership was one of mutual trust and
respect (supervisory support).
Each of the fivecontextual variables was measured by three items.
Examples of items are: “My teaching is often disrupted by students
who lack discipline”(discipline) “Preparationfor teaching must often
be done after working hours”(time pressure), “I feel that the parents
have trust in my teaching”(parents), “In my daily teaching I am free
to choose teaching methods and strategies”(autonomy), and “In
educational mattersI can always seek helpand advice from the school
leadership”(supervisory support). Responses were givenon a 6-point
scale from “False”(1) to “True”(6). The responses were scored so that
high scores indicated discipline problems, strong feeling of supervi-
sory support, high time pressure, positive relations to parents,
and high degree of autonomy. Cronbach's alphas for discipline, time
pressure, parents, autonomy, and supervisory support were: .80, .71,
.81, .73, and .83, respectively.
3.3. Data analysis
Data were analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis and
structural equation modelling (SEM) using the AMOS 7 program.
SEM is a statistical methodology that takes a confirmatory approach
to the analysis (Byrne, 2001). In this approach a hypothesized model
of relations between variables is tested statistically to determine the
extent to which it is consistent with the data, which is referred to as
the goodness of fit. If the goodness of fitis adequate it supports the
plausibility of the relations among the variables. To assess model fit,
we used well-established indices such as CFI, IFI, TLI, and RMSEA as
well as the chi-square test statistics. For the CFI, IFI, and TLI indices,
values greater than .90 are typically considered acceptable and
values greater that .95 indicate good fit to the data (Bollen, 1989;
Byrne, 2001;Hu & Bentler, 1999). For well specified models, an
RMSEA of .06 or less reflect a good fit(Hu & Bentler, 1999).
4. Results
4.1. The Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES)
We first tested the factor structure of the 24-item NTSES by
means of exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and
eigenvalues greater than 1. The analysis extracted six factors
consistent with the theoretical model (see description of the six
dimensions in the Method section). These factors explained 60% of
the variance in the equation. The expected factor loadings were
greater than .6 for twenty of the twenty-four items and greater than
.5 for four items. None of the remaining factor loadings were
greater than .3.
We further tested three theoretical models by means of confir-
matory factor analyses. Model 1 defined one primary factor only
and tested if teacher self-efficacy could be treated as a one-
dimensional construct. Model 2 defined six primary factors corre-
sponding to the six theoretical dimensions. Model 3 defined six
primary factors and one second order factor underlying the primary
factors.
Model 1 did not fit the data (
c
2
(248, N¼2249) ¼10 173.00,
CFI ¼.657, IFI ¼.658, TLI ¼.586 and RMSEA ¼.133) whereas both
model 2 and 3 had good fit to the data (
c
2
(233, N¼2249) ¼1469.70,
CFI ¼.957, IFI ¼.957, TLI ¼.945 and RMSEA ¼.049 for model 2 and
c
2
(240, N¼2249) ¼1569.07, CFI ¼.954, IFI ¼.954, TLI ¼.943 and
RMSEA ¼.050 for model 3). The analyses verify previous results
showing that teacher self-efficacy should be treated at a multidi-
mensional construct, but that for research purposes it may be
treated as a latent variable indicated by the six sub-scales. The
second order model is shown in Fig. 1.
4.2. Teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and external control
The next step in the data analysis was to test a model specifying
eight primary factors: six individual teacher self-efficacy factors,
one collective teacher efficacy factor, and one external control
factor (see description in the Method section). This model had
acceptable fit to the data (
c
2
(560, N¼2249) ¼2782.79, CFI ¼.943,
IFI ¼.943, TLI ¼.933 and RMSEA ¼.042). The correlation between
the (individual) self-efficacy factors ranged from .36 to .65 with 14
out of 15 correlations greaterthan .42 and eight correlations greater
than .50 (Table 1).
