University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Fall 2015
On Measuring Student-Teacher Relationships:
Sorting Out Predictors, Outcomes, And Schematic
Structure Of Students’ Internal Relationship
Representations
Jon Craig Barch
University of Iowa
Copyright 2015 Jon Craig Barch
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1950
Recommended Citation
Barch, Jon Craig. "On Measuring Student-Teacher Relationships: Sorting Out Predictors, Outcomes, And Schematic Structure Of
Students’ Internal Relationship Representations." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1950.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Educational Psychology Commons
ON MEASURING STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS: SORTING OUT
PREDICTORS, OUTCOMES, AND SCHEMATIC STRUCTURE OF STUDENTS’
INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP REPRESENTATIONS
by
Jon Craig Barch
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations
(Educational Psychology)
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
December 2015
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Kathy Schuh
Copyright by
JON CRAIG BARCH
2015
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
____________________________
PH.D. THESIS
_________________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Jon Craig Barch
has been approved by the Examining Committee for
the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations (Educational Psychology)
at the December 2015 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
____________________________________________
Kathy Schuh, Thesis Supervisor
____________________________________________
David Lohman
____________________________________________
Joyce Moore
____________________________________________
Walter Vispoel
____________________________________________
Paul Windschitl
To my mother, Joan Barch and my father, James Barch for providing me with the
autonomy I required as a child, the structure that guided my strivings, and the love
that provided me confidence for a lifetime. To Edward Neimi for allowing me to
remain a student at Northern Michigan University when many would have sent me
home. To David Bonsall and Rachel Harris for seeing the potential for socially
responsible leadership development in me, despite my conduct record. To Dr. Alan
Beauchamp for introducing psychology to me through an Advanced Personality
Theory course that I had no prerequisite knowledge for but enjoyed tremendously.
To Dr. Cynthia Prosen for showing me how interested and excited one could be
when teaching psychology to others, an experience which inspired me toward a
career in academia. To Dr. Shelia Burns who built in me a strong foundation for
understanding statistics; carpe datum. To Dr. Bradley Olson who introduced me to
Social Psychology, life as a psychological researcher, and Self-Determination
Theory. To Dr. Edward Deci and Dr. Richard Ryan, the architects of SelfDetermination Theory, as they have provided me boundless inspiration through
their prolific writings. To Dr. Johnmarshall Reeve who agreed to bring me to the
University of Iowa as one of his graduate students. To Dr. David Lohman who was
truly the academic mentor and friend that I needed at the University of Iowa to
retain hope in completing this project. To Dr. Kathy Schuh who graciously agreed
to support me across the finish line. And with more gratitude, emphasis, and import
than all previous remarks, to my wife Maggie, daughters Lenora and Fiona, and son
James for encouraging, supporting, tolerating, and providing me with a sense of
purpose over the last ten years that I have been working on this project.
ii
“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant,
aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom. Without this it goes to
wrack and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of
seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty.”
Albert Einstein
As quoted in Einstein and the Poet
by William Hermanns in 1983
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Let’s be real, I would have never completed this dissertation if Dr. Christine
Greer, my Dean while working as a student affairs administrator at Northern
Michigan University, would have not insisted that I finish during one of her
“listening sessions” in my office. Similarly, I would have never completed this
dissertation without the friendly, but frequent and persistent requests for progress
updates from Dr. Kathy Schuh, my advisor.
I would also like to acknowledge all of the members of my committee who
provided a great deal of guidance and editorial assistance at the dissertation proposal
and defense meetings. In particular, Dr. Kathy Schuh deserves great
acknowledgement for reading and commenting on multiple drafts of this dissertation.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all!
iv
ABSTRACT
Student-teacher relationships have been studied by numerous researchers
from a variety of perspectives. Evidence consistently suggests that the quality of
student-teacher relationships can have a profound impact on children’s social and
cognitive development. Although researchers seem to agree on this point, their
theoretical conceptualizations of the relationships and how they measure them are
often quite different. This study provides empirical insights for both measurement
integration and theory integration regarding students’ internal relationship
representations.
Items from 14 different student-teacher relationship instruments were
systematically combined and administered as a composite instrument to 628 college
students. The participants responded to all items in reference to a single, recent
relationship with a high school instructor. This allowed comparative examination
of the original 14 scales independently for internal consistency and predictive
validity. The study also examined a hypothesized multidimensional structural
model of students’ internal representation of their relationship with a teacher based
off relational schema theory. An alternative, more parsimonious model was
examined as well.
The hypothesized model was not supported by the data. The study
demonstrated that multiple measurement models of various items could produce
acceptable fit. The study provided evidence as to which of the 170 items from the
14 original scales most closely measure the core of student-teacher relationship
quality. The study exemplified the method effect dangers of negative item wording.
v
Finally, the study provided strong evidence for conceptualizing student-teacher
relationships as a single, global relationship quality construct.
vi
PUBLIC ABSTRACT
The student-teacher relationship can have a profound impact on the social
and academic development of a child. Extensive research supports that statement;
however, descriptions of the ideal student-teacher relationship are inconsistent.
This is because there are several different theories that researchers reference when
describing the relationships. Similarly, there are many questionnaires that
researchers have used to measure the quality of student-teacher relationships and
sometimes they differ drastically in their content. This study reviews 14 of the
questionnaires from five theoretical perspectives, combines the collective 170
questionnaire items into one survey, and gathers data from 628 students. The
findings provide insights related to measurement of student-teacher relationships
and further our understanding of how students’ think about their relations with
teachers.
A new model was proposed, but the data did not support it. The study did
allow comparison about how useful each of the 14 questionnaires is. The study
reminds us that multiple models can fit the same data. The study examined which
items from each of the questionnaires most closely measure the core of studentteacher relationship quality. The study provides an example of how switching the
wording of questions from positive to negative can influence the questionnaire
results. Finally the study provided strong evidence for thinking about studentteacher relationships as a single, global relationship quality construct as opposed to
a multi-dimensional construct.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Student-Teacher Relationships........................................................................................ 1
Statement of Problem ...................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 4
Importance of Study ........................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................8
Common Conceptualizations of Student-Teacher Relationships .................................... 8
Integration of Student-Teacher Relationship Conceptualizations ................................. 36
What is Being Measured? ............................................................................................. 37
Are there Common Psychological Mechanisms?.......................................................... 44
Summary and Next Steps .............................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER III. METHODS ...............................................................................................50
Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 50
Participants .................................................................................................................... 50
Instrumentation.............................................................................................................. 52
Content Analysis of C-STRI Items ............................................................................... 62
Quasi-Independent Variables ........................................................................................ 64
Relational Schema Components.................................................................................... 66
Outcome Variables ........................................................................................................ 67
viii
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 68
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 70
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 71
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................73
Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................... 73
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Original Fourteen Scales ......................................... 79
Regression of Scale Scores on Internalization, Engagement, and Academic
Achievement.................................................................................................................. 96
Fitting the Data to the Hypothesized Measurement Model......................................... 104
Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model ................................................................ 126
Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model across Groups ........................................ 133
Post Hoc Exploratory Factor Analysis ........................................................................ 135
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................144
Comparing the 14 Original Scales .............................................................................. 144
Multiple Models Can Fit the Data ............................................................................... 150
Methods Effects of Negative Item Wording ............................................................... 150
The Global Relationship Quality Construct ................................................................ 152
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 154
General Conclusions and Next Steps .......................................................................... 156
APPENDIX A. ORIGINAL 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS ..........158
APPENDIX B. REVISED 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS .............168
APPENDIX C. C-STRI ITEMS GROUPED BY PROPOSED MODEL
FACTORS........................................................................................................................178
ix
APPENDIX D. TEXT FOR INVITATION PARTICIPATE EMAIL ............................188
APPENDIX E. ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ......................189
APPENDIX F. INITIAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ............................................190
APPENDIX G. END OF SURVEY THANK YOU NOTE ............................................191
APPENDIX H. C-STRI STATEMENTS FOR COUSE SUBJECT
ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................................192
APPENDIX I. SAMPLE OF C-STRI QUESTIONS FORMATTED AS A
PARTICIPANT WOULD HAVE SEEN.........................................................................194
APPENDIX K. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3FACTOR EXTRACTION AFTER FIRST ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM
DELETION ......................................................................................................................200
APPENDIX L. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3FACTOR EXTRACTION AFTER SECOND ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM
DELETION ......................................................................................................................204
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................206
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of relationship measurement scales, associated constructs, and
outcomes ............................................................................................................................10
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all C-STRI items ........................................................ 73
Table 3. CFA model fit statistics for the fourteen original scales .................................... 80
Table 4. SMC estimates for Classroom Life Measure ...................................................... 81
Table 5. SMC estimates for Student Classroom Environment Measure items ................ 82
Table 6. SMC estimates for Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire
items .................................................................................................................................. 83
Table 7. SMC estimates for Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachments items................. 85
Table 8. SMC estimates for School Utilization & Emulation items ................................. 85
Table 9. SMC estimates for Research Assessment Package for Schools items................ 87
Table 10. SMC estimates for Teacher as Social Context items ........................................ 87
Table 11. SMC estimates for Sense of Relatedness items ................................................ 88
Table 12. SMC estimates for Emotional Reliance Questionnaire items ........................... 90
Table 13. SMC estimates for Basic Need Satisfaction in relationships items .................. 90
Table 14. SMC estimates for Need for Relatedness Scale items ...................................... 91
Table 15. SMC estimates for Student-Teacher Relationship Scale items ........................ 92
Table 16. SMC estimates for Young Children's Appraisals of Teacher Support items .... 93
Table 17. SMC estimates for Psychological Sense of School Membership items ........... 96
Table 18. Regression results for each original scale with internalization as the
dependent variable .......................................................................................................... 101
xi
Table 19. Regression results for each original scale with engagement as the
dependent variable .......................................................................................................... 102
Table 20. Regression results for each original scale with academic achievement as
the dependent variable .................................................................................................... 103
Table 21. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to low
factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 109
Table 22. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to high
cross loading modification estimates .............................................................................. 110
Table 23. Five highest error covariance modification indices for items in
hypothesized predictor factor measurement model ........................................................ 111
Table 24. Items deleted from perceptions of teacher measurement model due to low
factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 114
Table 25. Five highest error covariance modification indices for items in
hypothesized perceptions of teacher portion of the measurement model ....................... 115
Table 26. Four highest error covariance modification indices for items in
hypothesized Perceptions of Self portion of the measurement model ............................ 118
Table 27. Seven remaining allowable error covariance modification indices greater
than 50 for items in the hypothesized Perceptions of Self portion of the
measurement model ........................................................................................................ 119
Table 28. Items deleted from the outcome variables’ measurement model due to low
factor loadings ................................................................................................................. 123
Table 29. Items deleted from outcome factors in hypothesized model due to high
cross loading modification estimates .............................................................................. 124
xii
Table 30. Regression weight modification indices for treating academic
achievement as a secondary outcome in the structural model ........................................ 129
Table 31. Four highest error covariance modification indices for the Full model as
displayed in Figure 33 ..................................................................................................... 130
Table 32. Parameter estimates for factor loadings and path coefficients in the final
version of the full model ................................................................................................. 131
Table 33. Bivariate correlations among subscale scores for predictor factors,
relational schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model ......... 134
Table 34. Variance inflation factor statistics for all predictor factors, relational
schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model when
regressed on achievement ............................................................................................... 135
Table 35. Factor loadings of items retained for the three factor solution after items
deleted for issues of cross-loading .................................................................................. 138
Table 36. Factor loadings of all items for the single-factor solution .............................. 139
Table 37. Comparison of internal reliability from original publication and this study
for all 14 original scales .................................................................................................. 146
Table 38. Predictive validity comparison of 14 original scales ...................................... 148
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Hypothesized measurement model of the C-STRI based on Baldwin’s
social cognitive theory of relational schemas .......................................................... 55
Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model of latent variables measured by the CSTRI based on Baldwin’s social cognitive theory of relational schemas ................ 63
Figure 3. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Classroom Life Measure
items ......................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 4. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student Classroom
Environment Measure items .................................................................................... 82
Figure 5. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Developmental Studies
Center Student Questionnaire items......................................................................... 83
Figure 6. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments items .................................................................................................... 84
Figure 7. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of School Utilization and
Teacher Emulation items ......................................................................................... 86
Figure 8. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Research Assessment
Package for Schools items ....................................................................................... 86
Figure 9. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Teacher as Social Context
items ......................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 10. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Sense of Relatedness
items ......................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 11. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire items ................................................................................................. 89
xiv
Figure 12. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Basic Need Satisfaction
in Relationships items .............................................................................................. 90
Figure 13. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Need for Relatedness
Scale items ............................................................................................................... 91
Figure 14. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student-Teacher
Relationship Scale items .......................................................................................... 92
Figure 15. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Young Children’s
Appraisals of Teacher Support items ....................................................................... 94
Figure 16. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Psychological Sense of
School Membership items........................................................................................ 95
Figure 17. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of internalization items
added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales .............. 98
Figure 18. Standardized CFA parameter estimates for revised model of
internalization items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of
original scales........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 19. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of engagement items added
to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales ......................... 99
Figure 20. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of the 4-item model of
engagement items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of
original scales......................................................................................................... 100
Figure 21. Latent variable covariance and factor loading parameter estimates
for the hypothesized measurement model of predictor variables .......................... 106
xv
Figure 22. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors
with all items included ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 23. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors
with items removed and error covariance added ................................................... 112
Figure 24. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized secondorder factor model of perceptions of teacher with all items included.................... 113
Figure 25. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order perceptions
of teacher factor model with items removed and error covariance added ............. 116
Figure 26. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order
factor model of Perceptions of Self with all items included .................................. 117
Figure 27. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order Perceptions
of Self factor model with items removed and error covariance added .................. 120
Figure 28. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order
factor model of Interpersonal Scripts with all items included ............................... 121
Figure 29. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome
variables with all items included............................................................................ 122
Figure 30. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome
variables after item elimination and splitting of behavioral and emotional
engagement ............................................................................................................ 126
Figure 31. Full structural equation model with the hypothesized latent variable
associations using the modified measurement model parts ................................... 127
xvi
Figure 32. Full structural equation model with unknown parameters reduced by
calculating subscale scores for several factors from the modified measurement
model specifications............................................................................................... 128
Figure 33. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement
as a secondary outcome ......................................................................................... 129
Figure 34. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement
as a secondary outcome and modified by the addition of error covariance
parameters .............................................................................................................. 131
Figure 35. Forward portion of the principal components analysis scree plot ........ 136
xvii
PREFACE
There is a terrible level of discontent and disengagement with the education
experience of many youth these days, particularly those in secondary schools. Upon
reflecting on my own experiences from kindergarten through high school, and
beyond for that matter, I realize that the interest, enjoyment, and effort I personally
put into learning was consistently tied to the perceptions I had about the quality of
my relationships with classroom instructors. Accurately understanding these
relationships with enough descriptive detail that I might be able to assist future
teachers in developing relationships of the kind that facilitate interest and
engagement is the premise of my research.
I also feel compelled to state up-front that this thesis is in no way intended to
refute the validity, reliability, or general usefulness of any of the existing instruments
reviewed throughout the project. Rather, the motivation behind this project is to
build on the great wealth of knowledge and tools that exist in the literature about
student-teacher relationships and to examine them from a different angle by
integrating multiple measurement tools and theoretical approaches.
xviii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Interpersonal relationships are central to the human experience. Accordingly,
they have long been at the core of a broad spectrum of psychological research. It has
even been suggested that perceived relatedness to others is a psychological need and in
order to achieve optimal physical and psychological functioning human beings must
perceive themselves as having high quality relationships within a preferred social group
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Even people who
report not needing close relationships with others show large increases in positive affect
when they learn that others accept them or that they will have interpersonal success in the
future (Carvallo & Gabriel, 2006). The idea that humans require strong emotional bonds
with other humans to be healthy is not new; rather, it has been a major component of
several classic personality theories (e.g., Fairbairn, 1952; Freud, 1930; Fromm, 1956;
Horney, 1945; Maslow, 1943; Rogers, 1951). The prominence of these as well as more
contemporary theories (e.g., Bowlby, 1973; Deci & Ryan, 1985) has fueled volumes of
research on interpersonal relationships.
Student-Teacher Relationships
One set of interpersonal relationships that most children experience are with the
teachers they have throughout their lives. The quality of these student-teacher
relationships can have a profound impact on a child, building a cognitive foundation from
which perceptual expectations of other non-familial relationships are construed in the
future. Indeed, researchers reviewing literature from a variety of perspectives have
concluded such relationships have significant importance for many social and cognitive
developmental outcomes (e.g., Brophy, 1998; Davis, 2001; Goodenow, 1992; McCallum
1
& Bracken, 1993; Oldfather & Dahl, 1994; Pianta, 1999; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985;
Wentzel, 1999). For example, Davis, (2001) reviewed evidence that student-teacher
relationship quality in preschool relates to students’ expression of prosocial behavior in
the classroom and social competence. Goodenow (1992) discussed evidence that
perceptions of student-teacher relationship quality was a predictor of global self-worth,
school engagement vs. emotional withdrawal, and understanding the value/importance of
mathematics in seventh grade. Pianta (2006) reviewed a voluminous body of empirical
research supporting the connections between student-teacher relationship quality and
students’ emotional regulation, attention, problem solving, and consequently academic
achievement. Again, this research and more shows us how developmentally important
these relationships can be. As with research in any field, the quality of empirical research
on student-teacher relationships directly impacts our ability to improve them and
ultimately improve the lives of children who experience them. Accordingly, this
dissertation aims to improve the quality of research on student-teacher relationships.
Statement of Problem
Although educational psychologists seem to agree on the importance of studentteacher relationships, their theoretical conceptualizations of such relationships are
diverse. This is likely due to the researchers coming from a variety of training
backgrounds (e.g., psychosocial, humanistic, social psychological). Certainly, some
overlap does exist among them. However, the equally extant inconsistencies leave many
questions about what a high quality student-teacher relationship actually is, how many
distinct factors are appropriate to consider when describing the relationship, what
psychological mechanisms are responsible for its association with positive social and
2
cognitive outcomes, and, perhaps most importantly for good science, how the construct
and mechanisms should best be measured.
Due to their diverse theoretical perspectives, these researchers have constructed
and used a variety of instruments to measure proposed relationship constructs. Some
measures include items that seem to be inputs to the relationship, others include items
that could arguably be considered outcomes of the relationship, and others measure
various elements of the students’ internal representation, or schema, of the relationship.
The diversity of these tools creates confusion about which scores should be considered
predictor or outcome variables of the relationship and which scores should be included in
the measurement model of a latent variable representing aspects of the relationship itself.
This measurement inconsistency also clouds cross-paradigm interpretation of research
and can leave readers questioning what aspects of the relationship are important and why.
Stepping outside of the student-teacher relationship research to a broader, socialcognitive psychology paradigm guiding relationship perception research and theory may
be of great value when working toward improving cross-perspective comparison or any
possible integration of student-teacher relationship measurement and theory development
in the educational psychology literature. Specifically, Baldwin’s (1992) work developing
relational schema theory as a social-cognitive modernization of interpersonal psychology,
guided by a century’s worth of insights from the psychological study of interpersonal
experience, would be a great place to look. Baldwin (1992) expertly synthesized a broad
multitude of person-, situation-, and self-perception theories as he formulated a theory he
elected to call relational schema theory. Accordingly, integration of the variety of
student-teacher relationship perspectives can be performed using Baldwin’s relational
3
schema theory as a guide. Likewise, a process of blending and evaluating the many
student-teacher relationship measures, again using relational schema theory as a guide,
may allow measurement integration as well.
Educational psychologists have not yet attempted such cross perspective theory
integration or measurement integration. Broad reviews of student-teacher relationship
literature often pull findings from studies across perspectives, apparently making an
assumption that various researchers are all studying the same concept and measuring the
same construct, ignoring important underlying theory and measurement differences.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to refine the conceptualization and measurement of
student-teacher relationships, which should subsequently improve efforts to enhance
teachers' relationships with their students. The many ways educational researchers define
and measure student-teacher relationships were examined to compare and contrast their
similarities and differences. Multi-perspective data from a single sample of studentteacher relationship perceptions was gathered using instruments from all the perspectives
simultaneously. Modeling of item covariance allowed empirical consideration of the
potential for measurement integration. The measurement integration results provided
insights for synthesizing the existing perspectives into a single theoretical framework.
Accordingly, several popular, contemporary tools used to measure student-teacher
relationships were collected. The process of gathering these instruments is laid out in the
literature review chapter. The items from these instruments were combined into a single
survey, which was administered to a large sample of college student respondents. When
completing the survey, respondents were prompted to reflect on a relationship they
4
experienced with a particular high school teacher, in the past tense. Instrument items
were only adjusted as required to grammatically correspond with this request. Item
adjustments are explained further in the methods chapter. The internal consistency of
items was examined as grouped by the original scale they were taken from. Baldwin’s
(1992) relational schema theory was used to formulate an alternative structural
configuration of all the student-teacher relationship instrument items taken together. To
examine the generalizability of relationship dynamics across various disciplines of study,
respondents were randomly assigned to reflect on experiences with their most recent high
school science, math, or English teacher. Exploratory factor analysis was also used to
determine if there was a simpler empirical modeling of the data.
This study addressed questions about the measurement structure of studentteacher relationships. It provided an empirical examination of applying relational schema
theory to student-teacher relationship measurement. Specifically, the following
hypotheses were tested: 1) when examined separately from other instruments’ items, the
items from each of the original instruments will demonstrate acceptable internal
consistency and fit to their instrument’s expected structural model; 2) calculated scale
scores from each of the original measurement tools will demonstrate acceptable
predictive validity in the expected direction as related to each of the student outcomes
internalization, engagement, and academic achievement; 3) items from all the
measurement tools taken together will fit well into a new 13-factor structure; and 4) the
new factors will fit well into a relational schema theory driven structural model.
5
Importance of Study
Positive student-teacher relationships play a significant role in healthy child
development. Oversimplified, the early childhood educational process involves teachers
providing students with knowledge, skills, and attitudes deemed important for successful
socialization in a given culture. Research suggests that student-teacher relationship
quality influences student motivation and engagement in the learning process, which
ultimately impacts mastery of course content, development of skill sets, and
internalization of desired attitudes (Brophy, 1998; Davis, 2001; Pianta, 1999; Ryan et al.,
1985). As educational researchers improve our understanding of student-teacher
relationships through improved measurement and more integrated theoretical
conceptualizations, better research can be conducted on direct causes and consequences
of relationship quality. This affords educators the ability to facilitate the development of
relationships with students in desired ways and ultimately improve student learning and
development. This study is important because it provides empirical evidence for both
measurement integration and theory integration regarding students’ internal, teacher
relationship representations.