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069106 2
External control correlated negatively but weakly with both the
six self-efficacy factors and the collective efficacy factor (ranging
from .14 to .24). This result clearly indicates that external control
should be distinguished from both teacher self-efficacy and
perceived collective teacher efficacy. Collective teacher efficacy was
positively but moderately correlated with the six dimensions of
teacher self-efficacy (ranging from .29 to .45). Both these positive
but moderate correlations and the model fit indicate that teacher
self-efficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy should be
conceptualized as different but positively correlated constructs.
4.3. Teacher burnout
We tested two theoretical models of teacher burnout by means
of confirmatory factor analyses. Model 1 defined one primary factor
only whereas model 2 defined two correlated primary factors
(exhaustion and depersonalization). Model 1 did not fit the data (
c
2
(20, N¼2249) ¼1619.53, CFI ¼.780, IFI ¼.780, TLI ¼.604 and
RMSEA ¼.189) whereas model 2 had good fit to the data (
c
2
(19,
N¼2249) ¼186.96, CFI ¼.977, IFI ¼.977, TLI ¼.956 and
RMSEA ¼.063). The correlation between the two primary factors in
model 2 was small (.20). We therefore decided, in the further
analyses, to treat emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as
separate constructs.
4.4. Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout
The relation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout
were explored by means of a confirmatory factor analysis. We
tested a model specifying three correlated latent variables;
a second order teacher self-efficacy variable, and two primary
burnout variables; emotional exhaustion and depersonalization
(Fig. 2). The model had acceptable fit to the data (
c
2
(449,
N¼2249) ¼2345.76, CFI ¼.949, IFI ¼.949, TLI ¼.940 and
RMSEA ¼.043). Teacher self-efficacy correlated negatively with
both emotional exhaustion (.29) and depersonalization (.41).
The two dimensions of teacher burnout were positively, but weakly
correlated (.23).
4.5. Perceived school context
Before we analyzed how teacher self-efficacy and teacher
burnout were related to perceived school context we tested
a measurement model of perceived school context. The model
specified five primary factors (discipline problems, time pressure,
relations to parents, autonomy, and supervisory support) indicated
by three items each (see Method). The model had acceptable fitto
the data (
c
2
(80, N¼2249) ¼520.17, CFI ¼.961, IFI ¼.961, TLI ¼.942
and RMSEA ¼.049). The correlations among the factors were weak
to moderate, ranging from .30 to .50 (Table 2). We should note the
Cooperating
Instruction
Adapting
Motivating
Coping
Self-
efficacy
Discipline
.67
.82
.71
.67
.73
.68
.72
.79
.76
.84
.63
.69
.77
.75
.66
.79
.83
.83
.86
.89
.78
.76
.75
.74
.62
.59
.61
.73
.84
.74
Fig. 1. Second order model of teacher self-efficacy.
Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis of teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and external
control ecorrelations among factors.
Primary factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Instruction e.59 .48 .36 .54 .45 .29 .15
2 Motivating e.65 .59 .52 .47 .42 .24
3 Adapting e.43 .43 .52 .45 .14
4 Discipline e.57 .47 .28 .15
5 Cooperating e.56 .42 .24
6 Coping e.36 .19
7 Collective e.16
8 External e
Note. Instruction ¼self-efficacy for instruction and explanation of subject matter,
Motivating ¼self-efficacy for motivating students, Adapting ¼self-efficacy for
adapting education to individual students' needs, Discipline ¼self-efficacy for
keeping discipline, Cooperating ¼self-efficacy for cooperating with colleagues and
parents, Coping ¼self-efficacy for coping with changes and challenges,
Collective ¼collective teacher efficacy, External ¼External control or the degree to
which teachers believe that factors external to their teaching puts limitations to
what they can accomplish.
Cooperating
Instruction
Adapting
Motivating
Coping
Self-
efficacy
Discipline
.67
.82
.71
.67
.73
.68
Exhaustion
Depersonalization
-.29
-.41
.23
Exh1
Exh2
Exh3
Exh4
Exh5
Dep1
Dep2
Dep3
.81
.42
.80
.69
.74
.85
.80
.77
Fig. 2. Model of relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout.