The past has demonstrated how this kind of cross paradigm integration can be
fruitful. It is usually the case that each paradigm has bits of truth to offer, yet too often
researchers work within one paradigm and fail to explore any synthesis of alternative
perspectives. An example of where this focus on a particular paradigm has gradually
been surmounted is in research on cognitive abilities where a general acceptance of the
Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (see Cameron et al., 1997) has developed. Similar to
interpersonal relationship theorists, for nearly a century, theorists in the study of human
6
intelligence proposed and studied a multitude of models representing intelligence.
Providing a basis for the method of measurement integration utilized by this study of
student teacher-relationship conceptualizations, Woodcock’s (1990) joint factor analysis
on several intelligence tests simultaneously provided empirical support for the integrated
general-fluid, general-crystalized intelligence model proposed as an integration of other
theories by Horn and Cattell (1966) as did Carroll’s (1993) extensive factor analytic study
of multiple models and Horn’s (1994) integrative factor analytic study. Similarly, in
personality research, the work of McCrae and Costa (1987) using multiple measures of
personality taxonomies and factor analyses paved the way for eventual widespread
acceptance of the Big 5 theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Unfortunately, contemporary
researchers in the field of student teacher relationship research remain paradigmatically
divided to a great extent. These examples of critical progress in the fields of intelligence
and personality research alike demonstrate how consideration of concepts and ideas from
a broad range of research perspectives can be helpful and the integrative process fruitful.
Taking a page from this history, the present study was carried out to explore a newly
synthesized, more comprehensive understanding of students’ perceptions of their
relationships with teachers. Guided by Baldwin’s (1992) social-cognitive, relational
schema theory, data from simultaneous administration of multiple student-teacher
relationship measurement was factor modeled to empirically explore a viable, crossparadigm factor structure of student-teacher relationship representations.
7
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Common Conceptualizations of Student-Teacher Relationships
In educational psychology research there have been many different approaches to
studying students’ relationships with their teachers. These approaches focus on a
multitude of situational and person perception variables to define the high-quality
relationship. Sometimes it is conceptualized as a relationship with the school in general.
Five prominent perspectives are reviewed in the subsequent sections of this chapter;
however, before reviewing the theoretical perspectives in detail, it is important to outline
the process used to identify them and the parameters of inclusion in this review. To
begin, because this project is focused on measurement integration, broad searches using
PsycINFO and ERIC were conducted to identify the tools used in quantitative research on
student-teacher relationships. Initial searches used one of the terms “measure,”
“questionnaire,” “instrument,” or “scale” along with all three terms “student,” “teacher,”
and “relationship.” After finding three other terms, “relatedness,” “involvement,” and
“belongingness” surfacing as descriptors associated with research found in the searches,
further searches were added substituting each of these terms for “relationship,” one at a
time. All searches were conducted with restrictions to include only journal articles or
book chapters and to exclude anything prior to 1980. The resulting studies were
manually sorted into two categories, 1) review articles and 2) original research that
included a quantitative measure of the student-teacher relationship; all other articles were
discarded. The review articles were used to further locate additional, original-research
articles that quantitatively measured the student-teacher relationship. Introductory
sections of the original-research articles were also used to reverse mine citations of
8
quantitative research on student-teacher relationships not yet identified as well. Next, the
mass of original-research articles was sorted by the instrument used to measure the
student-teacher relationship. For example, all studies that measured the relationship with
the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991) were placed into a
group. The next step was to search PsycINFO and ERIC several more times using the
names/titles of the instruments identified in the sorting process to identify any studies that
may have used those measures but had not yet been identified. After this, studies were
discarded if they used a measure that was not also used in any other studies or if the
measure described was not based on any identified psychological theory on human
relationships. What remained were fourteen instrument groupings. Because this study is
intended to afford both measurement integration and theory integration, the instrument
groupings were organized into five higher-order groupings according to the foundational
relationship theory referenced by the researchers who first developed the instrument. In
other words, all researchers that referenced Self-Determination Theory’s concept of
relatedness need support (Deci & Ryan, 1985) when developing their instrument, were
grouped under that higher-order categorization. The five groupings include 1)
pedagogical caring, 2) caring school community, 3) relatedness, 4) closeness, conflict,
and dependency, and 5) sense of belonging. In the following five sections of the paper,
these relationship perspectives are briefly reviewed, the relationship measurement tools
associated with them are examined, details from a few major studies are shared, and a
listing of outcomes found to be significantly related to each measure are laid out. Table 1
provides a summary of fourteen student-teacher relationship measurement scales
associated with each of these perspectives.
9
Table 1. Summary of relationship measurement scales, associated constructs, and outcomes
Reference
Johnson,
Johnson,
Buckman, &
Richards, 1985
Relationship
Construct
Pedagogical
caring
Scale Title
Classroom
Life Measure
Relevant
Subscales
Teacher social
support
# of
Items
4
Coefficient
Alpha
.80
Sample Item(s)
Associated Outcomes
My teacher cares about and
likes me as a person.
Academic interest, social
responsibility, academic pro-social
behavior, mastery orientation toward
learning, academic effort, engagement,
self-regulation, & academic
achievement
Teacher
academic
support
4
.78
My teacher cares about how
much I learn.
Feldlaufer,
Midgley, &
Eccles, 1988
Pedagogical
caring
Student
Classroom
Environment
Measure
Teacher fairness
& friendliness
7
.70 - .75
The teacher cares how we
feel.
Academic motivation, task valuing, &
task interest/enjoyment
Developmental
Studies Center,
2002
Caring
school
community
Developmental
Studies Center
Student
Questionnaire
Classroom
supportiveness
10
.82
My class is like a family.
Meaningful
participation
10
.80
In my class the teacher and
students decide together
what the rules will be.
academic motivation, intrinsic
motivation, task orientation, school
enjoyment, prosocial attitudes, and
educational attainment expectations,
less ego orientation, & work avoidance
Inventory of
Parent & Peer
Attachments
Trust
10
.91
My __ understands me.
Communication
9
.91
I tell my __ about my
problems and troubles.
Alienation
6
.86
I get upset easily around my
__.
School
Utilization
NA
3
.66
I can usually rely on my
teacher when I have
problems at school.
Emulation
NA
4
.84
I try to model myself after
my teachers.
Armsden &
Greenberg,
1987
Ryan, Stiller, &
Lynch, 1994
Relatedness
Relatedness
10
Positive coping at school, selfregulated learning, perceived control,
school engagement
Positive coping at school, selfregulated learning, perceived control,
school engagement
Table 1. Continued
Institute for
Research and
Reform in
Education, 1998
Relatedness
Research
Assessment
Package for
Schools
Teacher
Emotional
Security
4
.71
When I am with my teacher
I feel happy.
School emotional and behavioral
engagement
Belmont,
Skinner,
Wellborn,
Connell, 1988
Relatedness
Teacher as
Social Context
Affection
3
.71
My teacher likes me.
Attunement
3
.54
My teacher knows me well.
School engagement, internalization of
task importance, autonomous
motivation
Dedication of
Resources
2
Dependability
6
.72
My teacher is always there
for me.
My teacher spends time
with me.
Furrer &
Skinner, 2003
Relatedness
Sense of
Relatedness
NA
4
.79
When I am with my teacher
I feel accepted.
Emotional engagement, behavioral
engagement, & help-seeking behavior
Butzel & Ryan,
1997
Relatedness
Emotional
Reliance
Questionnaire
NA
7
.91 - .97
If I were feeling alone or
depressed, I would be
willing to turn to my _____.
Well-being, mental health, & perceived
self-determination
LaGuardia,
Ryan,
Couchman, &
Deci, 2000
Relatedness
Basic Need
Satisfaction in
Relationships
Relatedness
3
.90
When I am with ____ I feel
loved and cared about.
Fully mediates relationship between
attachment security and well-being
Richer &
Vallerand, 1998
Relatedness
Need for
Relatedness
Scale
Acceptance
5
.89
In my relationship with my
_______, I feel supported.
Increased vitality, increased
performance
Intimacy
5
.91
In my relationship with my
_______, I feel as a friend.
11
Table 1. Continued
Pianta &
Nimetz, 1991
Closeness,
conflict,
dependency
StudentTeacher
Relationship
Scale (STRS)
NA
16
.85
This student trusts me.
Social competence, frustration
tolerance, work habits, self-discipline,
classroom participation, cooperation,
academic competence, school
achievement, less behavior, conduct, &
attention problems, peer aggression,
internalizing, & school avoidance
Mantzicopoulos
& NeuharthPritchett, 2003
Closeness,
conflict,
dependency
Young
Children’s
Appraisals of
Teacher
Support
(Y-CATS)
Warmth
11
.75
My teacher is my friend.
Autonomy
6
.67
My teacher lets me do
activities I want to do.
Reading ability, self-control, less
emotionality, school achievement,
cooperation, self-control, & less
behavior problems
Conflict
10
.75
My teacher gets angry with
me.
NA
18
.87
Most teachers at (name of
school) are interested in me.
Goodenow,
1993
Sense of
belonging
Psychological
Sense of
School
Membership
12
task valuing, success expectancies,
academic motivation, positive affect,
optimism, academic efficacy, intrinsic
goal orientation, school achievement,
less risky behaviors, depression, social
rejection, & behavioral problems
Pedagogical caring. Research on student-teacher relationships from this point of
view places the focus on the teacher’s relational style. High quality relationships are
those involving caring teachers who engage students in perspective-taking dialogue
aimed at mutual understanding. They know students’ ability level, have appropriately
high expectations of their students, and they model compassionate behavior toward their
students (Noddings, 1992). Put differently, students seem to thrive in a respectful, homelike environment (Matzye, 1995); whereas, the lack of caring teachers has been
implicated as a reason for dropping out of school (Grossnickle, 1986). In an exploration
of Nodding’s (1992) view of the caring teacher, Wentzel (1997) analyzed descriptions of
teachers’ caring and non-caring behaviors provided by 375 eighth-grade students. Caring
teachers were generally described as making an effort to capture student interest, they
encouraged reciprocal communication, were fair, honest, trustworthy, concerned about
students’ lives outside of academics, and able to recognize individuals’ abilities,
successes, and difficulties (Wentzel, 1997).
In addition to this qualitative analysis of what it means to be a caring teacher,
students’ perceptions of teacher caring have also been quantitatively measured by
Wentzel (1994; 1997; 1998) using the Teacher Social Support and Teacher Academic
Support subscales of the Classroom Life Measure (Johnson & Johnson, 1983; Johnson,
Johnson, Buckman, & Richards, 1985). Johnson and Johnson (1983) report that the two
subscales formed separate factors using a varimax rotation factor analyses. Teacher
Academic Support was assessed with 4 items measuring a student’s belief that the teacher
1) cares about how much he/she learns, 2) likes to see his/her work, 3) likes to help
him/her learn, and 4) wants him/her to do his/her best in schoolwork and showed strong
13
internal consistency (α= .85). Teacher Social Support was assessed with 4 items
measuring a student’s belief that the teacher 1) really cares about him/her, 2) thinks it is
important to be his/her friend, 3) likes him/her as much as other students, and 4) cares
about his/her feelings and showed reasonable internal consistency (α= .68). As such,
many others have used the subscales separately (e.g., Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011;
Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). However, it is unclear
how distinct these subscales actually are. Wentzel (1997) found the two sub-scales to be
highly correlated in both sixth (r = .67) and eighth (r = .71) grade students so the
subscales’ items were combined to form a single composite score, which showed strong
internal consistency in both sixth (α= .89) and eighth grade (α= .91). Wentzel and her
colleagues now regularly combine items from both subscales into one construct depicting
how much the student perceives that the teacher cares. Not surprisingly, their data
similarly support the assertion that students with caring or nurturing teachers have
increased academic interest (Wentzel, 1997; 1998), positive social and academic goal
striving (Wentzel, 1994; 1997; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2012), mastery orientation
toward learning (Wentzel, 1997), and greater adherence to classroom norms and rules
(Wentzel, 1998).This approach assumes that teachers’ social/emotional and academic
support together influence students’ general perception that the teacher cares about them
(Wentzel 1994, 1998; Wentzel, Baker, & Russell, 2012). Support for this single construct
approach is also found in a recent repeated measures study using these same items as part
of a survey administered to 283 secondary school students by Van Ryzin, Gravely, and
Roseth (2009). These researchers modeled how academic autonomy and support in
school can predict engagement in learning, which in turn predicts children’s positive
14
psychological adjustment. As expected, student perceptions of teacher support was an
important predictor of student engagement in learning in their model (Van Ryzin,
Gravely, & Roseth, 2009). Of interest to the measurement issue, though, is that these
researchers began by assuming the subscales of teacher academic and social support were
separate constructs, but found them to be one factor after doing principal axis factor
analysis using Promax rotation. When treated as a single construct, Van Ryzin, Gravely,
and Roseth’s (2009) data produced strong internal reliability figures at both measurement
time-1 (α= .90) and measurement time-2 (α= .91).
However, in another recent study, Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan, (2007) examined
602 fifth-grade students’ perceptions of their teachers’ social/emotional and academic
supportiveness, among other classroom social environment variables, to see if they
predicted classroom engagement and if that relationship was mediated by the students’
motivational beliefs. As with nearly all the studies on this topic, they administered a
battery of surveys to gather the data from the children. Teacher academic and
social/emotional support subscales were found be highly correlated (r = .80); however,
the researchers tested their proposed model using them as separate constructs as
compared to a model in which the items for both subscales loaded onto a single construct
for teacher support. They found that significant information was gained by keeping the
subscales separate. More importantly, their data provide more evidence that when a
teacher is perceived as more supportive, the student is more likely to use self-regulatory
strategies and engage in more on-task behaviors, which result in greater academic
achievement. Further, their results suggest that this relationship is mediated by the
effects that the teacher supportiveness has on students’ use of mastery goals and
15
perception of academic self-efficacy (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). Patrick, Kaplan,
and Ryan (2011) used multidimensional scaling with three samples of adolescents (Ns =
537, 537, and 736) as well as structural modeling with a fourth sample (N = 789) to
examine the dimensionality of goal structures and classroom climate including teacher
academic support and teacher social/emotional support. Although, the data suggested
strong correlation between teacher academic support ratings and teacher social/emotional
support ratings (r = .67-.77), the spatially plotted data supported the multidimensional
perspective over the single construct approach.
Taking a similar enough approach to student-teacher relationships to remain in
this section on pedagogical caring, Feldlaufer, Midgley, and Eccles (1988) developed
their own 6-item scale to measure students’ perceptions of teachers as supportive, caring,
friendly, and fair in order to examine the differences in students’ perceptions of teachers
before (α= .70) and after (α= .75) the transition from elementary school to middle school.
This subscale, titled Techer—Unfair/Unfriendly, was part of a larger measure called the
Student Classroom Environment Measure and its six items asked students if teachers
cared about how they feel, were friendly to them, treated boys and girls differently,
graded work fairly, treated some kids better than others, and criticized poor work
(Feldlaufer et al., 1988). Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles (1989) used this measure again
in a more sophisticated follow-up study (N = 1,301) to examine if changes in students’
interest/enjoyment of math as well as their valuing of the importance/usefulness of math
changes from elementary school to middle school in relation to the change in perceptions
of their teachers. These data suggested main effects of perceived teacher support on math
interest/enjoyment, F(3,1300) = 36.94, p < .0001, and math usefulness/importance,
16
F(3,1300) = 35.59, p < .0001, as well as, the two-way interaction between change in
teacher support and elementary-middle school changes on math interest/enjoyment,
F(3,1300) = 21.80, p < .0001 and math usefulness/importance, F(3,1300) = 16.41, p <
.0001. Before moving on, it is important to note the similarity between this
conceptualization of caring teachers and the warmth/supportiveness dimensions of the
higher-order caring school community construct (Battistich, et al., 1997) previously
discussed. Not surprisingly, many of the positive outcomes found by researchers using
each of these perspectives concur as well.
Caring school community. Students’ sense of their school as a caring community
(Battistich, Solomon, Kim, Watson, & Schaps, 1995; Solomon, Battistich, Kim, &
Watson, 1997) is similar to the sense of belongingness, which will be reviewed in a
subsequent section. In fact, it is sometimes reviewed as a measure of belongingness
alongside other studies of belongingness (e.g., Nichols, 2008). However, it is broader in
both definition and measurement than school belongingness. Further, although both
concepts are relevant to this project, and thus both are included in this review, the two
concepts come from different research traditions. Therefore, they have been intentionally
presented as separate sections in this review. Researchers studying students’ sense of
community theorize that students who experience a sense of school community “will feel
strongly attached to the community and that this attachment will lead them to feel
personally committed to the values and goals the community promotes, particularly if
those values and goals are clear and jointly held by the community members” (Solomon,
Battistich, Watson, Schaps, & Lewis, 2000, p.5). Though its measurement has undergone
some revision, it still consists of two main elements: 1) students’ perceptions of the
17
school as supportive both emotionally and cognitively and 2) students’ beliefs that they
have an influential role in decision making. Originally, it consisted of 24 items split into
two subscales accordingly (Solomon et al., 1997). Most recently these subscales, titled
Classroom Supportiveness and Meaningful Participation each have 10 items and exist
within a larger instrument called the Student Questionnaire, which is authored and
distributed by the Developmental Studies Center (DSC, 2002).
The sense of school community as a concept is at the root of a large interventionbased quasi-experimental research project known as the Child Development Project
(CDP) (Solomon et al., 2000; Solomon, Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988).
As theorized, students experiencing a sense of community have been found to be more
committed to the norms and values emphasized by the school (Battistich et al., 1995;
Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996). Specifically, in intervention
schools as well as in comparison schools, students’ sense of community has been
associated with academic motivation (Solomon et al., 1996). Sense of community has
also been positively associated with intrinsic motivation and task orientation, but
negatively associated with ego orientation and work avoidance (Battistich et al., 1995).
School enjoyment, prosocial attitudes, and expectations of educational achievement are
also higher for students perceiving school as a community, an effect which is especially
strong for impoverished students (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1997).
Additionally, sense of community has been positively associated with students’ district
achievement test scores; however, this relationship diminished when students’ poverty
level was controlled for (Battistich et al., 1997).
18
When discussing the importance of students’ experience of a strong sense of
community in school, this cohort of researchers often cite the satisfaction of the three
basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness that are explicated
by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). While they claim to be extending the
theory by placing an emphasis on the importance of the social/interpersonal aspects of
satisfying the three basic needs in one’s community (Solomon et al., 1997), it is more of
an application of the theory than an extension because self-determination theorists have
always posited social/interpersonal sources of basic need satisfaction through one’s
engagement in the social world (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
As such, the most recent reports from the Child Development Project (Battistich
et al., 2000; Solomon et al., 2000), which measure students’ perceptions of school
community using the Classroom Supportiveness and Meaningful Participation subscales
of the Developmental Studies Center’s Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) provides a
nice link to the next higher-order classification, which covers self-determination theory
perspectives on student-teacher relationships. That is, the Classroom Supportiveness and
Meaningful Participation subscales of the Developmental Studies Center’s Student
Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) seem to be direct measures of students’ perceptions of
autonomy and relatedness need supports along with their perceptions of supportive
structure in school, which is often associated with students’ perceptions of competence
(e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
Relatedness. According to self-determination theory, relatedness is one of three
psychological needs critical for optimal human functioning and development (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). Grounded in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) and object relations theory
19
(Behrends & Blatt, 1985; Fairbairn, 1952; Winnicott, 1965), the need for relatedness is
described by self-determination theorists as a need to feel securely connected socially and
to experience oneself as lovable and capable of loving (Connell, 1990). Theoretically, an
individual’s perception of relatedness is represented cognitively as dynamic, organized
schemas derived from, and used on-the-fly for socializing interactions with others (Ryan,
Avery, & Grolnick, 1985). These schemas should be measurable through accessing an
individual’s cognitive representational model of self in relation to others (Bretherton,
1985; Crittenden, 1990; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1991), which contains both knowledge and
affective information (Fiske, 1982).
Unfortunately, it has been repeatedly noted that researchers interested in Self
Determination Theory typically overlook relatedness need perceptions when doing
empirical work as compared to research on the needs for perceived competence and
autonomy (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, &
Kindermann, 2008). Perhaps this is because the construct of “relatedness perceptions”
lacks definitional clarity and measurement consistency, which can be inferred from the
variety of ways students’ perceptions of relatedness support from their teachers have been
measured.
For example, using the self-determination theory framework, Ryan, Stiller, and
Lynch (1994) measured 606 middle school students’ relationships with teachers, parents,
and peers and among other findings they determined that students’ relationships with
teachers are strong predictors of their academic motivation. In this study, student-teacher
relationship representations are measured as a four-dimensional construct consisting of 1)
felt security, 2) emotional utilization, 3) school utilization, and 4) emulation with
20
coefficient alphas of .55, .80, .66, and .84 respectively (Ryan et al., 1994). The first two
dimensions were measured via an adaptation of the Inventory of Adolescent Attachments
(IAA) (Greenberg, 1982 as cited in Ryan et al., 1994). This inventory has since been
revised. It now has 25 items split into three subscales trust, communication, and
alienation and is called the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987; Pace, Martini, & Zavattini, 2011). Ryan et al. (1994) substituted the
word “teacher” for “mother/father” in the parent items to make it an inventory of teacher
attachment. For their other relationship representation variables, they measured school
utilization with 3 items focused on whether or not the student used the teacher when
encountering academic problems, and they used 5 items that concerned student’s desire to
be liked and be seen as similar to their teacher to measure emulation (Ryan et al., 1994).
Taking a different measurement approach, yet adhering to self-determination
theory conceptually, Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) used a 17-item relatedness
questionnaire adapted from Wellborn and Connell’s 1987 unpublished Manual for the
Rochester Assessment Package for Schools (as cited in Lynch & Cichetti, 1992). Lynch
and Cichetti (1992) used the questionnaire to measure differences in seven to thirteen
year-old, 115 maltreated and 100 demographically matched non-maltreated, children’s
relationships with teachers and parents determining that teachers can serve as an
alternative or secondary attachment figure for young children to develop secure
attachment relationships with. Lynch and Cichetti (1997) used this instrument again to
assess 1,226 second through eighth grade students’ relationship patterns with their
teachers, mothers, and peers to examine developmental differences in said relationships
such as the finding that relationship quality with teachers and parents declines during
21
these years while relationships with peers improves. This questionnaire has two
subscales labeled emotional quality and psychological proximity seeking. The 10
emotional quality items use a 4-point scale to assess children’s emotional experience;
specifically, the items assess the degree students’ feel relaxed, ignored, happy, mad,
bored, important, unhappy, scared, safe, and sad when they are with the teacher. The
seven psychological proximity seeking items use a 4-point scale to assess student’s
desiring more attention from, to spend more time with, to be better known by, to have
feelings perceived by, to be closer to, to enjoy more time with, and to be better able to
talk about things with their teacher. The optimal relationship is defined by high
emotional quality scores (high positive emotion) and low psychological proximity
seeking scores (satisfied with existing degrees of closeness). In the latest version of this
instrument, put out in 1998 by the Institute for Research and Reform in Education, the
emotional quality subscale has been reduced to 4 items and is now called teacher
emotional security; whereas, the psychological proximity seeking subscale was dropped
due to low reliabilities and lack of consistent associations with indices of student
performance and adjustment (IRRE, 1998). The reported reliability sample consisted of
2429 diverse middle school students with a teacher emotional security subscale
coefficient alpha of .71 (IRRE, 1998).
Using yet another measure, but again advocating the self-determination theory
perspective, Skinner and Belmont (1993) operationalized support for the relatedness need
as students’ perceptions of teacher involvement in their study of 114 (Grades 3-5)
children that validated their model suggesting need support influences student
engagement, which in turn influences student adjustment and achievement. Further, this
22
study provided strong evidence for the reciprocal effects of student engagement back on
teachers’ providing of need support in the classroom (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
Skinner and Belmont (1993) measured teacher involvement using a shortened 8-item
version (alpha = .79) of their Teacher as Social Context (TASC) scale (Belmont, Skinner,
Wellborn, & Connell, 1988) with 2 items tapping teacher’s affection (liking and
appreciation), 2 items for attunement (understanding, and knowledge of the student), 2
items on dedication of resources (aid, time, energy), and 2 items regarding dependability
(available in case of need). The TASC also has a longer, 14-item version (alpha = .83)
with 3, 3, 2, and 6 items for each subscale respectively (Belmont et al., 1988). Bao and
Lam (2008) used the TASC to examine the relationships between perceptions of
relatedness and autonomy support from teachers in determining the importance of
freedom of task choice on task motivation in 4 studies of fifth-grade Chinese students.
Interestingly, choice mattered less when perceptions of student-teacher relatedness were
high, which provides support for the contention that relatedness facilitates internalization
and allows students to feel autonomous when doing teacher-determined tasks (Bao &
Lam, 2008). A more recent study used the TASC as a basis for the development of a
video coding rubric to measure observer perceptions of teacher involvement in 12 Dutch
and 12 Indonesian classrooms (Maulana, Opdenakker, Stroet, & Bosker, 2013). This
study revealed that during the first year of secondary education teacher involvement
decreased over the year and that students accordingly reported less autonomous academic
motivation across the year.
Meanwhile, Furrer and Skinner (2003), Marchand and Skinner (2007), as well as
Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann (2008) measured students’ sense of
23
relatedness to their teacher using a different four-item scale: 1) When I’m with my
teacher I feel accepted, 2) like someone special, 3) ignored, and 4) unimportant with good
internal consistency (alphas = .79-.93). Furrer and Skinner (2003) found this measure of
relatedness to predict changes in 641 third to sixth grade children’s engagement across a
school year over and above the effects of perceived control. Marchand and Skinner
(2007) found this student-reported measure of student-teacher relatedness to be the
primary predictor of help-seeking behavior, as compared to student-reports of
competence, autonomy, engagement, and teacher-reports of involvement, structure, or
autonomy supportiveness, in their study of 765 third to sixth grade children. Skinner,
Furrer, Marchand, and Kindermann (2008) measured changes in behavioral and
emotional engagement of 805 fourth- through seventh-grade children across an academic
year and found scores on this measure of relatedness during the fall semester to be an
important predictor of change in both emotional engagement and behavioral engagement.
Butzel and Ryan (1997) explain the measurement of another aspect of relatedness
need fulfillment with 7 items focusing on an individual’s willingness to share emotional
experiences with others, both positive and negative, calling their measure the Emotional
Reliance Questionnaire (ERQ). Specifically, the ERQ asks if the child would be willing
to turn to a specific adult (concerning this project, their teacher) when 1) depressed, 2)
anxious or scared, 3) excited about something, 4) feeling bad about themselves, 5)
overwhelmed, 6) frustrated or angry, and 7) proud of an accomplishment. Internal
consistency scores were not reported for the scale; however, scores on this measure were
associated with less depression and greater well-being (Butzel and Ryan, 1997).
24
Formulating yet another measure of relatedness need satisfaction, founding selfdetermination theorists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci collaborated with colleagues to
develop and use a Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships scale (LaGuardia, Ryan,
Couchman, & Deci, 2000), which has 3 relatedness subscale items that when applied to
student-teacher relationships share the stem “when I am with my teacher” and finish with
1) I feel loved and cared about, 2) I often feel a lot of distance in our relationship, and 3) I
feel a lot of closeness and intimacy. Although they did not examine relationships
between students and teachers, it was found that basic need satisfaction measured in this
way (alpha = .92) fully mediated the relationship between attachment security (with
mother, father, romantic partner, roommate, and other significant adult) and well-being
(LaGuardia et al., 2000).
Finally, a well-known Canadian self-determination theorist by the name of Robert
Vallerand created another relatedness assessment (Richer & Vallerand, 1998). This scale
consists of 10 items split into the two, 5-item subscales titled acceptance and intimacy.
This scale can be used for any relationship by substituting the blank with coach, mother,
supervisor, teacher, etc. in the item stem that reads “In my relationship with my ______, I
feel…” The 5 items in the acceptance scale (alpha = .89) read 1) supported, 2)
understood, 3) listened to, 4) valued, and 5) safe. The 5 items in the intimacy subscale
(alpha = .91) read 1) close to them, 2) attached to them, 3) bonded to them, 4) close-knit,
and 5) as a friend. Most widely used in the area of sports psychology research, positive
scores on this instrument are related to increased vitality and performance.
Although the above may not be an exhaustive list, it is clear that the diversity of
operational definitions and corresponding measurement tools suggest that the concept of
25
a relatedness need-supportive relationship needs clarification. There is, however, much
support for the notion that students’ perceived relatedness in the classroom has an
important connection to many desirable outcomes. To summarize, it has been associated
with students’ intrinsic motivation (Anderson, Manoogian, & Resnick, 1976; Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986) , perceived competence, self-esteem (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), perceived
control, self-regulation, positive coping, perceived autonomy (Ryan et al., 1994),
academic help-seeking (Marchand & Skinner, 2007), and behavioral/emotional
engagement in the classroom (Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Furrer &
Skinner, 2003; Klem & Connell, 2004; Ryan et al., 1994; Skinner et al., 2008).
Closeness, conflict, and dependency. This grouping of measures is grounded
firmly in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), both in terms of how the relationship is
conceptualized and how results are interpreted. Though, it might seem appropriate to
present this theory-based grouping of measurement tools under the subheading of
“student-teacher attachment,” this subheading was not used because other groupings that
are distinct enough in terms of current theory to be separated, also cite attachment theory
as a historic influence on their perspective as well.
Measuring pre-school through 3rd-grade student-teacher relationships from the
teacher’s point of view, the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) was developed to
examine teachers’ cognitive representations of relationships with their students (Pianta,
1994; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg 1992). Its theoretical structure, derived
from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), is a three-dimensional model consisting of the
factors 1) warmth/security, 2) anger/dependency, and 3) anxiety/insecurity. However,
efforts to determine the correct empirical model for the factor structure of this scale have
26
produced mixed results. It has been found to consist of five factors: 1) conflict/anger,
which measures the struggle and emotional drain that the teacher experiences from the
student, 2) warmth/closeness, which measures perceptions of warmth and closeness with
the student, as well as student expressions of positive affect, 3) open communication,
which measures student willingness to share feelings and teachers attunement to the
students feelings, 4) dependency, which measures students’ unnecessary requests for help
from the teacher and overly strong reactions to separation from the teacher, and 5)
troubled feelings, which measures the student’s refusal of teacher support and teacher’s
worrying about the relationship (Pianta, 1994; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). Yet, some
researchers prefer to stay closer to Bowlby’s (1973) model by using a three subscale
structure of the STRS including 1) closeness, 2) dependency, and 3) conflict (Birch &
Ladd, 1997, 1998). Within this framework the closeness subscale includes 11 items that
assess warmth and open communication. The dependency subscale is a 5 item index of
the degree to which the student is overly dependent on the teacher. The conflict subscale
consists of 12 items measuring friction or struggling between the student and teacher. It
should be noted that the dependency subscale has demonstrated relatively weak internal
consistency in past studies (e.g., alpha = .61-.69; Kesner, 2000; Palermo et al., 2007). A
15-item short version of the STRS has been used more recently (Baker, 2006; Crosnoe et
al., 2010; Rudasill, 2011), which consists of 8 items for closeness (alpha = .64-.86) and 7
items for conflict (alpha = .84-.91). Webb and Neuharth-Pritchett (2011) recently
examined the three-factor structure validity and measurement invariance of the full 28item STRS across 178 African American and 130 European American students. The full
sample was found to show poor model fit until 2 items were dropped. When the sample
27
was split by ethnicity, the pattern of factor loadings failed the test of configural
invariance and exploratory factor analysis revealed large discrepancies in factor loadings
for items on the closeness and dependency scales between groups. All this suggests that
the factor structure of the STRS is not clear; nonetheless, this scale is quite popular in the
study of early-childhood, student-teacher relationships and requires further consideration.
In fact, this scale is gaining popularity in European countries as translations and
assessment of scale properties have been reported in Greece (Gregoriadis & Tsigilis,
2008), Italy (Fraire et al., 2013), Netherlands (Koomen et al., 2012), Norway (Drugli &
Hjemdal, 2013), and Germany (Milatz et al., 2014).
Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, and Reiser (2008) used a student-reported,
age-appropriate rendition of the STRS with 264, 7- to 12-year-old children in
combination with the typical teacher-report version of the STRS. Interestingly, the
maximum correlation between teacher- and child-report scores was only r = .30.
Henricsson and Rydell (2004) also found little (r = .21) to no relationship (r = .11)
between student-report of the relationship and teacher-reported STRS scores, as did
Lisonbee, Mize, Payne, and Granger (2008) who, at best, found r = .20. This discrepancy
between teacher and student reports of the relationship is a clear example of issues related
to the question of what is actually being measured by researchers studying studentteacher relationships with so many different measurement tools. Specifically, these
studies demonstrate that students’ internal relationship representations and teachers’
internal relationship representations are different and should be treated as distinct
constructs. Similarly, when Doumen et al. (2012) examined agreement between teacher
and observer ratings of student-teacher relationships in kindergarten they found
28
significant yet small correlation between observer and teacher ratings of closeness (r =
.31), conflict (r = .35), and dependency (r = .43). Still, the STRS in its various forms is
by far the most widely cited measure of student-teacher relationships as determined by
the quantity of studies that surfaced in this literature review.
In a study on math achievement, Crosnoe et al. (2010) used the 15-item STRS to
measure closeness and conflict in the student-teacher relationship of 587 students in their
third- and fifth-grade years. They also measured math achievement using the Applied
Problems test of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised (WJ-R;
Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) as well as basic vs. inferential instructional style using
observer ratings. Results suggested that both conflict and closeness predict increases in
math achievement from 3rd to 5th grade. This relationship is particularly strong for those
entering below average in Math and in classrooms that use inferential instruction.
Valiente et al. (2008) measured 264 students between the ages of 7 and 12-years old on
effortful control using the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (Capaldi &
Rothbart, 1992), teacher-student closeness and conflict using the STRS, as well as school
absences and GPA. The relationship variables were predictive of GPA and absences
beyond the effects of effortful control. In a cross cultural test of factor structure, Koomen
et al. (2012) delivered a translated version of the STRS to a Dutch sample of 2335
children ages 3-12. They also administered the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(SDQ; Goodman, 2001) to examine predictive validity of the STRS as related to
adolescent adjustment elements of emotionality, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer
problems, and prosocial behaviors. The data suggested that the three-factor studentteacher relationship structure of closeness, conflict, and dependency was satisfactory in
29
the Dutch version of the STRS. All three factors were predictive of all five adjustment
subscales in the expected directions as well.
Generally speaking, the outcomes related to high quality student-teacher
relationships as measured using teacher-reported STRS scores include higher school
achievement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Crosnoe et al., 2010; Harme & Pianta, 2001; 2005;
Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Mantzicopoulos, 2005; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Pianta,
Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008; Pianta & Stulman, 2004), greater
classroom participation (Doumen et al., 2012; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999), less behavior,
internalizing, and attention problems along with higher work ethic, and frustration
tolerance (Pianta, 1994; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), greater social
competence with peers (Howes, 2000; Koomen et al., 2012; Pianta, 1994; Pianta &
Nimetz, 1991; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992), lower school avoidance, more cooperation, and
better self-discipline (Birch & Ladd, 1997), increased prosocial behavior and decreased
peer aggression (Birch & Ladd; 1998; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004; Koomen et al., 2012;
Palermo, et al. 2007; Stipek & Miles, 2008), less externalizing problems, and lower levels
of disruptive behavior (Baker, 2006; Henricsson & Rydell, 2004). Data also suggest
positive relationships act as a buffer against the negative effects of insecure maternal
attachment on academic achievement (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007), they partially
mediate the relationship between effortful control and grades (Valiente, et al., 2008), and
they reduce the impact of various risk factors on academic achievement (Baker, 2006;
Harme & Pianta, 2005). Finally, in line with the contemporary interest in physiological
correlates of psychological phenomena, high scores on the conflict subscale of the STRS
30
have been shown to predict cortisol increases in children during teacher-child interactions
(Lisonbee et al., 2008).
Another tool, developed to measure closeness/warmth, dependency/autonomy,
and conflict from students’ perspective is titled Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher
Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). To deliver this
measure, children are given a statement on a postcard and asked to place the card in a
mailbox if they agree and in a trashcan if they disagree, which generates a dichotomous
scoring system. The warmth/closeness subscale has 14 items related to supportiveness,
encouragement, and acceptance, the autonomy/dependence subscale has 9 items related to
perceived opportunities for choice and variety in activities, and the conflict subscale has 8
items related to teacher negativity and confrontational interactions (Mantzicopoulos &
Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). Similar to what others have found when using both the STRS
and other student perception measures, the student reported Y-CATS data are modestly to
not-at-all correlated with teacher-reported STRS data. The subscales with the greatest
correlation are the Y-CATS warmth/closeness subscale and the STRS secure subscale,
yet these correlations range from only r = .25 in pre-school to r = .17 in first grade. Only
the conflict subscale of the Y-CATS seems to be consistently predictive of school
performance measures such as social skills (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003),
academic achievement, and problem behaviors (Mantzicopoulos, 2005; Mantzicopoulos
& Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003).
Sense of belonging. Initially considered for its relevance to school attrition rates
(Finn, 1989), the sense of belonging (Goodenow, 1993) is a psychological construct
defined as the “extent to which students fell personally accepted, respected, included, and
31
supported by others in the school environment” (p. 80). Although broader in scope and
definition than student-teacher relationship conceptualizations, this perspective shares
many similarities with them, which is why it has been included in this study.
Specifically, the elements of acceptance, respect, acknowledgement, support,
appreciation, freedom of self-expression, and sense of attachment emerge as themes
throughout the review of student-teacher relationship perspectives herein. Whereas
school belongingness is thought to promote participation in school life through a shared
commitment to or identification with school goals (Goodenow, 1993), student-teacher
relationship quality is linked to academic engagement and internalization of academic
values (Ryan et al., 1985). Further validating the inclusion of this construct with an
exploration of student-teacher relationship research, Demanet and Van Houtte (2012) use
seven items from the primary measure of school belongingness, discussed below, and
refer to it as perceived teacher support as they demonstrate its inverse relationship to
school misconduct. It is also common for researchers in this field, like Zumbrunn et al.,
(2014), to cite student-teacher relationship research alongside school belongingness
research as though all are assumed to be measuring similar relationally supportive school
environments. Not surprisingly, school belongingness has also been found to be a
function of student-teacher relationship quality (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996).
The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale, developed to
measure this relationship construct, demonstrates good internal consistency (α= .875) and
was a good predictor of effort and achievement in school (Goodenow, 1993). The PSSM
scale consists of 18 items which are averaged to create a single scale score. Items assess
perceptions such as the degree to which students feel able to be themselves, feel accepted,
32
feel their accomplishments are noticed by others, feel they are taken seriously, can talk
about problems with adults, feel included in activities, feel respected, and feel as though
they belong in the school. Goodenow’s (1993) belongingness scale has been adapted by
other educational researchers (e.g. Anderman, 1999; Anderman & Anderman, 1999;
Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Roeser et al., 1996), but the overall construct has not changed.
Variables associated with a high sense of belongingness include task valuing and
success expectancies (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007; Goodenow, 1993;
Goodenow & Grady, 1993), general school motivation (Goodenow & Grady, 1993), less
absenteeism (Nichols, 2008), reduced risky behaviors (Resnick et al., 1997), increased
positive affect (Anderman, 1999; Roeser et al., 1996), greater optimism, less depression,
less social rejection, and less behavioral problems (Anderman, 2002), greater academic
efficacy and intrinsic goal orientation (Freeman & Anderman, 2002; Zumbrunn et al.,
2014), and increased school achievement as measured by GPA (Goodenow, 1993;
Anderman, 2002; Gutman & Midgley, 2000). Some additional terminology has been
used to refer to concepts nearly identical to the sense of belongingness. These include
identification with school (Finn, 1989), bonding with school (Kester, 1994), and
perceptions of school connectedness (Resnick et al., 1997).
More recently, Kennedy and Tuckman (2013) used the PSSM scale along with
numerous other psychological and academic performance measures in their study of 671
college freshmen. Their data supported a model where perceived school belonging in the
eighth week of classes was positively related to performance goal orientation, selfefficacy, mastery goal orientation, and negatively related to perceived stress (Kennedy &
Tuckman, 2013). Others have begun investigating the role that perceived school
33
belonging plays in students’ experience of negative affect and depressive symptoms
(Shochet & Smith, 2014; Shochet, et al., 2011). These studies involved 504 Australian
seventh and eighth grade students measured at three time points separated by twelve
months and then six months points using self-report measures for characteristics of the
classroom environment, students’ perceived school belongingness (the PSSM) and their
depressive symptoms (Shochet & Smith, 2014). School belonging was found to partially
mediate the relationship between classroom environment variables and depressive
symptoms, but both also showed unique predictive importance at each time point
(Shochet & Smith, 2014).
The PSSM scale is clearly a reliable and valid measure of students’ perceived
school belonging. Across 26 studies reviewed by You, Ritchey, Furlong, Shochet, and
Boman (2011) the alpha coefficients ranged from .78 to .95. However, the factor
structure of the PSSM scale was brought into question (You et al., 2011) and it still does
not seem to be resolved (Ye & Wallace, 2014). Specifically, You et al. (2011) randomly
split their participants into two groups and identified three factors using exploratory
factor analysis with the first group (N = 256) and then validated the measurement model
using confirmatory factor analysis of the second group (N = 248). They named these
three factors caring relationships, acceptance, and rejection (You et al., 2011). Shochet et
al. (2011) reported further evidence supporting the importance of considering perceived
school belonging a multidimensional construct by using this three factor structure to
demonstrate the differential importance of acceptance on predicting negative affect for
adolescent boys and rejection for predicting negative affect in adolescent girls. Demanet
and Van Houtte (2012) analyzed PSSM data from 11,872 high school aged students using
34
Varimax rotation in a Principle Components Analysis and found four component factors.
They determined that the first factor represented teacher related items and the other three
did not yield straightforward interpretation so they chose to accept a two factor
measurement model for the PSSM with one factor being teacher support and the other
being general school belonging, which yielded acceptable results in confirmatory factor
analysis (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012). Most recently, Ye and Wallace (2014)
examined the factor structure of the PSSM scale in a diverse American sample of high
school students (N = 890) and found further evidence for a three dimensional factor
structure; however, the items in the second and third factors do not overlap completely
with the items in the You et al. (2011) three factor structure and to further complicate
things they named their three factors generalized connection to teachers, perception of
fitting in among peers, and identification and participation in school (Ye & Wallace,
2014).
Before moving beyond this section of the paper, which covers the fifth and final
higher-order categorization of student-teacher relationship constructs, it is useful to
exemplify again the primary problem that this dissertation is addressing. The Australian
State of Victoria’s Department of Education, Employment and Training (2000) use a very
similar term, school connectedness to represent a very different construct. Their school
connectedness scale consists of 4 items measuring the degree to which students look
forward to school, like school, enjoy schoolwork, and have fun learning at school (DEET,
Victoria, 2000). Using this conceptualization, Skues, Cunningham, and Pokharel (2005)
found that students’ sense of school connectedness decreased as a function of being
bullied in school. Though it may be interesting to note that students who are bullied
35
enjoy school less and do not look forward to going to school; it would be a mistake to say
that being bullied at school is related to decreased school connectedness as
conceptualized by Resnick et al. (1997) or Goodenow (1993). Skues et al. (2005) did not
directly make such a claim; rather, it serves as a great example of the broader issue being
addressed herein, which is the potentiality for misinterpretation when measures differing
greatly in content are used to measure constructs with similar, and sometimes the exact
same name. Kohl, Recchia, and Steffgen (2013) touch on this issue in their call for
researchers to be more careful in their measurement of school climate constructs and to
stop creating new measures when multiple, well validated measures of the same
constructs already exist; again, echoing why measurement integration is so badly needed
in this field of research.
Integration of Student-Teacher Relationship Conceptualizations
The sections above reviewed many different approaches to defining, measuring,
and discussing student-teacher relationships and their importance for students’ social and
academic development. This review may not be fully comprehensive in scope; however,
it covers all the common perspectives and sheds light on the differences in measurement
tools and the similarities in empirical associations with positive social and cognitive
developmental outcomes across perspectives. The problem of theory integration is
considerable, yet attempts toward such solutions are required in order to truly understand
student-teacher relationships and their implications for student growth and achievement.
With this purpose, two main questions need discussion: 1) what is being measured that
could be responsible for the similarity in associations with positive developmental
outcomes? and 2) what is the psychological mechanism responsible for these empirical
36
associations between student-teacher relationships and desirable social and academic
student development outcomes?
What is Being Measured?
A general theme shared by multiple approaches is the notion that when measuring
student-teacher relationships researchers are trying to access students’ cognitive
relationship representations, also known as relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992).
Psychologists positing this construct often cite object relations theory (Behrends & Blatt,
1985; Fairbairn, 1952; Winnicott, 1965) or attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) as the
intellectual background for their belief. Although their theoretical arguments may be
sound, the tools used to measure student’s relational schemas are broad, inconsistent, and
provide minimal direct evidence that such organized cognitive representations exist. For
example, researchers using the previously reviewed conceptualizations have primarily
relied on questionnaire items asking students to report their feelings of connectedness to
the classroom (Goodenow, 1993), perceptions of their teacher’s intentions (Wentzel,
1994), feelings and desires when with the teacher (Lynch and Cicchetti, 1992), feelings
while interacting with the teacher (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), a combination of behaviors
involving the teacher, feelings when around the teacher, and desire to emulate the teacher
(Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994); or, perhaps furthest from directly measuring students’
relational schemas, some measures ask teachers to report their feelings about the
relationship and their perceptions of student behavior (Pianta & Steinberg 1992).