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis of perceived school context ecorrelations among
factors.
Primary factors 1 2 3 4 5
1 Discipline problems e.36 .23 .09 .02
2 Time pressure e.07 .21 .30
3 Positive relations to parents e.40 .16
4 Autonomy e.50
5 Supervisory support e
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 1063
relatively strong correlation between supervisory support and
teachers' feeling of autonomy.
4.6. Relations with perceived school context
One of the purposes of this study was to test if teacher self-
efficacy and teacher burnout were predicted by school context as
perceived by the teachers. We tested a theoretical model with five
latent school context variables as exogenous variables predicting
three latent variables; teacher self-efficacy, emotional exhaustion,
and depersonalization (Fig. 3). The model had acceptable fit to the
data (
c
2
(997, N¼2249) ¼4764.40, CFI ¼.927, IFI ¼.927, TLI ¼.917
and RMSEA ¼.041). All school context variables were significantly
related to one or more of the endogenous variables. The strongest
predictor of teacher self-efficacy was teachers' relations to parents
(.46), but feeling of autonomy also predicted teacher self-efficacy
positively (.13) and time pressure was negatively related to self-
efficacy (.10). Teachers' relations to parents was also the strongest
predictor of depersonalization (.44) whereas time pressure was
the strongest predictor of emotional exhaustion (.59). Moreover,
discipline problems were weakly, but significantly related to both
emotional exhaustion (.13) and depersonalization (.11).
Because we concluded that both collective teacher efficacy and
external control should be distinguished from teacher self-efficacy
we conducted a separate analysis to explore how these constructs
related to school context variables. We tested a SEM model with
latent school context variables as exogenous variables and external
control and collective teacher efficacy as separate endogenous
variables (Fig. 4). The model had acceptable fit to the data (
c
2
(304,
N¼2249) ¼1651.48, CFI ¼.937, IFI ¼.938, TLI ¼.922 and
RMSEA ¼.044). Fig. 4 shows that external control was not strongly
related to any of the five school context variables although it was
significantly and positively related to discipline problems (.12) and
time pressure (.13) and negatively related to relations to parents
(.11). Collective teacher efficacy was strongly related to supervi-
sory support (.50) and weakly but significantly related to autonomy
(.16) and teachers relations to parents (.17).
4.7. Teacher job satisfaction
Relations with teacher job satisfaction were explored by testing
two SEM models. We first tested a model letting self-efficacy,
collective efficacy, external control, emotional exhaustion, and
depersonalization predict teacher job satisfaction. The five school
context variables were entered as exogenous variables in the
model. This model had marginal fit to the data (
c
2
(1772,
N¼2249) ¼7748.88, CFI ¼.908, IFI ¼.908, TLI ¼.898 and
RMSEA ¼.039). Neither collective efficacy nor external control
were significantly related to teacher job satisfaction (standardized
regression weights ¼.01 and .04, respectively). We therefore
tested a simplified model excluding collective efficacy and external
control (Fig. 5). The model had acceptable fit to the data (
c
2
(1130,
N¼2249) ¼5165.23, CFI ¼.925, IFI ¼.925, TLI ¼.915 and
RMSEA ¼.040). Both teacher self-efficacy and the two dimensions
of teacher burnout were related to teachers' job satisfaction.
Emotional exhaustion was the strongest predictor of job satisfac-
tion (.52), but depersonalization also predicted job satisfaction
negatively (.21) and self-efficacy was predictive of higher job
satisfaction (.17). Both autonomy and time pressure were directly
related to job satisfaction (.24 and .13, respectively) whereas all
school context variables were indirectlyrelated to job satisfaction e
through self-efficacy, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization.
4.8. Brief summary of results
A brief summary of the purposes of the study and the main
results are presented in Table 3.
Discipline
problem
Time
pressure
Relations
parents
Autonomy
Supervisory
support
Self-
efficacy
Emotional
exhaustion
Depersonalization
-.12
-.44
-.10
.13
.59
.46
-.12
-.12
.13
.11
Fig. 3. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, teacher self-
efficacy, and teacher burnout.