So what are these mysterious relational schemas that are measured at various
degrees of directness by the aforementioned instruments? One could possibly argue that
a relatively unorganized bunch of memory traces are responsible for responses to
37
questionnaire items such as these. This seems unlikely, due to the association between
responses to the various questionnaires and the patterns of developmental outcomes;
however, without direct empirical evidence regarding the structure and function of
student-teacher relationship representations, a closer look at some underlying theory is
needed.
Relational schemas. These relationship representations are said to consist of
dynamic, organized schemas derived from, and used on-the-fly for socializing
interactions with others (Ryan, Avery, & Grolnick, 1985). From psychodynamic to social
cognitive perspectives, this dynamic set of schemas, which contain both knowledge and
affective information (Fiske, 1982), go by many different names. Some of these names
include internal working models of self in relation to others (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton,
1985; Crittenden, 1990), relational models (Fiske, 1992), relational self (Andersen &
Chen, 2002), self-with-other unit (Ogilvie & Ashmore, 1991), interpersonal schemas
(Safran, 1990), relational models, (Mitchell, 1988), relationship schemas, (Horowitz,
1989), and relational schemas (Baldwin, 1992; Planalp, 1987). Because this construct
exists by so many names, to reduce confusion the term relational schema has been and
will continue to be used in this thesis in reference to a cognitive structure incorporating
aspects of self, other, and their respective interpersonal scripts.
With such widespread acceptance in psychological theories, it seems plausible
there would be some direct evidence for the existence of this construct. In particular,
methods used in research on social cognition seem well suited for investigating how
relationships are perceived, stored, processed, and recalled. Disappointingly, until the
mid-1990’s, social cognitive research has focused on the aspects of social perception
38
considered separately. For instance, a researcher might study how people perceive others
(e.g., Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Fiske & Cox, 1979; Schneider, 1973), how people
perceive themselves (e.g., Epstein, 1973; Markus, 1977; Rogers, 1977), or how people
construe situations (e.g., Cantor, Mischel, and Schwartz, 1982; Schank & Abelson, 1977).
However, some empirical support for the interconnected organization of these cognitive
structures has been established (Baldwin, 1992). Although the content, structure, and
function of relational schemas have never been directly investigated in the context of
student-teacher relationships, the social cognitive approach offers methodology,
principles, and preliminary data to guide such a program of research.
Preliminary Relational Schema Data. As an example of a relational schema,
consider a student who perceives himself as an inadequate, unworthy, loser, while
perceiving the teacher as a powerful, rejecting, criticizer. This student would likely
maintain if-then scripts such as “if I make a mistake then the teacher will scold me.”
Similar to stereotypes, implicit personality theories, and self-schemas, the activation of
relational schemas should bring about social cognitive phenomena such as the drawing of
attention to schema relevant information, the filling in of information gaps, and biasing of
interpretation of ambiguous information (Baldwin, 1992). In fact, with priming effects
and the process of spreading activation as defining aspects of organized schemas (Higgins
& Bargh, 1987), it is safe to say that Baldwin and his colleagues have illustrated the
existence of relational schemas and some of their perceptual influences. For example,
Baldwin and Holmes (1987) primed female participants’ relationships with their parents
and other participants with their campus friend relationships; then, in an ostensibly
unrelated task the researchers had participants rate their enjoyment of various stories. As
39
expected, participants with a primed parent-relational schema rated a sexually permissive
story as less enjoyable and less exciting than the other participants. In a second study,
male participants were subjected to imagery priming of a supportive, unconditionally
accepting relationship or an evaluative, shallow relationship and then given an extremely
difficult task. Participants primed with a shallow relationship were more likely to feel
badly and attribute their failure to “something about me” (Baldwin & Holmes, 1987).
These results have been replicated using the simple priming technique of exposure to the
name of a supportive vs. critical other (Baldwin, 1994).
To further explicate the underlying if-then script activation responsible for these
findings, Baldwin and Sinclair (1996) demonstrated that participants primed with a
conditionally accepting significant other showed the expected failure-rejection pattern in
a lexical decision task. This type of if-then script activation is an important mechanism
for the influence of relational schemas on thought (see Baldwin, 1997). Again using the
unconditional versus conditional acceptance distinction, relational schema activation,
once associated to specific tones through conditioning, produced different effects
depending on chronic attachment orientations (Baldwin & Meunier, 1999). Specifically,
insecure individuals were negatively affected by the activation of conditionally accepting
others, they showed failure-rejection activation, whereas secure individuals showed
increased activation of success-acceptance contingencies. In sum, reasonable evidence
exists in support of the relational schema as a social cognitive construct. Although direct
evidence has not yet been collected, it seems plausible to believe that such schemas also
exist in students’ cognitive systems regarding their relationships with teachers.
40
Fitting relational schemas with previous student-teacher relationship
conceptualizations. In this section, each of the student-teacher relationship measurement
perspectives reviewed earlier will be examined in terms of how it might be construed as
measuring aspects of relational schemas. The major aspects of a relational schema of this
kind would consist of the student’s perception of self, perception of the teacher, and
associated interpersonal scripts. Taking a closer look at the measure of school belonging
(Goodenow, 1993), it could be interpreted as a possible measure of students general
relational schema for their relationship with others at school. As such, it seems to have 6
items that tap into students’ self-perceptions, such as “sometimes I feel as if I don’t
belong here,” 4 items examining students’ perception of other, such as “most teachers at
(name of school) are interested in me,” and 8 items which relate to interpersonal scripts,
such as “people here notice when I am good at something.” Of the 6 sample items
provided by Battistich et al. (1997) regarding the measurement of students’ sense of
school community, 4 relate to students’ interpersonal scripts, for instance “the teacher in
my class asks the students to help decide what the class should do,” and 2 tap perceptions
of others in the classroom, such as “the students in this class really care about one
another.”
As for the self-determination theorists, Ryan et al. (1994) specifically state that
they intend to measure relationship schemas and Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) claim
adherence to the attachment perspective’s internal working model of the relationship
when explaining their relatedness measure as do Skinner and her colleagues (Furrer &
Skinner, 2003; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Accordingly, the IAA (Greenberg, 1982 as
cited in Ryan et al., 1994) incorporates students’ perceptions of characteristics of the
41
teacher such as trustworthiness and understanding as well as items examining students’
interpersonal scripts related to sharing feelings and accomplishments with the teacher.
Ryan et al.’s (1994) school utilization and teacher emulation components reflect the same
perception of teacher and interpersonal script foci. Skinner and Belmont’s (1993)
involvement scale also measures students’ perceptions of teacher characteristics (e.g.
appreciating, understanding, helpful) and their interpersonal scripts (e.g. if I need the
teacher then they will be available for me); whereas, the Furrer and Skinner (2003)
relatedness measure only taps affective aspects of the students’ if-then scripts, which is
also true for the Laguardia et al. (2000) measure. The Wellborn and Connell assessment
tool used by Lynch and Cichetti (1992; 1997) focuses on the measurement of both
affective and behavioral expectation aspects of students’ if-then interpersonal scripts.
The measure of pedagogical caring used by Wentzel (1994), only taps students’
perceptions of the teacher, specifically, whether the teacher cares about a number of
things related to the student’s school life. Feldlaufer et al.’s (1988) measure of teacher
supportiveness contains a few complex items that could arguably fit into many different
parts of the model. First, they appear to tap students’ perceptions of the teacher as caring
and fair; however, many of the items would require activation of students’ if-then
interpersonal scripts to generate a response because the items ask about specific teacher
behaviors in relation to specific student behavior. In the end, the focus on specific
teacher behaviors in these items makes them sound most like teacher involvement or
teacher use of punishment, which are predictors of the relationship in the model. For
example, the item worded “this teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to
lower my grade to control my behavior” could imply that the teacher is uncaring or
42
unfair, but the if-then script about misbehavior leading to threats would be activated and
the item would fit well as a measure of the teacher’s use of punishment.
The STRS (Pianta, 1994) does not directly measure any aspect of students’
relational schemas; rather, it measures aspects of teachers’ relational schemas, including
some of their beliefs about students’ perceptions. Specifically, teachers are asked to
report on their perceptions of students (e.g. dependent, sneaky, unpredictable, sees me as
a source of punishment and criticism), if-then scripts related to interpersonal situations
with the student (e.g. if upset, this child will seek comfort from me). Mantzicopoulos and
Neuharth-Pritchett’s (2003) Y-CATS measure on the other hand, does tap students’
relational schemas by asking young children to indicate their perception of the accuracy
of various statements about teacher characteristics as well as the teacher’s interpersonal
behaviors, which would require the activation of the students’ if-then interpersonal
scripts.
It seems then, that there is no difficulty discussing the major student-teacher
relationship measurement strategies through the social cognitive, relational schema lens.
Two important questions next emerge: 1) what are the most basic characteristics of a
desirable student-teacher relational schema, 2) by what mechanisms or processes do these
relational schemas affect student development in school?
One way to approach the first question would be to perform a comprehensive,
meta-analytic study of all the current research on student-teacher relationships. A major
challenge of this study would be to tease apart the effect sizes for each outcome measure
for each factor measured within each student-teacher relationship conceptualization. This
43
process could become inherently confounded due to the various questionnaire items and
formats used to measure each of the student-teacher relationship factors.
Another way to approach the question would be to perform a large study wherein
all the current major perspective on defining high-quality student teacher relationships
were taken into account when constructing a relatively comprehensive measure of
relationship characteristics. Perhaps some new characteristics would emerge from deeper
reflection on the relational schema concept as well. For instance, current perspectives do
not tend to measure much about students’ perceptions of self. The items from all
perspectives could be analyzed to determine the factor structure of student-teacher
relationships and which items best measure such factors. In a subsequent study, these
factors could be examined for predictive power in relation to each of the outcome
variables to determine the characteristics of a desirable student-teacher relationship.
Answers to the second question require additional research as well; however some further
discussion of relevant psychological theory could provide some possibilities.
Are there Common Psychological Mechanisms?
Research has provided much evidence that high quality student teacher
relationships are associated with pro-social classroom behaviors and social competence
(e.g., Mitchell-Copeland, Denham, & DeMulder, 1997; Pianta, 1999), as well as
academic achievement and emotional adjustment (e.g., Birch & Ladd, 1996; 1997;
Goodenow, 1993; Ryan et al., 1994). Unfortunately, exactly how students’ perceptions
of high quality relationships with their teachers lead to the desirable outcomes is not
entirely known. Actually, there are multiple ways to explain these social and cognitive
44
developmental effects of student-teacher relationships, but the critical research has not yet
been performed to determine their respective merits.
One explanation comes directly from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973). This
theory would suggest that high quality student-teacher relationships provide students with
a sense of security allowing their exploration of the environment, which leads to the
development of greater competencies. Additionally, accessible schema information can
influence the construal of behavior (Bargh & Pietromonaco, 1982; Higgins, Rholes, &
Jones, 1977; Srull & Wyer, 1979). Correspondingly, the activation of a particular
student-teacher relational schema might influence a student’s perception of teacher
behavior and somehow impact their development accordingly.
Another possible explanation stems from research design issues related to
correlation-based studies. If the direction of assumed causality is reversed, it could be
suggested that perhaps teachers simply like high achieving and socially developed
students more, or at least find them easier to befriend. This would imply that positive
relationships might actually be the outcome and not the cause. Of course, something
along those lines could be true in addition to the relationship having an impact on further
social and cognitive outcomes. This would be an explanation of reciprocal causation,
which data suggest some support for (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Skinner & Belmont, 1993;
Stipek & Miles, 2008).
Yet another possibility is that the correlational findings are due to a kind of third
variable effect. For instance, positive student-teacher relationships could be a product of
certain highly effective instructional practices such as cooperative learning, scaffolding in
the student’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), or experiential learning, which
45
simultaneously generate greater social and cognitive developmental outcomes. There is
some support for this notion in the relationship between instructional practices and
perceptions of teachers’ academic and social supportiveness found by Johnson et al.
(1985). Using a similar line of thought, perhaps high quality relationships develop
between students and teachers when the student’s behavior is moderated by other
characteristics such as conscientiousness or disinhibition, which also influence social and
cognitive development.
It is likely that all of these explanations have some merit. It is also likely that
each explanation has more or less merit depending on the outcome under consideration.
However, there is another explanation which has powerful implications for its potential
long-term developmental influence. High-quality relationships likely facilitate
internalization processes, which provide students with motivation to behave well and
achieve academically.
This position is explicated quite well as a sub-theory of self-determination theory
titled organismic integration theory, which proposes that high-quality relationships
facilitate students’ internalization of socially prescribed beliefs, values, and goals (Ryan,
1993; 1995). Simply put, if students feel that their teacher truly understands and cares
about them, then they are likely to accept the teacher’s social and task-related goals as
their own and willfully pursue them. Through the internalization process, goals that
originate externally (from the teacher) become valued or deemed important by the student
(identification) and potentially integrated into the student’s self-concept (integration).
Without internalization, goals will only be pursued for purely extrinsic reasons such as
acquiring rewards or avoiding punishment. With relatively shallow internalization, goal
46
pursuit may be energized to avoid feelings of guilt or to preserve one’s sense of selfworth (introjection). Although the levels of internalization are labeled for ease of
communication, the internalization process is theorized as a continuous process spanning
from completely external to fully integrated (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Progression along the continuum is facilitated by the quality of relationships with
socializing agents (Hodgins, Koestner, Duncan, 1996; Ryan, 1993, 1995; Ryan &
Powelson, 1991). As described previously, within self-determination theory, relationship
quality is defined by the degree to which the relationship fulfills the basic psychological
need for relatedness and perceived relatedness is generally described as a feeling of
connection and belongingness with others. As was also revealed earlier, the best way to
measure such a sense of relatedness in a student-teacher relationship is not altogether
clear. What is clear is that measuring from the student’s perspective is crucial if the
effects of relatedness on facilitating internalization processes within the student are the
focus. This is not to say that the teacher’s perception of the relationship (e.g. STRS,
Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) is useless; actually, there are many cases when the teacher’s
perception would be useful. However, if the student’s internal representation of the
relationship is accessible and the outcomes of interests relate to the internalization
process, then measuring the relationship from the student’s point of view makes the most
sense.
The discussion of internalization processes being facilitated by high quality
student-teacher relationships is not singular to the self-determination theory perspective.
In fact, Sandler and Rosenblatt (1962), extended the Freudian perspective of learning as
internalization by describing the identification process as “modification of the self-
47
representation on the basis of another (usually an object) representation as a
model….More enduring identifications would be manifested as organized changes in the
self-representation” (p. 137). Similarly working from a Freudian perspective, Schafer
(1968) described internalization as “all those processes by which the subject transforms
real or imagined regulatory interactions with his environment, and real or imagined
characteristics of his environment, into inner regulations and characteristics” (p. 9). Also
taking a Freudian perspective was Fleming’s (1972) discussion of the “learning alliance”
as being the teacher-student form of the “therapeutic alliance” between psychoanalyst and
patient, which facilitates internalization processes. Internalization theory can be found in
many other popular psychological theories (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Fromm, 1956; Loevinger,
1976; Maslow, 1943; Piaget, 1971; Rogers, 1961; Schafer, 1968).
Some of the other research perspectives reviewed earlier in this paper also
propose the internalization explanation as well. Specifically, the Grussec and Goodenow
(1994) internalization or identification process closely resembles the integration process
of organismic integration theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1993), as do the
explanations put forth by Solomon et al. (2000) and Wentzel (1998).
Summary and Next Steps
The relationship between a student and teacher is, at the very least, a strong
predictor of many desirable social and cognitive developmental outcomes. It likely plays
a causal role in producing such outcomes, though the mechanisms involved need further
study. Many approaches to studying student-teacher relationships currently exist among
educational and psychological researchers. Although the tools used for measurement
vary greatly in terms of both format and content, it is interesting how similar many of the
48
study outcomes are. There is need for a theory-based clarification of the relationship
construct responsible for such outcome consistency. Social cognitive psychologists have
provided strong empirical support for relational schema theory, which appears to hold
potential for explaining the psychological mechanism behind the student-teacher
relationship effects as well. Further, relational schema theory might be a good place to
start with an attempt to measure more directly and thoroughly the underlying relationship
construct in students’ psychological worlds, which ultimately impact their social and
cognitive developmental trajectories. Exactly how relational schemas impact such
development is also not entirely understood and many explanations have been proposed.
These too need further study. However, the first step toward this end is to improve our
measurement of the student-teacher relationship by clarifying the underlying factor
structure of students’ internal relationship representations.
49
CHAPTER III. METHODS
Purpose
The conceptualization and measurement of student-teacher relationships is not
consistent in educational research. The purpose of this study is to examine the many
ways educational researchers define and measure student-teacher relationships and to
explore an integrative theory and measurement approach that accounts for their
similarities and differences. Data from a single sample of student-teacher relationship
perceptions was gathered using instruments from all the perspectives simultaneously.
Modeling of item covariance allowed empirical consideration of the potential for
measurement integration. The measurement integration results provided insights for
synthesizing the existing perspectives into a single theoretical framework.
Participants
Over 8000 Midwestern public university undergraduate students were solicited
via email for participation in this research with the promise of entry into a drawing for
$50 as an incentive for participation. The survey was opened by 893 participants. Of
those who started the survey, 238 participants were deleted for not officially submitting
the survey. These 238 participants had submitted demographic data and received the
prompt to begin reflecting on a student-teacher relationship; however, they did not
complete any of the subsequent 179 survey items referencing that relationship. Next, 4
more participants were deleted because they responded “no” to the demographic question
about being 18 or older, which immediately submitted their survey even before they
received the 179 student-teacher relationship items. Of the remaining 651 participants,
266 provided partially incomplete data. A visual scan of the raw data clearly revealed
50
that while some participants had large amounts of the survey items unanswered, the vast
majority of these 266 participants had only a few missing item responses. The criteria of
95% complete data or greater was used to retain participants, which is in line with the 5%
missing data cut-off suggested by Shafer (1999). It also results in a data set that retains
adequate statistical power to do the analyses of interest, a recommendation pointed out by
Schlomer, Bauman, & Card (2010). In other words, all participants who had missed 9 or
more of the 179 student-teacher relationship items were deleted. This removed 19 more
participants from the sample. Finally, 4 more participants were removed for not
responding to key demographic grouping questions such as gender and years since high
school graduation, which left 628 participants in the sample. Because the questionnaire
included 179 student-teacher relationship questions, the remaining 628 participant’s data
were examined for potentially unengaged respondents the lowest within-participant
standard deviation of responses was .60, therefore all 628 of these participants were
retained.
Of the 628 that remained in the sample, 136 were male and 492 were female. The
participants were randomly assigned to report their most recent experiences with a high
school math (N = 207), English (N = 202), or science (N = 219) teacher. Because these
were university students retrospectively reporting on a relationship they experienced in
high school, it is important to report how long it had been since they experienced that
relationship. Accordingly, 152 participants experienced the relationship less than one
year ago; whereas 150, 103, 88, 37, and 98 participants experienced the relationship two,
three, four, five, and more than five years ago respectively. Participants reported on
whether the teacher’s gender was male (N = 322) or female (N = 306) as well.
51
Instrumentation
The students completed a composite self-report instrument, which has accordingly
been given the title Composite Student-Teacher Relationship Instrument (C-STRI). This
instrument combines twelve instruments that have been used to measure the relationship
between students and their teachers, as well as two instruments used to measure a slightly
broader relationship between students and their classroom or school. To review, Table 1
contains a descriptive list of these fourteen instruments. After considering the risks of
creating too lengthy an instrument, all items from these scales were combined into a
single composite instrument for use in this study. There were two primary reasons for
this: 1) it allows for individual scale scores, predictive validity, and internal consistency
analyses of the original instruments to be comparatively examined, and 2) it eliminates
the potential for items with strong empirical importance, but less face validity, to be
incidentally removed in the process of reducing the length of the composite instrument.
The fourteen original instruments were combined into a single, conceptually
cohesive, composite instrument to allow all items from all fourteen instruments to be
administered as one instrument with random item ordering and minimized participant
confusion. All items from each of the 14 instruments, kept grouped by instrument of
origin, with original wording, and compiled into a single document for a total of 170
items, are displayed in Appendix A.
The original instrument response scales varied from 4-point to 7-point Likert style
formats. The response scales were thus removed and replaced with a 6-point scale to
standardize potential response variance in the C-STRI. Possible responses ranged from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. Although the question of an ideal number of scale
52
items remains unanswered despite decades of research (Preston & Colman, 2000), a 6point scale was selected in accordance with Miller’s (1956) discussion about the limits of
human conscious thought being approximately 7 items, as well as to “force” respondents
to make a decision and to avoid misinterpretation of midpoint ratings (Garland, 1991).
Next, item statements were slightly modified only as necessary to 1) ask for a
student’s perception of the student-teacher relationship as opposed to the teacher’s
perspective, 2) refer to the relationship in the past tense as opposed to present tense, and
to 3) refer to the student’s relationship with a single teacher as opposed to teachers in
general or the whole classroom. The new list of 170, conceptually cohesive items, still
categorized by their scale of origin, is displayed in Appendix B to allow comparison with
the original items in Appendix A. As an example of changing from teacher to student
perspective, item 114 (Appendix A) was originally worded “this student trusts me” in the
STRS (Pianta & Nimetz, 1991) and was reworded to “I trusted this teacher” for use as
item 114 in the C-STRI (Appendix B). As an example of referring to the past instead of
present-tense, item 27 (Appendix A) was originally worded “my teacher really cares
about me” in the TASC (Belmont et al., 1988) and was reworded to “this teacher really
cared about me” for use as item 27 in the C-STRI (Appendix B). As an example of
changing the wording to refer to a specific teacher rather than teachers in general (and
present to past-tense), item 65 (Appendix A) was originally worded “teachers here are not
interested in people like me” in the PSSM (Goodenow, 1993) and was reworded to “this
teacher was not interested in people like me” for use as item 65 of the C-STRI.
In addition to the 170 items from these 14 instruments, 10 additional items
representing the outcomes internalization, engagement, and academic achievement were
53
added to assess the comparative predictive validity of each original scale and to
strengthen the measurement of those outcomes in the hypothesized structural model. The
full set of C-STRI items, worded as they were when administered to participants, is
displayed in Appendix C, ordered by hypothesized factor grouping of the C-STRI. These
factor groupings are correspondingly displayed in a graphic representation of the
hypothesized C-STRI measurement model (Figure 1), the formation of which is
explained in the following sub-section of this report.