Discipline
problem
Time
pressure
Relations
parents
Autonomy
Supervisory
support
External
control
Collective
efficacy
.50
-.05
.13
-.11
.06
.17
.12
-.05
.16
-.03
Fig. 4. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, external
control, and collective teacher efficacy.
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e10691064
5. Discussion
This study supports the conceptualization of teacher self-effi-
cacy as a multidimensional construct and shows that the Norwe-
gian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale may be a useful measure of the
construct. However, the six dimensions of teacher self-efficacy are
relatively strongly correlated, and the analysis verify previous
results of a small scale study indicating that the six sub-scales may
be used as indicators of a latent self-efficacy construct. This makes
the scale particularly useful for research purposes.
The results also indicate that teacher self-efficacy and collective
teacher efficacy should be conceptualized as different, but correlated
constructs. Although teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher
efficacy were positively correlated, these constructs were differently
related to the school context. Teacher self-efficacy was most strongly
related to teachers' relations to parents. Positive relations to
parents predicted that teachers had stronger self-efficacy beliefs.
This indicates that experiencing that one is not trusted by the
parents, that parents are critical, or that cooperating with parents
is difficult reduces the teachers' beliefs in their ability to plan,
organize, and carry out activities that is required to attain given
educational goals. Hence, the results indicate that parents' evalu-
ation of the teaching is an important frame of reference for
teachers' self-evaluation and self-perception.
Although collective teacher efficacy was related both to
teachers' relations to parents and to teacher autonomy it was most
strongly related to supervisory support. Supervisory support was in
this study indicated by items tapping teachers' feeling of having
cognitive and emotional support from the school leadership, that
they could ask the school leadership for advice, and that their
relation to the school leadership was one of mutual trust and
respect. Thus, compared to (individual) teacher self-efficacy
collective teacher efficacy seems to be more dependent on the
functioning of the school leadership or the school principal.
Table 3
Brief summary of purposes and main results.
Purposes Results
Test the factor structure of the 24-item Norwegian Teacher
Self-Efficacy Scale.
A model defining a single teacher self-efficacy factor did not fit the data whereas both
a model defining six primary factors and a model defining six primary factors and a second
order factor had good fit to the data.
Examine relations between individual teacher self-efficacy,
collective teacher efficacy, and external control defined
as teachers' beliefs that factors external to teaching puts
limitations to what they can accomplish.
External control correlated negatively but weakly with both the six self-efficacy factors and
collective efficacy and should be conceptualized as a separate construct.
Collective teacher efficacy was positively but moderately correlated with the six dimensions
of teacher self-efficacy.
Examine relations between teacher self-efficacy and teacher
burnout.
Teacher self-efficacy was negatively related to both dimensions of teacher burnout
(emotional exhaustion and depersonalization)
Explore how teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout is
related to teachers' perception of the school context and
to their job satisfaction.
Relation to parents was the strongest predictor of both teacher self-efficacy and the
depersonalization dimension of burnout, whereas time pressure was the strongest predictor
of emotional exhaustion. Teachers' job satisfaction was strongly related to emotional
exhaustion and weakly, but directly related to self-efficacy, depersonalization, autonomy,
and time pressure. Also, all five school context variables in this study were indirectly related
to job satisfaction, through self-efficacy and burnout.
Discipline
problem
Time
pressure
Relations
parents
Autonomy
Supervisory
support
Self-
efficacy
Emotional
exhaustion
Depersonalization
Job
satisfaction
.11
.13
-.13
-.44
.17
-.52
-.21
-.10
.46
-.12
-.12
.13
.24
.13
.59
Fig. 5. Structural model of relations between perceived school context, teacher self-efficacy, teacher burnout, and teacher job satisfaction.