54
Y2
Y5
Y59
Y66
Y71
Y90
Y91
Y93
Y94
ή1
Predictor:
Academic Support
Y102
Y103
Y105
Y147
Y151
Y152
Y156
Y47
Y48
Y50
Y51
Y52
Y53
ή2
Predictor:
Punishment
Y104
Y106
Y107
Y108
Y111
Y112
Y120
Y122
Y149
Figure 1. Hypothesized measurement model of the C-STRI based on Baldwin’s social
cognitive theory of relational schemas
55
Y7
Y24
Y32
Y33
Y34
Y35
Y36
Y37
ή3
Predictor:
Involvement
Y38
Y39
Y56
Y60
Y67
Y95
Y96
Y97
Y128
Y129
Y150
Y154
Figure 1. Continued
56
Y98
Y99
Y100
Y101
Y109
Y110
ή4
Predictor:
Autonomy
Support
Y113
Y157
Y158
Y159
Y160
Y161
Y162
Y163
Y164
Y165
Y166
Figure 1. Continued
57
Y1
Y4
Y6
Y26
Y27
Y28
Y49
Y61
Y64
Y65
Y70
Y74
Y75
Y76
Y77
ή5
Caring
Y78
Y79
Y80
Y81
Y82
Y83
Y84
Y87
ξ1
Perceptions of
Teacher
Y88
Y89
Y125
Y148
Y153
Y8
Y13
Y15
Y22
Y25
Y29
ή6
Awareness/
Understanding
Y30
Y31
Y115
Figure 1. Continued
58
Y10
Y54
Y55
Y57
Y68
Y69
Y85
Y86
Y114
Y116
ή7
Closeness
Y124
Y130
Y131
Y132
Y133
ξ2
Perceptions of Self
Y134
Y135
Y136
Y137
Y138
Y139
Y21
Y23
Y127
ή8
Affective
Experience
Y167
Y168
Y169
Y170
Figure 1. Continued
59
Y9
Y14
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y19
ή9
Social Support
Seeking
Y20
Y63
Y119
Y142
ξ3
Interpersonal Scripts
Y155
Y12
Y40
Y41
Y42
Y43
Y44
Y45
ή10
Emotional
Reliance
Y46
Y117
Y126
Figure 1. Continued
60
Y73
Y143
Y144
Y145
Y146
ή11
Outcome
Internalization
Y171
Y172
Y173
Y174
Y3
Y11
Y58
Y62
Y72
Y92
Y118
Y121
Y123
2
ή12
Outcome
Engagement
Y140
Y141
Y175
Y176
Y177
Y178
Y179
Y180
ή13
Outcome
Academic
Achievement
Figure 1. Continued
61
To deliver the full instrument, all 180 C-STRI items were entered into Qualtrics,
an electronic survey delivery software program. Using this software, items were
presented to each participant in random order to avoid order effects like item familiarity,
which might result from the use of numerous similar items, and item fatigue, which might
result from the extraordinary length of this instrument. Using Qualtrics also allowed the
C-STRI to be administered online to simplify data collection and eliminate human errors
that occur during manual data entry.
Content Analysis of C-STRI Items
Central to this study is refining the measurement of students’ relational schemas.
As discussed in the literature review, Baldwin (1992) synthesized decades of research on
perceiving self, others, and situations to offer a cohesive, social cognitive theory of
relational schema structure. This schematic structure includes self-perception, otherperception, and interpersonal scripts, which provided a foundation for the three latent
variables included in the hypothesized structural model (Figure 2).
62
ή5
Caring
ή6
Awareness/
Understanding
ή1
Academic
Support
ή2
Punishment
ή3
Involvement
ή9
Social Support
Seeking
ή10
Emotional
Reliance
ή11
Internalization
ξ1
Perceptions of
Teacher
ξ3
Interpersonal
Scripts
ξ2
Perceptions of
Self
ή4
Autonomy
Support
ή7
Closeness
ή12
Engagement
ή13
Academic
Achievement
ή8
Affective
Experience
Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model of latent variables measured by the C-STRI
based on Baldwin’s social cognitive theory of relational schemas
Baldwin’s theoretical relational schema structure also provided guidance for the a
priori coding categories for performing a content analysis (Stemler, 2001) of the C-STRI
item statements to determine which items would likely represent each latent variable in
the measurement model (Figure 1). In other words, all original scale items were sorted
into groups that represented perceptions of self, perceptions of the teacher, and if-then
type interpersonal script statements. Emergent coding was used on the items that did not
fit into the a priori categories. Those items fit into the two primary emergent groupings
of teacher behaviors and student behaviors. Teacher behaviors are external stimuli that
influence a student’s perception of the teacher and students’ perception of themselves;
63
whereas student behaviors are outcomes influenced by students’ interpersonal scripts.
Original scale items that reflected statements about how students perceived their teacher
fell into the two a priori factor groupings labeled caring and awareness/understanding.
Original scale items that reflected statements about students’ self-perception fell into two
a priori factor groupings as well, which were labeled closeness and affective experience.
Original scale items that reflected if-then statements about how students’ expected they
or their teacher might behave (interpersonal scripts) fell into the two a priori factor
groupings labeled emotional reliance and social support seeking. The specific items
included in each of the a priori factor groupings are listed in Appendix C.
Quasi-Independent Variables
Because no experimental manipulation of variables occurred in this study, all
predictor variables measured are considered quasi-independent variables. Participant
gender, teacher gender, and the subject matter taught by the teacher of reference in
participant responses to the instrument was measured to examine external consistency of
the hypothesized model. Participants’ high school graduation year and the year in high
school that they took the class was also recorded and combined to determine how far
back the participants were being asked to remember and examine consistency between
participants remembering relationships less than two years ago and participants
remembering four or more years ago. Participant gender, teacher gender, high school
graduation year, and year they took the class in high school were recorded by asking the
participants to report it at the start of the survey. Subject matter taught by the teacher of
reference in participant responses was randomly assigned to participants. Specifically,
three versions of the C-STRI were used. The only difference between the three versions
64
was the wording of a single sentence in the instructional paragraph, which preceded the
survey items. This instruction asked students to “use memories of experiences with their
most recent high school _______ teacher” while completing the survey questions. The
blank was filled in with math, science, or English in versions one, two, and three
respectively. These class topics were selected because they are considered common core
classes that all students would have typically taken during junior and senior year in high
school.
Numerous items from the original instruments were categorized into four factor
groupings of teacher behaviors. These behaviors are theoretically expected to affect
students’ relational schemas; however, they are teacher behaviors and not part of the
relational schema. As outlined in Appendix C, they are grouped as factors that represent
things that teachers do, they are not represented as parts of the students’ internal
relationship representation per se. Instead, they are treated as predictor variables in the
hypothesized structural model (Figure 2). These four quasi-independent variables are
academic support, punishment, involvement, and autonomy support.
Academic support. Items included in this grouping relate to teachers recognizing
and encouraging student academic achievement, providing support when the student did
not understand something, and assigning work at the appropriate level for the student.
Essentially, it represents things that teachers do to directly support student learning.
Punishment. Items included in this grouping relate to potentially harmful
teaching behaviors such as threatening the student, using sarcasm, imposing unrealistic
expectations, criticizing the student, and being mean. Essentially, it represents teacher
behaviors that create conflict between the student and the teacher.
65
Involvement. Items in this grouping relate to things teachers do to show students
that they appreciate them, understand them, and respect them. Examples of these
behaviors include remembering the student’s birthday, being available for the student in
times of need, and smiling at the student. These teacher behaviors show students that
teachers see them as individuals whose feelings are important. While recognizing that
these behaviors are central to relationship development, they are still teacher behaviors
and thus not included in the model as part of the students’ relationship representation.
Autonomy support. Items included in this grouping relate to teaching strategies
that support students’ perception of self-determination in the classroom. Such strategies
include providing flexibility in assignments, giving students choices, including students
in establishing classroom rules, and using student input/feedback, and providing rational
for assignments. The opposite of these strategies would be strategies that impose a
controlling atmosphere.
Relational Schema Components
Caring. This factor represents the greatest number of items from the original
scales. These 28 items relate to the student’s perceptions of whether the teacher was
warm or friendly toward them, cared about them, and generally liked them. The large
number of items that categorically fit into this construct from numerous original
instruments suggests it has cross paradigm face validity.
Awareness/Understanding. The 9 items grouped into this factor represent
statements of the student’s perception of how much the teacher knew about them and
understood their feelings.
66
Closeness. This factor also comprised a very large number of items. The 21
items in this grouping represent perceptions of the student’s trust in the teacher and their
feeling secure, accepted and close when with the teacher.
Affective Experience. This factor consisted of 7 items indicating whether the
student felt positive or negative feelings when with the teacher.
Social Support Seeking. The 11 items included in this factor represent how
willing the student would be to seek out help from the teacher if experiencing a problem.
Emotional Reliance. These 10 items are quite similar to social support seeking
items with the difference that all items in this factor relate specifically to a willingness of
the student to turn to the teacher for support when experiencing strong negative emotions
such as fear, anxiety, and frustration, or strong positive emotions like pride and
excitement.
Outcome Variables
As outlined in Appendix C, 14 of the items from the original instruments were
categorized into two student outcome factor groupings, internalization and engagement,
which represent characteristics of the student’s relationship with his/her schoolwork and
not the student’s relationship with the teacher. One more outcome, not measured by any
of the original tools, but included in the study for the purpose of examining predictive
validity is academic achievement.
Internalization. Items included in this grouping from the original scales represent
the students’ desire to be like or emulate the instructor. Because the original scales were
not intentionally constructed to represent the outcome internalization, four additional
items were added to potentially strengthen the measurement of this outcome, which
67
represents students’ internalization of the purpose, importance, or value in learning the
subject matter. These four items are listed under the internalization sub-heading in
Appendix C and marked with an asterisk.
Engagement. Eleven items in this category were taken from the original scales
that represent both the emotional experience of being in class and participatory behaviors.
Again, because the original scales were not intentionally constructed to represent
outcomes such as engagement, five additional items were added to represent other
aspects of cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement in the class for a total of 16
items. The five items that are not from the original fourteen scales are listed under the
engagement sub-heading in Appendix C and marked with an asterisk.
Academic Achievement. Because this study is limited by retrospective selfreporting, academic achievement is measured by one item asking participants to selfreport the grade that they earned in the class taught by the teacher of reference. Whereas,
all other C-STRI items will be responded to using a 6-point scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree, for this item the response options will be A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+,
C, C-, D+, D, D-, and F.
Procedure
Recruitment. At two Midwestern universities, course instructors were asked if
they would forward an email invitation to participate in this project. At one university,
Introduction to Educational Psychology and Measurement instructors were solicited. At
the other university, all instructors teaching 100 or 200 level courses in the Psychology,
Education, and Sociology departments were solicited. Instructors who responded
positively to the solicitation were provided with an email invitation (Appendix D) to
68
forward on to their students. Entry into a drawing for $50 was used as an incentive to
encourage participation. This method of recruitment generated the participation of 11
course instructors, which yielded 165 participants. Because a minimum of 600
participants was desired (200 participants per course subject condition), approval to
mass-email the survey to the entire undergraduate student body at one of the universities
was pursued and granted. Following this distribution, the participant number grew to 580
responses. The mass-email of this survey was sent out a second time as a reminder,
which brought the final number of responses to 893 responses. The process of
winnowing the 893 responses down to the 628 participant included in the analyses is
detailed in the above section describing the participants.
Survey administration. The survey link, which was embedded in the email
inviting potential participants to take part in the research, brought participants to an
informed consent page (appendix E). Interested students read the informed consent page
and indicated their consent to participate by entering their name and email address into
the consent page and clicking the submit button. After the participant submitted consent
information, Qualtrics administered 3 initial demographic questions (Appendix F). These
questions included the year the participant graduated high school, the participant’s
gender, and if the participant was 18 years old or older. If the participant responded no to
the question about being 18 years old or older, Qualtrics skipped directly to the end of
survey thank you note (Appendix G). For all participants who answered yes to the 18
years or older question, Qualtrics randomly assigned them to one of the three course
subject conditions (Math, Science, or English) and administered the corresponding CSTRI introduction statement (Appendix H). After reading the introduction statement,
69
participants clicked the “continue” link and Qualtrics administered all of the remaining
C-STRI questions. The first three questions directly following the introduction statement
asked participants the year of high school that the class took place, the letter grade that
the participant earned in the class, and the gender of the teacher for the class. The next
179 items were presented in a randomized order for each participant. See Appendix I for
an example of this section of the C-STRI.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. When examined separately from other instruments’ items, the
items from each of the original instruments will demonstrate acceptable internal
consistency and fit to their instrument’s expected structural model.
Hypothesis 2. Calculated scale scores from each of the original measurement
tools will demonstrate acceptable predictive validity in the expected direction as related
to each of the student outcomes internalization, engagement, and academic achievement.
Hypothesis 3. Items from the all the measurement tools taken together will fit
well into the hypothesized 13-factor structure (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 4. The hypothesized structural model as specified in Figure 2 will
demonstrate good fit. Specifically, the four variables (academic support, punishment,
involvement, and autonomy support) will predict the three outcome variables
(internalization, engagement, and academic achievement) as mediated by the relational
schema. The schema will be represented by three latent variables 1) perceptions of self
with the two observed variables closeness and affective experience, 2) perceptions of
teacher with the two observed variables caring and awareness/understanding, and 3)
70
interpersonal scripts with the two observed variables social support seeking and
emotional reliance.
Data Analysis
Hypothesis 1. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine internal
consistency and fit of the data to the proposed factor structure of each original scale and
respective subscales.
Hypothesis 2. Linear regressions were used to examine the predictive validity of
each original scale in relation to the outcome variables internalization, engagement, and
academic achievement.
Hypothesis 3. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine internal
consistency and fit of the data to the hypothesized factor structure proposed in Figure 1.
First, the measurement model of predictor variables was examined. Second, the
measurement model for perceptions-of-teacher factors was examined. Third, the
measurement model for perceptions-of-self factors was examined. Fourth, the
measurement model for interpersonal-scripts factors was examined. Finally, the
measurement model of outcome factors was examined. In cases where the observed data
did not reasonably fit the hypothesized model, model modifications such as item
elimination and allowing correlated error variance were utilized to improve the goodness
of fit. Minimum acceptance of reasonable fit required the model to have an RMSEA
value of .08 or less (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and a CFI value of .90 or greater (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
Hypothesis 4. Structural equation modeling was employed to test the goodness of
fit of the hypothesized full structural model of latent variable relationships as displayed in
71
Figure 2. Again, the model underwent modifications until the acceptable fit was reached
where the minimum acceptance of reasonable fit required the model to have an RMSEA
value of .08 or less (Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and a CFI value of .90 or greater (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
Post Hoc Analysis. Because the hypothesized model possessed serious
multicollinearity problems among its factors, exploratory factor analysis was utilized to
reveal the structure of the data from a purely empirical starting point. The principal
components analysis method of extraction was used to reduce the set of items down to a
small number of factors that could potentially be used to create composite scores for use
in subsequent analysis. To create independent factors and avoid the issue of
multicollinearity in the final solution of relational schema factors, the orthogonal
VARIMAX rotation, developed by Kaiser (1958), was used. The number of factors to
extract was based on examination of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966).
For decisions of item elimination, the following criteria were used. Items were
eliminated that did not have a primary factor loading of .6 or greater. Items were also
eliminated if the gap between primary and cross-loadings was less than .2. Items with
cross-loadings of .3 or above were eliminated as well. Finally, after the latent factors
were identified, the remaining items were examined for meaningful and useful
membership to their factor by reading over the item wording to assess face validity and to
determine the extent to which the item appeared to be redundant with other items.
72
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The average completion time for all 628 participants was 24.02 minutes.
However there were a few participants who must have begun/opened the questionnaire,
left it to do something else, and went back to complete/submit it later. In a few cases
several hours passed between the questionnaire’s start and finish time. Due to the
outliers, it is important to note that the median of all 628 completion times was 16.70
minutes. Of the 610 participants who completed the questionnaire in less than one hour,
the average completion time was 17.93 minutes. C-STRI item codes, item wording,
whether an item was reverse scored or not, and the item descriptive statistics for all items
in the C-STRI that utilized the 6-point scale and were presented to participants in random
order are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all C-STRI items
Item Code
A1_IPPA_T
A2_IPPA_T
A3_IPPA_T
A4_IPPA_T
A5_IPPA_T
A6_IPPA_T
A7_IPPA_T
A8_IPPA_T
A9_IPPA_T
A10_IPPA_T
A11_IPPA_C
A12_IPPA_C
A13_IPPA_C
A14_IPPA_C
A15_IPPA_C
A16_IPPA_C
Item Wording
This teacher respected my feelings.
I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.
I wish I had a different teacher.
This teacher accepted me as I was.
This teacher expected too much of me.
When we discussed things, this teacher cared about
my point of view.
This teacher trusted my judgment.
This teacher understood me.
When I was angry about something, this teacher
tried to be understanding.
I trusted this teacher.
I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things
I was concerned about.
I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around
this teacher.
This teacher could tell when I was upset about
something.
This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t
bother him/her with mine.
This teacher helped me to understand myself better.
I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.
73
Rev
X
X
X
X
N
628
628
628
628
628
Min
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Max
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
M
4.59
4.80
4.69
4.66
4.72
SD
1.22
1.44
1.63
1.21
1.15
628
1.0
6.0
4.35
1.24
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.36
4.02
1.22
1.36
628
1.0
6.0
4.04
1.26
628
1.0
6.0
4.59
1.33
628
1.0
6.0
3.70
1.45
628
1.0
6.0
4.09
1.36
628
1.0
6.0
3.63
1.34
628
1.0
6.0
4.07
1.32
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
3.67
2.71
1.42
1.34
Table 2. Continued
A17_IPPA_C
A18_IPPA_C
A19_IPPA_C
A20_IPPA_A
A21_IPPA_A
A22_IPPA_A
A23_IPPA_A
A24_IPPA_A
A25_IPPA_A
A26_Inv_Aff
A27_Inv_Aff
A28_Inv_Aff
A29_Inv_Att
A30_Inv_Att
A31_Inv_Att
A32_Inv_DR
A33_Inv_DR
A34_Inv_Dep
A35_Inv_Dep
A36_Inv_Dep
A37_Inv_Dep
A38_Inv_Dep
A39_Inv_Dep
A40_ERQ
A41_ERQ
A42_ERQ
A43_ERQ
A44_ERQ
A45_ERQ
A46_ERQ
A47_Friend
A48_Friend
A49_Friend
This teacher helped me to talk about my
difficulties.
I could count on this teacher when I needed to get
something off my chest.
If this teacher knew something was bothering me,
he/she asked me about it.
Talking over my problems with this teacher made
me feel ashamed or foolish.
I got upset easily around this teacher.
I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about.
I felt angry with this teacher.
I didn’t get much attention from this teacher.
This teacher didn’t understand what I was going
through in those days.
This teacher liked me.
This teacher really cared about me.
This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in
his/her class.
This teacher knew a lot about me.
This teacher knew me well.
This teacher didn’t understand me.
This teacher spent time with me.
This teacher talked with me.
This teacher was always there for me.
I could count on this teacher to be there for me.
I could rely on this teacher to be there when I
needed him/her.
This teacher was never there for me.
I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important
things.
I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed
him/her.
If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling anxious or scared about
something, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
If I were feeling excited about something
happening in my life, I would have been willing to
turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed
a boost, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been
willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I
would have been willing to turn to this teacher.
This teacher criticized me for turning work in late
or failing to turn in assignments.
This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad
grade in that subject.
This teacher was warm and supportive.
74
628
1.0
6.0
3.39
1.41
628
1.0
6.0
3.41
1.43
628
1.0
6.0
3.60
1.37
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.61
1.30
X
X
X
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.00
3.70
4.94
4.33
1.20
1.52
1.29
1.28
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.03
1.42
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.63
4.22
1.18
1.32
628
1.0
6.0
4.94
1.21
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.56
3.75
4.45
3.74
4.54
3.94
4.10
1.50
1.46
1.36
1.34
1.23
1.33
1.38
628
1.0
6.0
4.02
1.39
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.79
1.26
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.46
1.40
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.43
1.44
628
1.0
6.0
3.42
1.56
628
1.0
6.0
3.60
1.52
628
1.0
6.0
3.81
1.49
628
1.0
6.0
3.53
1.56
628
1.0
6.0
3.87
1.52
628
1.0
6.0
3.65
1.50
628
1.0
6.0
4.07
1.46
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.19
1.45
X
628
1.0
6.0
5.22
1.20
628
1.0
6.0
4.31
1.38
X
X
Table 2. Continued
A50_Friend
A51_Friend
A52_Friend
A53_Friend
A54_Rel
A55_Rel
A56_Rel
A57_Rel
A58_PSSM
A59_PSSM
A60_PSSM
A61_PSSM
A62_PSSM
A63_PSSM
A64_PSSM
A65_PSSM
A66_PSSM
A67_PSSM
A68_PSSM
A69_PSSM
A70_PSSM
A71_PSSM
A72_PSSM
A73_PSSM
A74_PSSM
A75_PSSM
A76_CLM_SS
A77_CLM_SS
A78_CLM_SS
A79_CLM_SS
A80_CLM_AS
A81_CLM_AS
A82_CLM_AS
A83_CLM_AS
A84_BNS_Rel
A85_BNS_Rel
A86_BNS_Rel
A87_YCATS_W
A88_YCATS_W
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to
be self-disciplining and responsible for my own
behavior.
This teacher expected me to make stupid mistakes.
This teacher used sarcasm.
This teacher threatened to give me more work,
tests, or to lower my grade to control my behavior.
When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.
When I was with this teacher I felt like someone
special.
When I was with this teacher I felt ignored.
When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant.
I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.
This teacher noticed when I was good at
something.
This teacher took my opinions seriously.
This teacher was interested in me.
Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this
teacher’s class.
I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.
This teacher was friendly to me.
This teacher was not interested in people like me.
This teacher made sure I was included in lots of
activities in class.
I was treated with respect by this teacher.
I felt very different from this teacher.
I could really be myself around this teacher.
This teacher respected me.
This teacher knew I could do good work.
I wished I was in a different teacher’s class.
I feel proud of knowing this teacher.
This teacher liked me the way I was.
It was hard for people like me to be accepted by
this teacher.
This teacher really cared about me.
This teacher thought it was important to be my
friend.
This teacher liked me as much as other students.
This teacher cared about my feelings.
This teacher cared about how much I learned.
This teacher liked to see my work.
This teacher liked to help me learn.
This teacher wanted me to do my best in
schoolwork.
When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared
about.
When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of
distance in our relationship.
When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of
closeness and intimacy.
This teacher liked my family.