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 1065
A possible interpretation is that the parents' evaluation of the
teaching is a more important frame of reference for teacher self-
efficacy than for collective efficacy, whereas collective efficacy are
more dependent on perceived opportunities and constraints as
a function of leadership style and framework conditions provided
by the school leadership. For instance, we may speculate that
a supportive school leadership provides norms, goals and values
that are shared by all or most teachers at school. Working towards
the same goals and following the same norms and values may
increase the teachers' beliefs of the ability of the faculty of teachers
at the school to execute courses of action required to produce given
attainments.
External control or teachers' believes that factors external to
their teaching puts limitations to what they can accomplish was
negatively related to both teacher self-efficacy and collective
teacher efficacy. However, the relations were weak. Moreover,
whereas both teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy
were strongly related to (different) school context variables,
external control was not strongly related to any of the school
context variables in this study. These results clearly reveal that
external control should be distinguished from both teacher self-
efficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy. Although external
control may be more strongly related to school context variables
which were not measured in this study, a possible interpretation is
that external control represents more fundamental and stable
attitudes and beliefs, which we may conceptualize as general
educational pessimism or optimism, whereas both self-efficacy and
collective efficacy are more malleable, and thus more affected by
environmental influences. This is an important finding because
external control has been termed “teaching efficacy”, which may be
confounded with teacher self-efficacy.
Following Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) we regard emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization as the central elements of
burnout. In this study we therefore analyzed these two dimen-
sions of teacher burnout. These two dimensions were weakly
correlated confirming previous findings that the two dimensions
cannot be added up to a single measure (see Byrne, 1994). Both
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were negatively
related to teacher self-efficacy. In future research it is therefore
important to design studies to explore causal relations between
teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout. A possible causal inter-
pretation is that low teacher self-efficacy may result in feelings of
burnout (Bandura, 1997; Evers et al., 2002; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2007). For instance, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) argued that low
expectation of classroom management increases occupational
stress, which may increase emotional exhaustion as well as
depersonalization. However, emotional exhaustion may also be
expected to result in lower performance. Since self-efficacy beliefs
are heavily based on experiences, it is also reasonable that teacher
burnout may affect teacher self-efficacy. Consequently, the relation
between teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout is likely
reciprocal.
Emotional exhaustion was most strongly related to time pres-
sure whereas depersonalization was most strongly related to
teachers' relations to parents. In this study time pressure was
defined as teachers' feeling of having a heavy workload, having to
prepare for teaching in the evenings and weekends, and having
a hectic school-day with little time for rest and recovery. Given this
definition it is not surprising that time pressure was related to
emotional exhaustion. It is important to note that although time
pressure was related to emotional exhaustion, it was not signifi-
cantly related to depersonalization. Hence, although emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization are traditionally conceptualized
as the central elements of burnout, the present study indicates that
they are affected by different processes.
Job satisfaction was positively related to teacher self-efficacy
and negatively related to both dimensions of teacher burnout with
emotional exhaustion as the far strongest predictor. Job satisfaction
was also related to autonomy, both directly and indirectly. An
analysis of both direct and indirect relations reveals that autonomy,
time pressure, and teachers' relations to parents stand out as the
most important school contextual variables affecting teachers' job
satisfaction. An unexpected result was that, when controlled for
self-efficacy and burnout, high time pressure was predictive of
higher job satisfaction, although the relation was weak. Even
though the model (see Fig. 5) was designed to let time pressure
predict job satisfaction, we do not believe that high time pressure
affects job satisfaction positively. A possible interpretation is that
those teachers who enjoy teaching the most also put most effort
into the teaching and the preparation for it. These teachers may
therefore also experience the highest time pressure.
In order to understand the psychological processes related to
teacher burnout and teacher self-efficacy, future research should
distinguish between different dimensions of teacher burnout. We
may conceptualize emotional exhaustion and depersonalization as
separate constructs which are influenced by different processes but
which affect each other in a reciprocal manner. Furthermore, both
these constructs and teacher self-efficacy may be shaped by
a reciprocal interplay between the constructs. Longitudinal studies
seem necessary to increase our understanding of these processes.
The results of this study have important practical implications.
One practical implication is that in developmental work in school
one should be particularly concerned with identifying which school
context variables or environmental factors one want to focus on.
The reason for this is that all five school context variables which
were analyzed in this study were significantly related to teachers'
cognitive and emotional responses. Particularly strong relations
were found between time pressure and emotional exhaustion,
between relations to parents and both self-efficacy and deperson-
alization, and between supervisory support and collective efficacy.
Moreover, teacher autonomy was directly related to job satisfaction
as well as to self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion. Thus, the
school context variables were differently related to teachers'
cognitive and emotional responses. Moreover, the school context
variables were weakly correlated. This means that effort to improve
teachers' working condition should be tailored to defined goals and
values.
In accordance with previous research we found a particularly
strong association between time pressure and the emotional
exhaustion dimension of burnout and a substantial negative indi-
rect relation between time pressure and job satisfaction. This is
particularly worrying because recent research shows that teachers
experience an increasing time pressure resulting in less time for
rest and recovery (Hargreaves, 2003; Lindqvist & Nordänger, 2006).
Teachers we have been talking with especially point out that the
school-days have become more hectic, that the time they spend on
paperwork and documentation is increasing, and that parents more
than before expect teachers to be available after normal working
hours (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009a, 2009b). It is therefore important
that both local and central school leaders make an effort to reduce
time pressure on teachers. That will require a thorough analysis of
the roles and responsibilities of teachers, how teaching is orga-
nized, as well as the need for different types of documentation. The
Norwegian government has recently initiated a study of teachers'
use of time in order to bring about such a change.
Teachers' relations to parents are in this study shown to be
strongly related to both self-efficacy expectations and to deper-
sonalization. Although we should warn against causal interpreta-
tions there are several reasons that teachers' relations to parents
may affect their self-efficacy as well as the depersonalization
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e10691066
dimension of burnout. The teachereparent relation may affect the
student's attitudes towards school in general as well as towards
particular teachers. A positive relation between teachers and
parents may therefore be an important determinant of students'
motivation for schoolwork as well as students' behaviour in school.
Also, teachers may need to co-operate with parents regarding
students' homework. Moreover, during the last decades the level of
education among Norwegian parents has become higher. At the
same time they have increasingly shown more active involvement
in school, making demands regarding the methods and the content
of the teaching. Teachers are therefore increasingly dependent on
cooperating with parents and conflict with parents may be
a serious strain on teachers. Building positive relations to parents is
therefore important. We therefore suggest that communication and
cooperation with parents be given attention in teacher training as
well as in in-service training and developmental work in school.
However, building positive relations to parents is not entirely under
the control of the individual teacher. Parents are not a homogenous
group and parents may have quite different expectations regarding
teaching and education. Hence, meeting the expectations of all
parents may be impossible for a class teacher. Therefore, to what
extend and in what wayparents should be involved in school policy
is an important question for the school board and the school
administration. We believe that the school administration may
reduce teachereparent conflict by establishing norms concerning
parent involvement and clarifying responsibilities and expectations
regarding both parents and teachers. We should note however, that
establishing norms for teaching practices should be balanced
against teachers' need for autonomy.
Whereas teacher autonomy in this study stands out as an
important predictor of job satisfaction previous research indicates
an international tendency that teacher's autonomy is diminishing
(Ballet et al., 2006). We should therefore point out that there is
a need for an analysis and a clarification of teacher autonomy. There
is a need for both teacher autonomy and for a collective culture in
school. This represents a delicate balance between collective
culture and teacher autonomy which calls for both theoretical
analysis and practical clarifications.
This study has several limitations. One limitation of this study is
that we measured only five dimensions of the school context. Other
school context variables not measured in this study, should be
analyzed in futureresearch. Another limitationis that the Norwegian
Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is yet not tested in other environments
than the Norwegian. Although we consider the six dimensions
constituting the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale to be critical
to all teachers, the scale needs to be tested in different cultures.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant from the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Appendix A. Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale
(Translated from Norwegian)
How certain are you that you can:
Instruction
1 Explain central themes in your subjects so that even the low-
achieving students understand.