This teacher liked me.
75
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.79
1.31
X
X
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.98
2.87
1.19
1.44
X
628
1.0
6.0
5.44
0.92
628
1.0
6.0
4.39
1.30
628
1.0
6.0
3.39
1.42
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.78
4.76
4.39
1.28
1.32
1.36
628
1.0
6.0
4.53
1.25
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.39
4.04
1.27
1.31
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.47
1.48
X
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.08
4.88
4.79
1.42
1.17
1.33
628
1.0
6.0
4.26
1.27
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.89
3.80
4.29
4.78
5.02
4.65
4.39
4.54
1.21
1.45
1.40
1.22
1.01
1.66
1.49
1.20
628
1.0
6.0
4.78
1.32
628
1.0
6.0
4.19
1.34
628
1.0
6.0
3.32
1.36
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.52
4.24
4.82
4.51
4.74
1.25
1.27
1.20
1.16
1.24
628
1.0
6.0
5.15
0.99
628
1.0
6.0
3.62
1.38
628
1.0
6.0
4.20
1.34
628
1.0
6.0
2.55
1.34
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
3.99
4.61
1.33
1.18
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2. Continued
A89_YCATS_W
A90_YCATS_W
A91_YCATS_W
A92_YCATS_W
A93_YCATS_W
A94_YCATS_W
A95_YCATS_W
A96_YCATS_W
A97_YCATS_W
A98_YCAT_A
A99_YCAT_A
A100_YCAT_A
A101_YCAT_A
A102_YCAT_A
A103_YCAT_A
A104_YCAT_C
A105_YCAT_C
A106_YCAT_C
A107_YCAT_C
A108_YCAT_C
A109_YCAT_C
A110_YCAT_C
A111_YCAT_C
A112_YCAT_C
A113_YCAT_C
A114_STRS
A115_STRS
A116_STRS
A117_STRS
A118_STRS
A119_STRS
A120_STRS
A121_STRS
A122_STRS
A123_STRS
A124_STRS
A125_STRS
A126_STRS
A127_STRS
A128_STRS
This teacher was my friend.
This teacher said nice things about my work.
This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.
This teacher made the class fun.
This teacher answered my questions.
This teacher told good stories.
This teacher remembered special days for me.
This teacher chose me to be a special helper.
This teacher smiled a lot.
This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to
do.
This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.
This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.
This teacher let me do different activities in class.
This teacher did activities with me.
This teacher told me I was smart.
This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a
lot.
This teacher told me to do work that was too hard
for me.
This teacher got angry with me.
This teacher told me that I was doing something
wrong a lot.
This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked
doing.
This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do.
This teacher told me I did not listen.
This teacher was mean.
This teacher had too many rules for our class.
I trusted this teacher.
This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.
I was wary of this teacher.
I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.
I tried to get help, recognition, and support from
this teacher.
This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me
up.
I avoided contact with this teacher.
I tried to get support and encouragement from this
teacher.
I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and
criticism.
I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.
I felt safe and secure with this teacher.
This teacher shared an affectionate, warm
relationship with me.
If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.
I felt upset when separated from this teacher.
My relationship with this teacher became more
positive throughout the school year.
76
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.44
4.53
4.77
4.46
4.95
4.55
2.90
2.57
4.66
1.45
1.21
1.25
1.54
1.11
1.45
1.41
1.30
1.36
628
1.0
6.0
2.84
1.31
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.28
3.37
3.24
3.61
4.24
1.63
1.34
1.43
1.38
1.38
X
628
1.0
6.0
5.33
1.04
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.45
1.24
X
628
1.0
6.0
5.01
1.21
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.79
1.18
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.86
1.30
X
628
1.0
6.0
5.15
0.93
X
X
X
X
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.62
5.04
5.09
4.79
4.62
3.55
4.67
3.91
1.38
1.12
1.23
1.10
1.32
1.31
1.32
1.32
628
1.0
6.0
3.93
1.27
628
1.0
6.0
3.76
1.38
628
1.0
6.0
4.62
1.46
628
1.0
6.0
3.79
1.31
628
1.0
6.0
5.05
1.20
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.20
4.47
1.32
1.29
628
1.0
6.0
3.27
1.47
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
2.98
2.01
1.43
1.10
628
1.0
6.0
4.29
1.39
X
X
X
Table 2. Continued
A129_STRS
A130_NRS_A
A131_NRS_A
A132_NRS_A
A133_NRS_A
A134_NRS_A
A135_NRS_I
A136_NRS_I
A137_NRS_I
A138_NRS_I
A139_NRS_I
A140_Sch_Ut
A141_Sch_Ut
A142_Sch_Ut
A143_Emul
A144_Emul
A145_Emul
A146_Emul
A147_ClsSup
A148_ClsSup
A149_ClsSup
A150_ClsSup
A151_ClsSup
A152_ClsSup
A153_ClsSup
A154_ClsSup
A155_ClsSup
A156_ClsSup
A157_MePart
A158_MePart
A159_MePart
A160_MePart
A161_MePart
A162_MePart
My relationship with this teacher became more
negative throughout the school year.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt
supported.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt
understood.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened
to.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to
them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached
to them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded
to them.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt closeknit.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a
friend.
If I had a problem with my school work I would
share it with this teacher.
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at
school, I would talk it over with this teacher.
I could usually rely on this teacher when I had
problems at my school.
I tried to model myself after this teacher.
I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like
this teacher.
I wanted to be like this teacher.
As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this
teacher.
When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.
This teacher’s was like family to me.
This teacher was mean to me.
This teacher just looked out for his/herself.
When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this
teacher tried to help.
This teacher worked with me to solve problems.
This teacher cared about me.
This teacher treated me with respect.
This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.
This teacher helped me learn.
This teacher let me help decide what the rules were
going to be.
This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.
This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought
it was unfair.
This teacher let me have a say in deciding what
went on in class.
This teacher let me help plan what we would do in
class.
This teacher let me do things my own way.
77
X
X
X
628
1.0
6.0
4.91
1.37
628
1.0
6.0
4.29
1.31
628
1.0
6.0
4.14
1.28
628
1.0
6.0
4.34
1.27
628
628
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
4.22
4.58
1.30
1.20
628
1.0
6.0
3.46
1.42
628
1.0
6.0
2.96
1.42
628
1.0
6.0
3.39
1.44
628
1.0
6.0
3.30
1.44
628
1.0
6.0
3.41
1.48
628
1.0
6.0
4.02
1.44
628
1.0
6.0
3.65
1.46
628
1.0
6.0
3.67
1.48
628
1.0
6.0
3.18
1.44
628
1.0
6.0
3.77
1.56
628
1.0
6.0
3.57
1.55
628
1.0
6.0
3.28
1.49
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.47
2.67
5.22
4.90
1.22
1.45
1.16
1.25
628
1.0
6.0
4.56
1.27
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.45
4.35
4.89
4.28
4.81
1.25
1.26
1.22
1.30
1.24
628
1.0
6.0
2.52
1.21
628
1.0
6.0
3.45
1.34
628
1.0
6.0
2.78
1.28
628
1.0
6.0
2.77
1.27
628
1.0
6.0
2.48
1.24
628
1.0
6.0
3.50
1.33
Table 2. Continued
A163_MePart
A164_MePart
A165_MePart
A166_MePart
A167_RAPS_E
A168_RAPS_E
A169_RAPS_E
A170_RAPS_E
A171_Add_In
A172_Add_In
A173_Add_In
A174_Add_In
A175_Add_En
A176_Add_En
A177_Add_En
A178_Add_En
A179_Add_En
In this class the teacher was the only one who
decided on the rules.
This teacher included me when planning what we
did in class.
This teacher asked me to help decide what the class
should do.
This teacher let me choose what I would work on.
When I was with this teacher, I felt good.
When I was with this teacher, I felt mad.
When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy.
When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.
I believe learning the content of this teacher’s class
is important.
I felt that completing the assignments in this class
was beneficial to me.
I believe the content of this teacher’s class is
valuable to understand.
Because of this teacher, I believe more in the
purpose of learning the content of the class.
I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class.
I paid attention when in this teacher’s class.
I felt interested when in this teacher’s class.
I enjoyed learning in this teacher’s class.
I felt engaged by the content when in this teacher’s
class.
78
X
X
X
628
1.0
6.0
2.89
1.31
628
1.0
6.0
2.73
1.29
628
1.0
6.0
2.56
1.21
628
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
2.96
4.06
5.00
4.85
4.07
1.31
1.35
1.25
1.27
1.38
628
1.0
6.0
4.74
1.22
628
1.0
6.0
4.77
1.20
628
1.0
6.0
4.73
1.21
628
1.0
6.0
4.13
1.50
628
628
628
628
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.93
4.85
4.29
4.49
1.13
1.08
1.47
1.49
628
1.0
6.0
4.33
1.41
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Original Fourteen Scales
Using SPSS AMOS Version 23, confirmatory factor analyses were performed to
examine each of the original fourteen relationship measures independently. Fit of the
observed data to the models implied by the measures were assessed with the χ2 statistic,
which reflects the absolute difference between actual and model-generated data. Because
the χ2 statistic is sensitive to sample size and this study has a fairly large sample (N =
628), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confidence
interval are reported to provide another goodness of fit index that takes both sample size
and model complexity into account (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). In addition, the
comparative fit index (CFI), which has been shown to be one of the best incremental fit
indices (Bentler, 1990), is also reported to assess fit based on the assumption that model
may only provide a reasonable approximation of the population covariance matrix, which
is most likely the case here as it is in most social science research. RMSEA values less
than .08 and .05 suggest the model fit is adequate and close, respectively (Marsh, Hau, &
Wen, 2004). RMSEA values of .08 to .10 suggest a mediocre fit, whereas values .10 and
greater suggest a poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). CFI values in the range of .90 or
greater are generally considered to indicate reasonable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999)
and the criterion for a good fit is a CFI value of .95 or greater (Russell, 2002).
Standardized factor loadings (which represent the correlation between latent variable and
measured items), squared multiple correlations (which represent the variance in each item
accounted for by the latent variable), and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (representing
internal consistency) are reported for each of the original fourteen scales under their sub-
79
headings below. A summary of the fit indices for each of the fourteen original scales is
displayed in Table 3 as well.
Table 3. CFA model fit statistics for the fourteen original scales
Scale Title
df
χ2
p
RMSEA
RMSEA
CI (90%)
CFI
Classroom Life Measure
19
102.4
< .001
.084
.068 - .100
.978
Student Classroom Environment
Measure
14
39.9
< .001
.054
.035 - .075
.980
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire
169
779.5
< .001
.076
.071 - .081
.929
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments
272
1403.9
< .001
.081
.077 - .086
.912
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation
13
30.6
.004
.046
.025 - .068
.995
Research Assessment Package
for Schools
2
135.3
< .001
.326
.281 - .374
.934
Teacher as Social Context
71
548.2
< .001
.104
.096 - .112
.936
Sense of Relatedness
2
34.9
< .001
.162
.118 - .211
.981
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire
14
85.3
< .001
.090
.072 - .109
.984
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships
0
0.0
NA
.567
.530 - .606
1.00
Need for Relatedness Scale
34
62.6
.002
.037
.022 - .051
.995
Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale
104
1170.9
< .001
.128
.121 - .135
.849
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support
321
1712.8
< .001
.083
.079 - .087
.860
Psychological Sense of School
Membership
135
717.9
< .001
.083
.077 - .089
.942
Classroom Life Measure. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for
this measure are χ2(df = 19, N = 628) = 102.4, p < .001; CFI = .978; RMSEA = .084;
80
RMSEA 90% CI = .068 - .100. Standardized parameter estimates for the two-factor
model of the Classroom Life Measure items, consisting of the social support and the
Figure 3. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Classroom Life Measure items
academic support factors range from .62 to .90 and are
provided in Figure 3. The 4-item social support factor
and the 4-item academic support factor coefficient
alphas are .86 and .90 respectively. The estimated
correlation between social support and academic
support is .92. The squared multiple correlation
(SMC) estimates range from .379 to .807 and are
listed in Table 4.
Table 4. SMC estimates for
Classroom Life Measure
Item
A76_CLM_SS
A77_CLM_SS
A78_CLM_SS
A79_CLM_SS
A80_CLM_AS
A81_CLM_AS
A82_CLM_AS
A83_CLM_AS
Estimate
.807
.379
.551
.795
.775
.614
.782
.634
Student Classroom Environment Measure. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of
fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 14, N = 628) = 39.9, p < .001; CFI = .980;
81
RMSEA = .054; RMSEA 90% CI = .035 - .075. Standardized parameter estimates for the
fairness/friendliness items of the Student Classroom Environment Measure ranged from
.06 to .83 and are provided in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student Classroom Environment
Measure items
This 7-item factor had a coefficient alpha of .76. The
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates ranged
from .004 to .697 and are listed in Table 5.
Developmental Studies Center Student
Questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of
fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 169, N = 628)
= 779.5, p < .001; CFI = .929; RMSEA = .076;
Table 5. SMC estimates for
Student Classroom
Environment Measure items
Item
A47_Friend
A48_Friend
A49_Friend
A50_Friend
A51_Friend
A52_Friend
A53_Friend
Estimate
.185
.697
.471
.497
.587
.004
.381
RMSEA 90% CI = .071 - .081. Standardized parameter
estimates for the two-factor model of the Developmental Studies Center Student
Questionnaire items, consisting of the classroom supportiveness and the meaningful
82
participation factors range from .58 to .87 and are displayed in Figure 5. The 10-item
classroom supportiveness factor and the 10-item meaningful participation factor have
Figure 5. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire items
coefficient alphas of .94 and .91 respectively. The
estimated correlation between classroom
supportiveness and meaningful participation is .54.
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates
range from .337 to .765 and are listed in Table 6.
83
Table 6. SMC estimates for
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire items
Item
Estimate
A147_ClsSup
.683
A148_ClsSup
.337
A149_ClsSup
.602
A150_ClsSup
.534
A151_ClsSup
.655
A152_ClsSup
.664
A153_ClsSup
.761
A154_ClsSup
.765
A155_ClsSup
.687
A156_ClsSup
.671
Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachments. As
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this
measure are χ2(df = 272, N = 628) = 1403.9, p < .001;
CFI = .912; RMSEA = .081; RMSEA 90% CI = .077
- .086. Standardized parameter estimates for the
three-factor model of the Inventory of Parent and Peer
Table 6. Continued
A157_MePart
A158_MePart
A159_MePart
A160_MePart
A161_MePart
A162_MePart
A163_MePart
A164_MePart
A165_MePart
A166_MePart
Attachments items, consisting of the trust,
Figure 6. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments items
84
.517
.483
.449
.667
.607
.452
.347
.514
.582
.533
communication, and alienation factors range from .46
to .87 and are displayed in Figure 6. The 10-item trust
factor, the 9-item communication factor, and the 6item alienation factor have coefficient alphas of .95,
.92, and .86 respectively. The estimated correlations
between latent variables are .89 for trust and
communication, .93 for trust and alienation, and .77 for
communication and alienation. The squared multiple
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .214 to .748
and are listed in Table 7.
School Utilization and Teacher Emulation. As
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this
measure are χ2(df = 13, N = 628) = 30.6, p < .005; CFI
= .995; RMSEA = .046; RMSEA 90% CI = .025 .068. Standardized parameter estimates for the twofactor model of School Utilization and Teacher
Table 7. SMC estimates for
Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachments items
Item
Estimate
A1_IPPA_T
.750
A2_IPPA_T
.723
A3_IPPA_T
.726
A4_IPPA_T
.747
A5_IPPA_T
.220
A6_IPPA_T
.684
A7_IPPA_T
.656
A8_IPPA_T
.748
A9_IPPA_T
.649
A10_IPPA_T
.742
A11_IPPA_C
.609
A12_IPPA_C
.525
A13_IPPA_C
.615
A14_IPPA_C
.214
A15_IPPA_C
.605
A16_IPPA_C
.463
A17_IPPA_C
.611
A18_IPPA_C
.728
A19_IPPA_C
.682
A20_IPPA_A
.505
A21_IPPA_A
.644
A22_IPPA_A
.281
A23_IPPA_A
.740
A24_IPPA_A
.511
A25_IPPA_A
.488
Emulation items range from .75 to .92 and are displayed in Figure 7. The 3-item school
utilization factor and the 4-item emulation factor
have coefficient alphas of .84 and .94
respectively. The estimated correlation between
school utilization and emulation is .86. The
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates
range from .555 to .855 and are listed in Table 8.
85
Table 8. SMC estimates for School
Utilization & Emulation items
Item
Estimate
A140_Sch_Ut
.555
A141_Sch_Ut
.577
A142_Sch_Ut
.739
A143_Emul
.782
A144_Emul
.813
A145_Emul
.855
A146_Emul
.776
Figure 7. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of School Utilization and Teacher
Emulation items
Research Assessment Package for Schools. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of
fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 135.3, p < .001; CFI = .934;
RMSEA = .326; RMSEA 90% CI = .281 - .374. Standardized parameter estimates for
the emotional security items from the Research Assessment Package for Schools range
from .83 to .89 and are displayed in Figure 8. This 4-item emotional security factor has a
Figure 8. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Research Assessment Package for
Schools items
86
coefficient alpha of .92. The squared multiple
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .687 to .788
and are listed in Table 9.
Teacher as Social Context. As shown in
Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure
Table 9. SMC estimates for
Research Assessment Package
for Schools items
Item
Estimate
A167_RAPS_E
.763
A168_RAPS_E
.687
A169_RAPS_E
.788
A170_RAPS_E
.770
are χ2(df = 71, N = 628) = 548.2, p < .001; CFI = .936; RMSEA = .104; RMSEA 90% CI
= .096 - .112. Standardized parameter estimates for the four-factor model of the Teacher
as Social Context items, consisting of the affection, attunement, dedication of resources,
and dependability factors range from .55 to .89 and are displayed in Figure 9. The 3-item
affection factor, the 3-item attunement factor, the 2-item dedication of resources factor,
and the 6 item dependability factors have coefficient
alphas of .88, .86, .77, and .90 respectively. The
estimated correlations between latent variables are
.90 for affection and attunement, .96 for affection
and dedication of resources, .96 for affection and
dependability, .91 for attunement and dedication of
resources, .90 for attunement and dependability, and
.96 for dedication of resources and dependability.
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates
range from .301 to .797 and are listed in Table 10.
87
Table 10. SMC estimates for
Teacher as Social Context items
Item
Estimate
A26_Inv_Aff
.690
A27_Inv_Aff
.797
A28_Inv_Aff
.606
A29_Inv_Att
.681
A30_Inv_Att
.776
A31_Inv_Att
.630
A32_Inv_DR
.612
A33_Inv_DR
.641
A34_Inv_Dep
.769
A35_Inv_Dep
.776
A36_Inv_Dep
.763
A37_Inv_Dep
.715
A38_Inv_Dep
.401
A39_Inv_Dep
.301
Figure 9. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Teacher as Social Context items
Sense of Relatedness. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this
measure are χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 34.9, p < .001; CFI = .981; RMSEA = .162; RMSEA
90% CI = .118 - .211. Standardized parameter estimates
for the Sense of Relatedness items range from .75 to .89
and are displayed in Figure 10. This 4-item relatedness
factor has a coefficient alpha of .91. The squared
88
Table 11. SMC estimates for
Sense of Relatedness items
Item
Estimate
A54_Rel
.751
A55_Rel
.560
A56_Rel
.752
A57_Rel
.788
multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range from .560 to .788 and are listed in Table 11.
Figure 10. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Sense of Relatedness items
Emotional Reliance Questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit
statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 14, N = 628) = 85.3, p < .001; CFI = .984; RMSEA
= .090; RMSEA 90% CI = .072 - .109. Standardized parameter estimates for the
Emotional Reliance Questionnaire items range from .84 to .91 and are displayed in
Figure 11. This 7-item emotional reliance factor has a coefficient alpha of .96. The
Figure 11. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Emotional Reliance Questionnaire
items
89
squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range .706 to
.825 and are in Table 12.
Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships. As shown
in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure are
χ2(df = 0, N = 628) = 0.0, p = NA; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA =
.567; RMSEA 90% CI = .530 - .606. Standardized
Table 12. SMC estimates
for Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire items
Item
Estimate
A40_ERQ
.766
A41_ERQ
.825
A42_ERQ
.785
A43_ERQ
.817
A44_ERQ
.737
A45_ERQ
.766
A46_ERQ
.706
parameter estimates for the relatedness need support items of the Basic Need Satisfaction
in Relationships scale range from .66 to .92 and are displayed in Figure 12. This 3-item
Figure 12. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships items
relatedness-support factor has a coefficient alpha of
.79. The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates
range from .441 to .837 and are listed in Table 13.
Need for Relatedness Scale. As shown in Table
3, the goodness of fit statistics for this measure are
Table 13. SMC estimates for
Basic Need Satisfaction in
relationships items
Item
Estimate
A84_BNS_Rel
.837
A85_BNS_Rel
.441
A86_BNS_Rel
.466
χ2(df = 34, N = 628) = 62.6, p < .005; CFI = .995; RMSEA = .037; RMSEA 90% CI =
.022 - .051. Standardized parameter estimates for the two-factor Need for Relatedness
Scale items, consisting of the acceptance and intimacy factors range from .73 to .92 and
are displayed in Figure 13. The 5-item acceptance factor and the 5-item intimacy factor
90
Figure 13. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Need for Relatedness Scale items
have coefficient alphas of .94 and .93 respectively.
The estimated correlation between acceptance and
intimacy is .88. The squared multiple correlation
(SMC) estimates range from .535 to .842 and are
listed in Table 14.
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. As
shown in Table 3, the goodness of fit statistics for
Table 14. SMC estimates for
Need for Relatedness Scale items
Item
Estimate
A130_NRS_A
.829
A131_NRS_A
.820
A132_NRS_A
.809
A133_NRS_A
.812
A134_NRS_A
.535
A135_NRS_I
.842
A136_NRS_I
.587
A137_NRS_I
.764
A138_NRS_I
.819
A139_NRS_I
.682
this measure are χ2(df = 104, N = 628) = 1170.9, p <
.001; CFI = .849; RMSEA = .128; RMSEA 90% CI = .121 - .135. Standardized
parameter estimates for the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale items range from .37 to
.85 and are displayed in Figure 14. The 16-item relationship quality factor has a
91
Figure 14. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
items
coefficient alpha of .94. The squared multiple
correlation (SMC) estimates range from .202
to .717 and are listed in Table 15.