8 Provide good guidance and instruction to all students regard-
less of their level of ability.
12 Answer students' questions so that they understand difficult
problems.
16 Explain subject matter so that most students understand the
basic principles.
Adapt Instruction to Individual Needs
5 Organize schoolwork to adapt instruction and assignments to
individual needs.
11 Provide realistic challenge for all students even in mixed ability
classes.
18 Adapt instruction to the needs of low-ability students while
you also attend to the needs of other students in class.
23 Organize classroom work so that both low- and high-ability
students work with tasks that are adapted to their abilities.
Motivate Students
2 Get all students in class to work hard with their schoolwork.
10 Wake the desire to learn even among the lowest-achieving
students.
15 Get students to do their best even when working with difficult
problems.
21 Motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork.
Maintain Discipline
6Maintain discipline in any school class or group of students.
9 Control even the most aggressive students.
14 Get students with behavioural problems to follow classroom
rules.
19 Get all students to behave politely and respect the teachers.
Co-operate with Colleagues and Parents
3 Co-operate well with most parents.
7 Find adequate solutions to conflicts of interest with other
teachers.
13 Collaborate constructively with parents of students with
behavioural problems.
22 Co-operate effectively and constructively with other teachers,
for example, in teaching teams.
Cope with Change
4 Successfully use any instructional method that the school
decides to use.
17 Manage instruction regardless of how it is organized (group
composition, mixed age groups, etc.).
20 Manage instruction even if the curriculum is changed.
24 Teach well even if you are told to use instructional methods
that would not be your choose.
Response categories
(1) Not certain at all, (3) Quite uncertain, (5) Quite certain, (7)
Absolutely certain.
Appendix B. Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale
(Translated from Norwegian)
1 As teachers of this school we can get even the most difficult
pupils engaged in their schoolwork.
2 Teachers in this school prevent mobbing effectively.
3 As teacher of this school we handle conflicts constructively
because we work as a team.
4 At this school we have a common set of rules and regulations
that enable us to handle disciplinary problems successfully.
5 Teachers in this school successfully address individual pupils'
needs.
6 At this school we are able to create a safe and inclusive atmo-
sphere even in the most difficult classes.
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 1067
7 Teachers at this school succeed in teaching math and language
skills even to low-ability pupils.
Response categories
(1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true
than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True.
Appendix C. External Control Scale
(Translated from Norwegian)
1 How much pupils can learn in school is primarily determined
by their abilities.
2 If the pupils have not learned discipline at home, there is not
much the school can do.
3 A teacher cannot do much to improve students' achievements
if they have low abilities for schoolwork.
4 It is practically impossible for a teacher to motivate a student
for academic work if he or she lacks support and stimulation at
home.
5 Good teaching is more important to students' engagement in
schoolwork than is their home environment.
Response categories
(1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true
than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True.
Appendix D. Perceived School Context Scale
(Translated from Norwegian)
Time Pressure
1 Preparation for teaching must often be done after working
hours.
2Life at school is hectic and there is no time for rest and
recovery.
3 Meetings, administrative work, and documentation take much
of the time that should be used for preparing the teaching.
Autonomy
1 In my daily teaching I am free to choose teaching methods and
strategies.
2 In the subjects that I teach I feel free to decide what content to
focus on.
3 I feel that I can influence my working condition.
Relation to Parents
1 I feel that the parents have trust in my teaching.
2 The parents are easy to work with.
3 The parents trust and accept my decisions.
Discipline problems
1 My teaching is often disrupted by students who lack discipline.
2 Some students with behaviour problems make it difficult to
carry out lessons as planned.
3 Controlling students' behaviour takes a lot of time and effort.
Supervisory Support
1 In educational matters I can always seek help and advice from
the school leadership.
2 My relation with the principal is one of mutual trust and respect.
3 The school leadership is supportive and praise good work.
Response categories
(1) False, (2) Mostly false, (3) More false than true, (4) More true
than false, (5) Mostly true, (6) True.