92
Table 15. SMC estimates for StudentTeacher Relationship Scale items
Item
Estimate
A114_STRS
.717
A115_STRS
.644
A116_STRS
.537
A117_STRS
.569
A118_STRS
.202
A119_STRS
.708
A120_STRS
.670
A121_STRS
.306
Young Children’s Appraisals of
Teacher Support. As shown in Table 3, the
goodness of fit statistics for this measure are
χ2(df = 321, N = 628) = 1712.8, p < .001; CFI
= .860; RMSEA = .083; RMSEA 90% CI =
Table 15. Continued
A122_STRS
A123_STRS
A124_STRS
A125_STRS
A126_STRS
A127_STRS
A128_STRS
A129_STRS
.485
.341
.662
.510
.561
.138
.676
.585
.079 - .087. Standardized parameter estimates
for the three-factor model of the Young
Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support
items, consisting of the warmth, the autonomy,
and the conflict factors range from .37 to .84
and are displayed in Figure 15. The 11-item
warmth factor, the 6-item autonomy factor, and
the 10-item conflict factor have coefficient
alphas of .92, .79 and .88 respectively. The
estimated correlations between latent variables
are .87 for warmth and autonomy, .80 for
warmth and conflict, and .60 for autonomy and
conflict. The squared multiple correlation
(SMC) estimates range from .135 to .689 and
are listed in Table 16.
93
Table 16. SMC estimates for Young
Children's Appraisals of Teacher
Support items
Item
Estimate
A87_YCATS_W
.385
A88_YCATS_W
.666
A89_YCATS_W
.584
A90_YCATS_W
.689
A91_YCATS_W
.671
A92_YCATS_W
.707
A93_YCATS_W
.587
A94_YCATS_W
.559
A95_YCATS_W
.335
A96_YCATS_W
.210
A97_YCATS_W
.534
A98_YCAT_A
.443
A99_YCAT_A
.202
A100_YCAT_A
.552
A101_YCAT_A
.334
A102_YCAT_A
.448
A103_YCAT_A
.474
A104_YCAT_C
.530
A105_YCAT_C
.146
A106_YCAT_C
.641
A107_YCAT_C
.561
A108_YCAT_C
.558
A109_YCAT_C
.429
A110_YCAT_C
.135
A111_YCAT_C
.493
A112_YCAT_C
.658
A113_YCAT_C
.430
Figure 15. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Young Children’s Appraisals of
Teacher Support items
94
Psychological Sense of School Membership. As shown in Table 3, the goodness of
fit statistics for this measure are χ2(df = 135, N = 628) = 717.9, p < .001; CFI = .942;
RMSEA = .083; RMSEA 90% CI = .077 - .089. Standardized parameter estimates for
the Psychological Sense of School Membership items range from .64 to .87 and are
displayed in Figure 16. This 18-item belongingness factor has a coefficient alpha of .97.
Figure 16. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of Psychological Sense of School
Membership items
95
The squared multiple correlation (SMC) estimates range
from .408 to .755 and are listed in Table 17.
Regression of Scale Scores on Internalization,
Engagement, and Academic Achievement
To address the second hypothesis, scale scores
were calculated for each of the original scales. Scale
scores were also calculated for the internalization and
engagement measures; whereas, academic achievement
was only measured with one item so scale score
calculation was not necessary. Next, linear regression
was used to examine the predictive validity of each of
the original scales in relation to each of the outcomes,
Table 17. SMC estimates for
Psychological Sense of
School Membership items
Item
Estimate
A58_PSSM
.747
A59_PSSM
.637
A60_PSSM
.713
A61_PSSM
.591
A62_PSSM
.508
A63_PSSM
.629
A64_PSSM
.694
A65_PSSM
.625
A66_PSSM
.527
A67_PSSM
.753
A68_PSSM
.408
A69_PSSM
.656
A70_PSSM
.752
A71_PSSM
.470
A72_PSSM
.702
A73_PSSM
.697
A74_PSSM
.755
A75_PSSM
.548
internalization, engagement, and academic achievement.
Calculating scale scores. For each of the 628 participants, scale scores for the
original fourteen instruments were calculated using SPSS version 22. If the original
instrument was divided into more than one factor by its original author, scores were
calculated for each of those factors, also referred to as subscale scores. For instance, the
Psychological Sense of School Membership scale consists of only one factor called
belongingness (Figure 16); therefore, only one score was calculated for that scale for each
respondent. Whereas, the Teacher as Social Context scale produces four factors, which
are titled affection, attunement, dedication of resources, and dependability (Figure 9);
therefore, four subscale scores, one for each of the factors, were calculated for each
respondent. The calculation of all scale and subscale scores for each participant consisted
96
of adding the scores for items included in the scale/subscale and dividing the sum by the
number of items in the scale/subscale. In other words, scale scores are an average of the
scores for the items included in the factor. Even though several of the factor loadings and
squared multiple correlations, displayed in Figures 3-16 and Tables 4-17 respectively,
suggest that the inclusion of some items is questionable, all of the original items were
retained for the calculation of scale/subscale scores.
Calculating scores for internalization, engagement and academic achievement.
Although items from several of the original fourteen scales are hypothesized to fit well
into a model that has them directly loading on the latent variables of internalization and
engagement, those items were not included in the calculation of subscale scores for
internalization and engagement for the purposes of examining the predictive validity of
the original fourteen instruments. Instead only the 4 additional internalization items and
the 5 additional engagement items were considered for the calculation of scores for
internalization and engagement. Only one C-STRI item measured academic achievement
by asking participants to select the letter grade they received in the class. Because higher
scores on the relationship quality items represent higher quality relationships, the letter
grade responses were coded as follows: A = 12, A- = 11, B+ = 10, B = 9, B- = 8, C+ = 7,
C = 6, C- = 5, D+ = 4, D = 3, D- = 2, F = 1.
Before calculating the subscale scores for internalization and engagement, the
internal consistency, factor loadings, and model fit were examined using Confirmatory
Factor Analysis. As displayed in Figure 17, the factor loadings of the four internalization
items are good, ranging from .71 to .87.
97
Figure 17. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of internalization items added to the CSTRI for examining predictive validity of original scales
This 4-item internalization factor has acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .87) with a
χ2(df = 2, N = 628) = 22.86, p < .001; CFI = .984; RMSEA = .129; RMSEA 90% CI =
.085 - .179. Although the CFI suggests a good fit, the RMSEA indicates a poor fit
between observed data and the model. Therefore, the modification indices and factor
loading estimates were reviewed for ways to improve the model. The factor loadings of
the unrevised model range from .71 to .87 so all four items seem to belong as indicators
for the latent variable internalization. The modification indices provided by AMOS
indicate a modest but existing covariance between the error terms e2 and e4 (M.I. =
19.9). Adding the covariance path between e2 and e4 to the model left only one degree
of freedom, therefore, error variance parameter estimates were examined. The estimated
variance of e1 = .346 and the estimated variance of e3 = .357; therefore these parameters
were constrained to be equal in order to add a degree of freedom for model identification.
The revised 4-item model of internalization is displayed in Figure 18.
98
Figure 18. Standardized CFA parameter estimates for revised model of internalization
items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales
For this revised model of the internalization items, the fit statistics were χ2(df = 2, N =
628) = .582, p = .748; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = .000; RMSEA 90% CI = .000 - .055, which
suggest good fit between observed data and the model. The five items added to the CSTRI to measure engagement were examined next. The factor loading estimations are
displayed in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of engagement items added to the CSTRI for examining predictive validity of original scales
This 5-item engagement factor showed acceptable internal consistency (alpha = .88);
however, the model fit statistics suggested this model required modifications in order to
obtain acceptable fit (χ2 = 144.34, df = 5, N = 628, p < .001; CFI = .930; RMSEA = .211;
99
RMSEA 90% CI = .182 - .241). The modification indices provided by AMOS indicated
strong covariance between the error terms e1 and e2 (M.I. = 115.9). Before adding that
covariance path to the model, the factor loading estimates were examined for any items
lower than .60 that might need to be deleted from the model. The estimated factor
loading of .52 for item number 175 on the latent variable engagement suggested it as
good candidate for deletion. Thus, item 175 was deleted and the new parameter estimates
as well as model fit were again examined. Figure 20 shows the estimated factor loadings
for the engagement factor with 4-items.
Figure 20. Standardized CFA parameter estimates of the 4-item model of engagement
items added to the C-STRI for examining predictive validity of original scales
This revised, 4-item model of the engagement’s fit statistics were χ2(df = 2, N = 628) =
7.30, p = .026; CFI = .997; RMSEA = .065; RMSEA 90% CI = .019 - .119, which
suggest good fit between observed data and the model.
In accordance with the CFA analyses, the four internalization items were added
together and divided by 4 to create an internalization scale score for each participant.
Similarly, the four engagement items that remained in the reduced 4-item model were
added together and divided by 4 to create an engagement scale score for each participant.
100
Regression of original scales on internalization. Using participants’
internalization scale score as the dependent variable, fourteen separate linear regression
analyses were performed, one for each original instrument. The subscale score(s) were
entered as the independent variable(s). For instruments that had more than one subscale,
the Entry method in SPSS version 22 was used to include all subscale scores in the
analyses, which forces all independent variables into the equation in one step. The results
are presented in Table 18.
Table 18. Regression results for each original scale with internalization as the dependent
variable
B
SE B
βeta
R2
Social Support
Academic Support
.119
.677
.048
.052
.120*
.626***
.530***
Student Classroom
Environment Measure
Friendly/Fair
.687
.045
.518***
.268***
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire
Classroom
Supportiveness
Meaningful
Participation
.738
.036
.692***
.029
.038
.026
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments
Trust
Communication
Alienation
.500
.148
.111
.065
.051
.056
.497***
.145**
.105*
.509***
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation
School Utilization
Teacher Emulation
.263
.336
.038
.035
.306***
.430***
.478***
Research Assessment Package
for Schools
Emotional Security
.632
.027
.685***
.469***
Affection
Attunement
Dedication of
Resources
Dependability
.248
.016
.058
.045
.252***
.019
.194
.048
.206***
.263
.059
.270***
NA
.628
.027
.676***
Scale
Subscale
Classroom Life Measure
Teacher as Social Context
Sense of Relatedness
101
.498***
.485***
.457***
Table 18. Continued
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire
NA
.514
.025
.640***
.409***
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships
Relatedness
.541
.032
.564***
.318***
Need for Relatedness Scale
Acceptance
Intimacy
.575
.102
.048
.042
.602***
.119*
.495***
Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale
NA
.797
.031
.713***
.507***
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support
Warmth
Autonomy
Conflict
.683
-.045
.189
.057
.048
.052
.672***
-.041
.142***
.492***
.028
.718***
.516***
Psychological Sense of School
Belongingness
.735
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.
Regression of original scales on engagement. A second series of fourteen
regressions were performed with participant’s engagement scale score used as the
dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 19.
Table 19. Regression results for each original scale with engagement as the dependent
variable
B
SE B
βeta
R2
Social Support
Academic Support
.180
.767
.047
.051
.165***
.647***
.621***
Student Classroom
Environment Measure
Friendly/Fair
.849
.047
.584***
.341***
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire
Classroom
Supportiveness
Meaningful
Participation
.860
.034
.737***
.103
.037
.082**
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments
Trust
Communication
Alienation
.698
.098
.131
.060
.048
.052
.632***
.088*
.113*
.648***
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation
School Utilization
Teacher Emulation
.325
.400
.037
.034
.345***
.467***
.581***
Research Assessment Package
for Schools
Emotional Security
.797
.025
.788***
.620***
Scale
Subscale
Classroom Life Measure
102
.614***
Table 19. Continued
Affection
Attunement
Dedication of
Resources
Dependability
.305
.106
.058
.045
.283***
.113*
.131
.048
.128**
.313
.059
.294***
Sense of Relatedness
NA
.769
.027
.755***
.571***
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire
NA
.623
.025
.708***
.501***
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships
Relatedness
.685
.032
.652***
.425***
Need for Relatedness Scale
Acceptance
Intimacy
.676
.143
.046
.041
.646***
.153**
.603***
Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale
NA
.968
.030
.790***
.624***
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support
Warmth
Autonomy
Conflict
.800
.017
.234
.053
.045
.048
.670***
.014
.160***
.638***
.027
.807***
.651***
Teacher as Social Context
Psychological Sense of School
Belongingness
.906
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.
.575***
Regression of original scales on academic achievement. A third series of
fourteen regressions were performed, using the participant’s self-reported grade they
achieved in the class as the dependent variable. The results are presented in Table 20.
Table 20. Regression results for each original scale with academic achievement as the
dependent variable
B
SE B
βeta
R2
Social Support
Academic Support
.171
.795
.111
.120
.094
.404***
.235***
Student Classroom
Environment Measure
Friendly/Fair
1.080
.086
.448***
.201***
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire
Classroom
Supportiveness
Meaningful
Participation
.729
.081
.376***
.298
.087
.139**
Scale
Subscale
Classroom Life Measure
103
.216***
Table 20. Continued
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments
Trust
Communication
Alienation
.863
-.217
.229
.148
.116
.127
.472***
-.117
.119
.233***
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation
School Utilization
Teacher Emulation
.469
.203
.087
.079
.299***
.143**
.175***
Research Assessment Package
for Schools
Emotional Security
.759
.060
.452***
.204***
Affection
Attunement
Dedication of
Resources
Dependability
.624
.175
.130
.101
.348***
.113
.087
.108
.051
-.035
.133
-.020
Sense of Relatedness
NA
.758
.060
.449***
201***
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire
NA
.589
.053
.403***
.162***
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships
Relatedness
.670
.064
.384***
.148***
Need for Relatedness Scale
Acceptance
Intimacy
.689
.108
.108
.097
.397***
.069
.208***
Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale
NA
.943
.072
.464***
.215***
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support
Warmth
Autonomy
Conflict
.403
.220
.683
.123
.105
.113
203**
110*
282***
.277***
.064
.503***
.253***
Teacher as Social Context
Psychological Sense of School
Belongingness
.936
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.
.281***
Fitting the Data to the Hypothesized Measurement Model
Addressing the third hypothesis, confirmatory factor analysis was used to
examine the measurement model of C-STRI items as organized into the factors displayed
in Figure 1. To simplify this portion of the analysis, due to the massive number of
predictor items, the model was initially divided into five separate parts for independent
analyses. The four predictor variables, academic support, punishment, involvement, and
104
autonomy support made up the first part. The second part consisted of the factors caring
and awareness/understanding, which are part of the higher order latent variable
perceptions of teacher. Next, the higher order latent variable perceptions of self with its
closeness and affective experience factors made up the third part. The fourth part was the
higher order latent variable interpersonal scripts along with its social support seeking and
emotional reliance factors. Finally, the fifth part of the model examined included the
outcome factors internalization, engagement, and academic achievement. Each of the
five model parts were checked for model fit and modified until the model’s goodness of
fit statistics reached acceptable levels. After the five modified parts independently
produced acceptable model fit statistics, the full structural model was tested for goodness
of fit.
Predictor variables. The four factors treated as predictor variables in the
hypothesized model are academic support, punishment, involvement, and autonomysupport. Figure 21 shows the initial confirmatory factor analysis model of all items
hypothesized to fit in these factors after the categorical item sorting process. This 4factor hypothesized model of all the predictor variable items produced the goodness of fit
statistics χ2(df = 2204, N = 628) = 7313.54, p < .001; CFI = .850; RMSEA = .061;
RMSEA 90% CI = .059 - .062. While the RMSEA value is in the acceptable range, the
CFI value suggests poor fit between observed data and the model. The first modification
to the hypothesized measurement model of predictor factors was made based on the latent
variable covariance between academic support and involvement. Specifically, the
covariance of .97 suggests that the items hypothesized to be measuring the teacher’s
providing of academic support were possibly measuring the same construct as the items
105
Figure 21. Latent variable covariance and factor loading parameter estimates for the
hypothesized measurement model of predictor variables
106
hypothesized to be measuring the teacher’s involvement or appreciation, understanding
and respect for the student. Upon reviewing the content of the items it seems obvious in
hindsight that the behaviors and actions that relate to the concept of involvement for a
teacher would most often be academic support behaviors as that is the primary nature of a
teacher’s job. Therefore, the latent variable for academic support was eliminated and all
of its items were transferred to the involvement factor. Figure 22 displays the 3-factor
model with standardized parameter estimates and all of the items included. Goodness of
fit statistics for this model are χ2(df = 2207, N = 628) = 7485.97, p < .001; CFI = .846;
RMSEA = .062; RMSEA 90% CI = .060 - .063. Although model parsimony improved,
the fit statistics still suggest relatively poor model fit. In other words, the model required
further modifications. To improve the more parsimonious 3-factor model, due to the
extremely large number of items associated with each factor, item elimination was the
next technique used. First, all items with standardized factor loadings less than .60 were
eliminated. This resulted in items A5_IPPA_T, A39_Inv_Dep, A95_YCATS_W,
A96_YCATS_W, and A105_YCAT_C being removed from the involvement factor.
Similarly, items A47_Friend and A52_Friend were removed from the punishment factor.
And, items A99_YCAT_A, A109_YCAT_C, A110_YCAT_C, A113_YCAT_C, and
A163_MePart were removed from the autonomy-support factor. Table 21 lists the item
wording, standardized parameter estimate, and title of the latent variable hypothesized to
be measured by the item. Goodness of fit statistics for this 3-factor model with 12 items
removed are χ2(df = 1481, N = 628) = 5032.65, p < .001; CFI = .885; RMSEA = .062;
RMSEA 90% CI = .060 - .064. Although improved, the reduced item, 3-factor model
required further modification.
107
Figure 22. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors with all
items included
108
Table 21. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to low factor
loadings
Item
A5_IPPA_T
A52_Friend
Wording
This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score)
I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her.
(reverse score)
This teacher remembered special days for me.
This teacher chose me to be a special helper.
This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for
me. (reverse score)
This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or
failing to turn in assignments.
This teacher used sarcasm.
A99_YCAT_A
This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.
A39_Inv_Dep
A95_YCATS_W
A96_YCATS_W
A105_YCAT_C
A47_Friend
A109_YCAT_C
A110_YCAT_C
A113_YCAT_C
A163_MePart
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing.
(reverse score)
This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do.
(reverse score)
This teacher had too many rules for our class. (reverse
score)
In this class the teacher was the only one who decided
on the rules. (reverse score)
Standardized
Estimate
.47
Associated
Factor
Involvement
.55
Involvement
.56
.42
Involvement
Involvement
.31
Involvement
.43
Punishment
.05
Punishment
AutonomySupport
AutonomySupport
AutonomySupport
AutonomySupport
AutonomySupport
.45
.31
.25
.36
.58
The next strategy used to improve model fit for the items that remained in this
portion of the hypothesized model involved examination of cross loading estimates from
the modification indices provided by AMOS. Specifically, estimated regression weights
for items on latent variables other than the one they are hypothesized to correspond with
in the model were scanned for modification indices greater than 10.0. Using this
strategy, 15 more items were identified for elimination. Table 22 lists these 15 items,
their wording, the latent variable they were hypothesized to measure, and any
unacceptable (M.I. > 10.0) regression weight modification indices that they had for latent
variables they were not hypothesized to measure.
109
Table 22. Items deleted from predictor factors in hypothesized model due to high cross
loading modification estimates
Item
Wording
Involvement
Punishment
A32_Inv_DR
AutonomySupport
17.92
This teacher spent time with me.
Hyp
13.69
This teacher made sure I was included in
A66_PSSM
Hyp*
11.88
lots of activities in class.
A67_PSSM
I was treated with respect by this teacher.
Hyp
13.02
A93_YCATS_W This teacher answered my questions.
Hyp*
13.33
A102_YCAT_A
This teacher did activities with me.
Hyp*
37.36
My relationship with this teacher became
A129_STRS
more negative throughout the school year.
Hyp
25.05
(reverse score)
This teacher just looked out for his/herself.
A150_ClsSup
Hyp
11.41
(reverse score)
A154_ClsSup
This teacher treated me with respect.
Hyp
12.33
This teacher threatened to give me more
A53_Friend
work, tests, or to lower my grade to control
Hyp
12.09
my behavior.
A120_STRS
I avoided contact with this teacher.
28.51
Hyp
27.90
This teacher let me do activities I wanted
A100_YCAT_A
16.67
Hyp
to do.
This teacher let me help decide what the
A157_MePart
11.41
Hyp
rules were going to be.
This teacher let me do things that I wanted
A158_MePart
13.37
Hyp
to do.
This teacher let me help plan what we
A161_MePart
13.28
Hyp
would do in class.
A162_MePart
This teacher let me do things my own way.
16.05
21.98
Hyp
*Originally hypothesized to be in the academic-support factor, but included in the involvement factor in the
revised 3-factor model
With these 15 items removed, the goodness of fit statistics are χ2(df = 776, N = 628) =
2408.62, p < .001; CFI = .924; RMSEA = .058; RMSEA 90% CI = .055 - .061. These fit
statistics suggest a reasonable, but not good fit; therefore, one more modification strategy
was used to further improve the fit. Specifically, error covariance modification indices
were examined for items within each latent variable. Because there is no magic number
for this kind of strategy, the modifications indices were examined to determine the size of
modification indices to act on by adding error covariance parameters to the model. The
five largest indices were greater than 60.0 and the sixth largest was less than 50.0 so the
model was modified once more by adding five error covariance parameters.
110
Table 23 displays the error terms for which covariance
parameters were added as well as the associated
modification indices that led to that modification. Figure
23 is a representation of the modified measurement model
for predictor variables in the hypothesized structural
model after the 12 items were removed for low factor
Table 23. Five highest error
covariance modification
indices for items in
hypothesized predictor
factor measurement model
Error
Label
e1
e53
e32
e3
e28
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Error
Label
e16
e54
e64
e11
e31
M.I.
96.9
66.2
66.1
62.6
62.0
loadings, the 15 items were removed for factor cross loadings, and the 5 strongest withinfactor item error covariance were added. The goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 771, N =
628) = 2034.51, p < .001; CFI = .941; RMSEA = .051; RMSEA 90% CI = .048 - .054
now suggest good fit of observed data to the model, which has 23 items associated with
the involvement factor, 11 items associated with the punishment factor, and 7 items
associated with the autonomy-support factor.
111
Figure 23. Standardized parameter estimates for 3-factor model of predictors with items
removed and error covariance added
112
Perceptions of teacher. The hypothesized measurement model for the perceptions
of teacher portion is a second-order factor model. The second-order latent variable is
labeled perceptions of teacher. The two first order latent variables are labeled
awareness/understanding and caring. Figure 24 shows the initial confirmatory factor
analysis model of all items hypothesized to load on these factors after the categorical item
sorting process.
Figure 24. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of perceptions of teacher with all items included
113
The goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 628, N = 628) = 3187.58, p < .001; CFI = .893;
RMSEA = .081; RMSEA 90% CI = .078 - .083 for this model suggest a borderline poor
fit of the observed data to the model. Due to the large number of items associated with
each factor in this portion of the hypothesized model, item elimination was a highly
desired technique for model fit improvement. However, due to the high factor loadings,
particularly for the caring factor, the criterion for item elimination was increased.