References
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional
practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 17,86e95.
Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., & Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards
a scholarship of practice: analysing changes in teachers' work lives. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 209e229.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84,191e215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006a). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In
F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1e43).
Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, &
T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural models.
Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303e316.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and
perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16, 239e253.
Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April). A path
analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers' experiences,
reactions, and plans. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
educational research association in Chicago.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of
the causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 31, 645e673.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, appli-
cations, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chen, W. (2007). The structure of secondary school teacher job satisfaction and its
relationship with attrition and work enthusiasm. Chinese Education and Society,
40(5), 17e31.
Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-effi-
cacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
11,377e
400.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what”and “why”of goal pursuits. Human
needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
227e268.
Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 13,831e845.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: a study
on teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in
the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,227e243.
Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of
teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 86,28e35.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at
risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86,70e84.
Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and
former teachers on efficacy, ego-development, and problem-solving. Psychology
in the Schools, 19, 558e562.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship
between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 17, 807e818.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educa-
tional Researcher, 33,3e13.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,
63e69.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: a study of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 4,63e69.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement
among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495e513.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. -T. (2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities
and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs
in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,313e323.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6,1e55.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499e534.
Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy,
teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 583e593.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229e243.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of
the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,123e133.
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e10691068
Leung, D. Y. P., & Lee, W. W. S. (2006). Predicting intention to quit among Chinese
teachers: differential predictability of the components of burnout. Anxiety,
Stress & Coping. An International Journal, 19,129e141.
Lindqvist, P., & Nordänger, U. K. (2006). Who dares to disconnect in the age of
uncertainty? Teachers' recesses and “off-the-clock”work. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 623e637.
Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2003). Self-efficacy. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney
(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 218e238). New York:The Guilford Press.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2000). Swimming in the school: expanding the scope
of the big fish little pod effect. In Paper presented at the 2000 Self Research Centre
Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Mountain
View, California: CPP, Inc.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual
(3rd ed.). Mountain View, California: CPP, Inc.
Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral
change. Journal of Special Education, 22,378e385.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviours: what really
matters. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37,3e15.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In H. W. Marsh,
R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research
(pp. 1e49). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teacher
autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 100,44e51.
Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behaviour as a moderator
for the job demand-control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 10,64e75.
Pines, A. M., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: Free
Press.
Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers' beliefs in their control
over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74,185e190.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80,1e28.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. D. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293e315.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that's the question:
burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs.
Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. An International Journal, 20,177e196.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In
F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71e96).
Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Bong, M. (2003). Self-concept and self-efficacy revisited: a few
notable differences and important similarities. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, &
D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (pp. 67e89).
Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and rela-
tions with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher
burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,611e625.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy: conceptual analysis and
relations with teacher burnout and perceived school context. In R. Craven,
H. W. Marsh, & D. McInerney (Eds.), Self-processes, learning, and enabling human
potential (pp. 223e247). Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009a). Trivsel, utbrenthet og mestringsforventning
hos lærere. En utfordring for skoleledere. [Job satisfaction, burnout, and self-
efficacy among teachers. A challenge for school leaders]. In R. A. Andreassen,
E. J. Irgens, & E. M. Skaalvik (Eds.), Skoleledlese. Betingelser for læring og ledelse i
skolen (pp. 141e152). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.
Skaalvik, S., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2009b). Trivsel og belastning i lærerrollen: En kva-
litativ tilnærming. [Job satisfaction and strains among teachers. A qualitative
study]. Bedre Skole, nr., 2,35e43.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors
in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27,66e81.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of
a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12,401e411.
Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in school teachers: relations with
stress appraisals, coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. An
International Journal, 21,37e53.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.
Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers' meaning regarding educational practice. Review
of Educational Research, 72,577e625.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs
and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 22,173e194.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,747e766.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their
beliefs about managing students. Teacher and Teacher Education, 6,137e148.
E.M. Skaalvik, S. Skaalvik / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1059e1069 1069