Specifically, items with standardized factor loadings of less than .65 were eliminated.
This resulted in item A22_IPPA_A being removed from the awareness/understanding
factor and the items A77_CLM_SS, A87_YCATS_W, and A148_ClsSup being removed
from the caring factor. Table 24 lists the item wording, standardized parameter estimate,
and title of the latent variable hypothesized to be measured by the item. The goodness of
fit statistics for this model reduced by 4 items χ2(df = 494, N = 628) = 2407.95, p < .001;
CFI = .914; RMSEA = .079; RMSEA 90% CI = .075 - .082 for this model suggest an
improved, borderline acceptable, but still not good model fit.
Table 24. Items deleted from perceptions of teacher measurement model due to low
factor loadings
Item
Wording
A22_IPPA_A
I get upset a lot more than this teacher
knew about. (reverse score)
This teacher thought it was important to be
my friend.
This teacher liked my family.
This teacher’s was like family to me.
A77_CLM_SS
A87_YCATS_W
A148_ClsSup
Standardized
Estimate
.49
Awareness/Understanding
.63
Caring
.64
.64
Caring
Caring
Associated Factor
Examination of cross loading estimates from the modification indices was again
utilized to determine the item elimination for improved model fit. This time, only one
item, A89_YCATS_W on awareness/understanding, worded “This teacher was my
friend,” had a cross loading modification indicator greater than 10.0 (M.I. = 13.95).
114
Eliminating this item negligibly improved the model fit to χ2(df = 463, N = 628) =
2190.02, p < .001; CFI = .920; RMSEA = .077; RMSEA 90% CI = .074 - .080. To reach
good model fit, error covariance modification indices were examined next. The five
largest indices were greater than 50.0; thus, the model was modified by adding five error
covariance parameters. Table 25 displays the error
terms for which covariance parameters were added as
well as the associated modification indices that led to
that modification. Figure 25 is a representation of the
modified measurement model for the perceptions of
teacher factors in the hypothesized structural model
Table 25. Five highest error
covariance modification indices
for items in hypothesized
perceptions of teacher portion of
the measurement model
Error
Label
e6
e31
e27
e14
e13
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Error
Label
e7
e35
e29
e23
e33
M.I.
149.2
82.9
75.1
58.4
51.9
after the 4 items were removed for low factor loadings, 1 item was removed for its factor
cross loading, and the 5 strongest within-factor item error covariance were added. The
goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 458, N = 628) = 1750.35, p < .001; CFI = .940; RMSEA
= .067; RMSEA 90% CI = .064 - .070 now suggest a fairly good fit between the observed
data and the model, which has 8 items associated with the awareness/understanding factor
and 24 items associated with the caring factor.
115
Figure 25. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order perceptions of teacher
factor model with items removed and error covariance added
Perceptions of self. The next part of the model to examine, and improve if
necessary, represents student’s perceptions of themselves in relation to the teacher. The
116
hypothesized model with all items included is displayed in Figure 26 and has goodness of
fit statistics χ2(df = 349, N = 628) = 2835.76, p < .001; CFI = .869; RMSEA = .107;
RMSEA 90% CI = .103 - .110, which suggests the data do not fit the model. In other
words, the model needs modification before it can be used in testing the hypothesized
structural model.
Figure 26. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of Perceptions of Self with all items included
117
Following the same strategies of model modification until a good fit is achieved, the first
modification examined related to the extremely high standardized parameters connecting
the first-order factors to the second-order factors. That is, the .98 loading of Closeness
and the .96 loading of Affective Experience suggest that the items in this measurement
model might be better represented by a single-factor model. However, the single-factor
model of all the items in this portion of the hypothesized model resulted in a decrease of
model fit; specifically, χ2(df = 350, N = 628) = 3059.99, p < .001; CFI = .857; RMSEA =
.111; RMSEA 90% CI = .108 - .115. Thus, the single-factor model modification was
rejected. Next, item elimination began with items having standardized factor loadings
less than .60 removed. This step only removed item A127_STRS, worded “I felt upset
when separated from this teacher,” from the Affective Experience factor. This resulted in
a very slight improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 323, N = 628) = 2652.63, p < .001;
CFI = .876; RMSEA = .107; RMSEA 90% CI = .103 - .111, but the data still do not fit
the model. The next step in modification involved examining cross factor loading
modification indicators for values greater than 10.0, of which there were none. Finally,
error covariance modification indices were examined. The four largest indices, listed in
Table 26, were extremely high. The model was
modified by adding four error covariance parameters,
which improved the model fit χ2(df = 319, N = 628) =
2149.57, p < .001; CFI = .903; RMSEA = .096;
RMSEA 90% CI = .092 - .100. Yet, because the
covariance parameter estimates were really high and
Table 26. Four highest error
covariance modification indices
for items in hypothesized
Perceptions of Self portion of
the measurement model
Error
Label
e17
e8
e17
e19
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Error
Label
e20
e18
e19
e20
M.I.
173.6
110.0
108.4
105.9
because three of the error terms included multiple covariance parameters, elimination of
118
the five items associated with these error terms was performed as the next step in
modifying this portion of the measurement model. As expected, elimination of items
A86_BNS_Rel, A135_NRS_I, A136_NRS_I, A137_NRS_I, and A138_NRS_I resulted
in further improvement of model fit χ2(df = 208, N = 628) = 1416.46, p < .001; CFI =
.921; RMSEA = .096; RMSEA 90% CI = .092 - .101. Although the model fit indices are
approaching the acceptable range, further adjustment by examining error covariance
modification indices was performed. This time, using greater than 50 as the cutoff, just
as was done with the Perceptions of Teacher portion of the model, seven error covariance
parameters were added to the model. Table 27
shows the associated error covariance modification
indices. Additionally, the error term e10 had four
unallowable (error covariance with error terms not
associated with items in the same factor) error
covariance modification indices greater than 60, so
its associated item, A116_STRS was eliminated at
Table 27. Seven remaining
allowable error covariance
modification indices greater than
50 for items in the hypothesized
Perceptions of Self portion of the
measurement model
Error
Label
e23
e22
e25
e1
e22
e11
e25
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Error
Label
e26
e26
e28
e9
e23
e16
e26
M.I.
82.2
80.8
76.3
73.8
62.3
55.9
55.1
this step as well. Figure 27 is a representation of the
modified measurement model for the Perceptions of Self portion of the hypothesized
structural model after the items were removed for low factor loadings and unacceptable
error covariance modification indices and seven within-factor item error covariance
parameters were added. The resulting goodness of fit statistics for this model χ2(df = 181,
N = 628) = 792.23, p < .001; CFI = .958; RMSEA = .073; RMSEA 90% CI = .068 - .079
now suggest a fairly good fit between the observed data and the model, which has 15
119
items associated with the closeness factor and 6 items associated with the affective
experience factor.
Figure 27. Standardized parameter estimates for the second-order Perceptions of Self
factor model with items removed and error covariance added
120
Interpersonal scripts. The interpersonal scripts portion of the hypothesized
model, representing if-then statements about students’ behavioral expectations for
interactions between themselves and their teacher, with 11 items associated with the
social support seeking factor and 10 items associated with emotional reliance is displayed
in Figure 28 and has goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 188, N = 628) = 787.99, p < .001;
CFI = .952; RMSEA = .071; RMSEA 90% CI = .066 - .077, which suggests a fairly good
fit between the observed data and the model. In other words, it can be used as is when
testing the hypothesized structural model.
Figure 28. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized second-order factor
model of Interpersonal Scripts with all items included
121
However, the dual .99 standardized regression weights between the first-order and
second-order factors suggests that a single factor model might fit the data even better and
would be a more parsimonious model. The single-factor model of all the items in this
portion of the hypothesized model resulted in a decrease of model fit so it was rejected.
Outcome variables. The hypothesized measurement model for internalization,
engagement, and academic achievement as outcome variables with all items included is
displayed in Figure 29. The goodness of fit statistics for this portion of the model are
Figure 29. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome variables with
all items included
122
χ2(df = 297, N = 628) = 2767.11, p < .001; CFI = .829; RMSEA = .115; RMSEA 90% CI
= .111 - .119, which suggests the data do not fit the model. That is, the model of items
measuring the outcome variables needs modification before it can be used in testing the
full structural model. Keeping with the model modification strategies utilized for the
other measurement models in in this study, item elimination began with items having
standardized factor loadings less than .60 removed. This step removed item
A118_STRS, A121_STRS, and A175_Add_En. Table 28 shows the wording for these
deleted items. This resulted in an improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 228, N = 628)
Table 28. Items deleted from the outcome variables’ measurement model due to low
factor loadings
Item
A118_STRS
A121_STRS
A175_Add_En
Wording
I tried to get help, recognition, and support
from this teacher.
I tried to get support and encouragement
from this teacher.
I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class.
Standardized
Estimate
.42
Associated Factor
Engagement
.51
Engagement
.48
Engagement
= 2150.81, p < .001; CFI = .857; RMSEA = .116; RMSEA 90% CI = .112 - .120, but the
data still do not fit the model. The next step in modification involved examining cross
factor loading modification indicators for values greater than 10.0, of which there were
the six displayed in Table 29. Whereas, this modification did result in a slight
improvement to the fit statistics χ2(df = 117, N = 628) = 1155.02, p < .001; CFI = .89;
RMSEA = .119; RMSEA 90% CI = .113 - .125, the data still do not fit the model.
Additionally, examination of the wording of items that have been removed from the
model and the items that are left in the model reveals that the fit is being improved by
moving away from internalization toward something more like emulation in the first
123
Table 29. Items deleted from outcome factors in hypothesized model due to high cross
loading modification estimates
Item
A172_Add_In
A173_Add_In
A62_PSSM
A92_YCATS_W
A123_STRS
A176_Add_En
Wording
I felt that completing the assignments
in this class was beneficial to me.
I believe the content of this teacher’s
class is valuable to understand.
Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong
in this teacher’s class.
This teacher made the class fun.
I participated deeply in this teacher’s
class.
I paid attention when in this teacher’s
class.
Internalization
Hyp
Engagement
Achievement
16.86
Hyp
12.69
Hyp
14.52
Hyp
Hyp
14.16
17.87
Hyp
10.27
factor. Because a set of items had been added that directly represented the factors of
internalization and engagement, an entirely different approach to modifying the outcome
variables’ measurement model to improve model fit was attempted. Starting again with
the items displayed in Figure 29, all items that came from the original scales were deleted
from the internalization factor, because they represented emulation or desired emulation
of the teacher as opposed to representing specific internalization of the course content.
Next the same was done for the engagement factor because the items from the original
scales represented liking the teacher, belonging in class, and help seeking efforts as
opposed to direct statements about behavioral or emotional engagement in the class. This
improved the fit statistics to χ2(df = 33, N = 628) = 411.16, p < .001; CFI = .912; RMSEA
= .135; RMSEA 90% CI = .124 - .147, yet the model is still not acceptable. In an effort
to further improve the model fit, the standardized parameter estimates for the factor
loadings were examined. The lowest two were .54 for A175_Add_En and .68 for
A176_Add_En. Comparison between the content of these two Engagement items with
the content of the other three remaining Engagement factor items revealed that the two
with low loadings are related to behavioral aspects of Engagement and the other three are
124
related to emotional aspects of engagement. Thus, the next step in improving the fit of
this measurement model involved splitting those five Engagement items into two separate
factors titled Behavioral Engagement and Emotional Engagement. This modification
improved the model’s goodness of fit χ2(df = 30, N = 628) = 270.05, p < .001; CFI =
.944; RMSEA = .113; RMSEA 90% CI = .101 - .126; however, model fit is not
acceptable. Additional modification was still required. To this end, error covariance
modification indices were examined. Only one pair of error terms had an error
covariance modification index greater than 50. The error term for A171_Add_In, e6, and
the error term for A173_Add_In, e8 had the modification index of 117.16 so their
covariance parameter was added to the model. The model after this modification, which
has 4 items associated with the internalization factor, 2 items for the behavioral
engagement factor, 3 items for the emotional engagement factor, and 1 item for the
academic achievement factor, produced acceptable goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 29, N
= 628) = 119.64, p < .001; CFI = .979; RMSEA = .071; RMSEA 90% CI = .058 - .084
and it is displayed in Figure 30.
125
Figure 30. Standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized outcome variables after
item elimination and splitting of behavioral and emotional engagement
Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model
To address the fourth hypothesis, the modified measurement model parts were
combined into a single model with the hypothesized latent variable associations, as
displayed in Figure 31. Unfortunately, the resultant model was found to have problems
of underidentification. In other words, the model contained fewer known parameters than
unknown parameters. To address the issue of underidentification, one approach might
have been to search for a set of possibly justifiable restrictions to impose in the model in
order to reduce the number of unknown parameters. However, options within this
method seemed superfluous when used purely to reach identification in a complex model.
Rather, the latent variables involvement, punishment, autonomy support,
awareness/understanding, caring, closeness, affective experience, social support
126
Figure 31. Full structural equation model with the hypothesized latent variable
associations using the modified measurement model parts
seeking, and emotional reliance were transformed into measured variables. To
accomplish this, each of these variables was treated as a subscale by calculating simple
means of their respective items from the modified measurement model parts. This
greatly reduced the number of unknown parameters in the model resulting in the model
displayed in Figure 32. This model is overidentified. It has a greater number of known
parameters than unknown parameters, which is necessary in structural equation modeling
to have an adequate test of model fit (Bolen, 1989). The model in Figure 32 produced
results of questionable (unacceptable CFI) acceptability (adequate RMSEA) in terms of
its goodness of fit statistics χ2 (df = 1522, N = 628) = 5977.80, p < .001; CFI = .878;
127
Figure 32. Full structural equation model with unknown parameters reduced by
calculating subscale scores for several factors from the modified measurement model
specifications
RMSEA = .068; RMSEA 90% CI = .067 - .070. To improve this model, the error
covariance and regression weight modification indices were examined. The regression
weight modification indices were first sorted alphabetically to remove all pathways
except those involving only latent variables. Next, they were sorted from highest to
lowest to determine what pathways might have sufficient empirical utility in order to be
considered for theoretical justification. The highest modification indicator was for the
pathway from behavioral engagement to academic achievement (M.I. = 41.0). This
pathway arguably makes more sense than the pathway from interpersonal scripts to
academic achievement in that relationship quality might have direct effects on the
student’s internalization and engagement, which then leads to more or less academic
achievement accordingly. In other words, modification of the model using this logic
128
would require the removal of the pathway from interpersonal scripts to academic
achievement and the addition of three paths from behavioral engagement to academic
achievement, from emotional
engagement to academic
achievement, and from
internalization to academic
Table 30. Regression weight modification
indices for treating academic achievement as a
secondary outcome in the structural model
Predictor
Behavioral_Engagement
Emotional_Engagement
Internalization
-->
-->
-->
Criterion
Achievement
Achievement
Achievement
M.I.
41.0
19.8
5.3
achievement. Table 30 lists the modification indices for these three regression pathways.
The resultant model demonstrated improved goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 1520, N =
628) = 5493.79, p < .001; CFI = .891; RMSEA = .065; RMSEA 90% CI = .063 - .066
and is displayed in Figure 33. None of the remaining regression weight modification
indices of substantive size presented any path modifications that could be justified with
Figure 33. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement as a
secondary outcome
129
theory. Therefore, in order to improve the model further, error covariance modification
indices were examined next.
To accomplish this, the error covariance modification indices were sorted to retain
only the ones related to covariance between latent variable error terms of the same level
in the model and covariance between error terms associated with subscale scores
measuring the same latent variable. Of these error covariance parameters, the top four
highest modification indices are displayed in
Table 31. Four highest error
covariance modification indices for the
Full model as displayed in Figure 33
Table 31. Three of the four highest
modification indices were for the covariance
parameters between the three error terms
associated with the latent outcome variables
Error Label
e135
e99
e135
e137
<-->
<-->
<-->
<-->
Error Label
e137
e110
e136
e136
M.I.
192.7
138.3
80.5
38.0
internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement. While it makes
sense that these latent variables are interrelated, regression lines connecting them were
not a desired part of this model. Given that, it made theoretical sense to add covariance
parameters between the error terms to the model.
The other modification indicator in table 30, the second highest, was for the
covariance parameter between the error terms associated with the subscales emotional
reliance and social support seeking. This parameter was also acceptable and added to the
model. The modified model is shown in Figure 34. This version produced improved
goodness of fit statistics χ2(df = 1516, N = 628) = 4755.03, p < .001; CFI = .911; RMSEA
= .058; RMSEA 90% CI = .057 - .060. With an adequate RMSEA and a reasonable CFI,
the model in Figure 34 was acceptable. The parameter estimates for factor loadings and
path coefficients can be found in Table 32.
130
Figure 34. Full model using subscale scores and treating academic achievement as a
secondary outcome and modified by the addition of error covariance parameters
Table 32. Parameter estimates for factor loadings and path coefficients in the final
version of the full model
Latent Variables
Factor Loadings
Involvement
Indicators
Parameter Estimates
A2_IPPA_T
A7_IPPA_T
A24_IPPA_A
A33_Inv_DR
A34_Inv_Dep
A35_Inv_Dep
A36_Inv_Dep
A37_Inv_Dep
A38_Inv_Dep
A56_Rel
A59_PSSM
A60_PSSM
A71_PSSM
A90_YCATS_W
A91_YCATS_W
A94_YCATS_W
A97_YCATS_W
A103_YCAT_A
A128_STRS
A147_ClsSup
131
0.843
0.820
0.753
0.787
0.859
0.854
0.841
0.847
0.632
0.837
0.809
0.847
0.685
0.818
0.828
0.708
0.704
0.711
0.814
0.830
Table 32. Continued
Punishment
Autonomy-Support
Perceptions of Teacher
Perceptions of Self
Interpersonal Scripts
Internalization
Behavioral Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Achievement
A151_ClsSup
A152_ClsSup
A156_ClsSup
A48_Friend
A50_Friend
A51_Friend
A104_YCAT_C
A106_YCAT_C
A107_YCAT_C
A108_YCAT_C
A111_YCAT_C
A112_YCAT_C
A122_STRS
A149_ClsSup
A98_YCAT_A
A101_YCAT_A
A159_MePart
A160_MePart
A164_MePart
A165_MePart
A166_MePart
Aware Understand
Caring
Affect Experience
Closeness
Emotional Reliance
Social Support Seeking
A171_Add_In
A172_Add_In
A173_Add_In
A174_Add_In
A175_Add_En
A176_Add_En
A177_Add_En
A178_Add_En
A179_Add_En
Course Grade
Path Coefficients
Involvement --> Perceptions of Teacher
Involvement --> Perceptions of Self
Punishment --> Perceptions of Teacher
Punishment --> Perceptions of Self
Autonomy-Support --> Perceptions of Teacher
Autonomy-Support --> Perceptions of Self
Perceptions of Teacher --> Interpersonal Scripts
Perceptions of Self --> Interpersonal Scripts
Interpersonal Scripts --> Internalization
132
0.781
0.795
0.817
0.824
0.693
0.752
0.708
0.789
0.753
0.739
0.669
0.832
0.843
0.862
0.715
0.623
0.652
0.820
0.726
0.769
0.712
0.895
0.981
0.909
0.974
0.893
0.911
0.675
0.696
0.693
0.839
0.702
0.864
0.881
0.906
0.871
1.000
0.919
0.931
0.078
0.060
0.027
0.031
-15.301
16.306
0.847
Table 32. Continued
Interpersonal Scripts --> Behavioral Engagement
Interpersonal Scripts --> Emotional Engagement
Internalization --> Achievement
Behavioral Engagement --> Achievement
Emotional Engagement --> Achievement
0.573
0.858
-17.737
2.349
16.478
Testing the Hypothesized Structural Model across Groups
With respect to hypotheses five, six, and seven, invariance was not examined for
participant gender, teacher gender, or course topic groupings. Several path coefficients in
Table 31 revealed 1) an unacceptable amount of multicollinearity among model factors
(Joreskog, 1999; Kline, 2005) and 2) a strong suppressor structure creating negative
suppression effects in the model (Kline, 2005). For example, the path coefficients from
predictors (involvement, punishment, and autonomy support) to the relational schema
components (perceptions of teacher and perceptions of self) suggest an extreme
multicollinearity issue. The β = .919 and β = .931 paths from involvement suggest
predictive importance and the β = .078, β = .060, β = .027 and β = .031 paths from
punishment and autonomy support respectively suggest those variables are unimportant.
When considered alongside of the subscale correlations displayed in Table 32, there is an
obvious suppression effect resulting from severe multicollinearity. As another example,
the paths from perceptions of teacher (β = -15.301) and perceptions of self (β = 16.306)
to interpersonal scripts suggest extreme multicollinearity due to the oddly high
coefficients (Joreskog, 1999) and negative suppression due to the reversal of effect
directionality indicated by the coefficient (Kline, 2005). Paths from the outcome factors
(internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional engagement) to academic
achievement reveal a combination of both effects as well. Overall, it is sufficient to say
133
that the path coefficient values in the model are of little use except to demonstrate the
problems of modeling variables that have high multicollinearity.
To further examine multicollinearity among the variables in the model, subscale
scores for the predictor variables (involvement, punishment, and autonomy support) and
the outcome variables (internalization, behavioral engagement, and emotional
engagement) were calculated from the associated measured items in the final full model
as had already been done for the relational schema component factors
(awareness/understanding, caring, closeness, affective experience, social support seeking,
Table 33. Bivariate correlations among subscale scores for predictor factors, relational
schema factors, and outcome factors in modified full structural model
Subscale
1. Involvement
2. Punishment
3. Autonomy-Support
4. Aware/Understand
5. Caring
1
1
2
.78*
3
.54*
4
.89*
5
.96*
6
.95*
7
.89*
8
.90*
9
.86*
10
.74*
11
.54*
12
.82*
1
.35*
.62*
.81*
.76*
.81*
.65*
.61*
.57*
.50*
.61*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.49*
1
.55
1
.54
.55
.47
.58
.56
.39
.23
.87*
.90*
.79*
.92*
.90*
.66*
.48*
.74*
1
.95*
.89*
.88*
.84*
.69*
.51*
.77*
1
.90*
.91*
.89*
.71*
.50*
.79*
*
*
*
*
.79*
6. Closeness
7. Affective Experience
1
8. Social Support Seeking
.81
1
9. Emotional Reliance
.79
.67
.47
.94*
.64*
.45*
.73*
1
.65*
.45*
.73*
1
.62*
.80*
1
.60*
10. Internalization
11. Behavioral Engagement
12. Emotional Engagement
1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
and emotional reliance). Next, bivariate correlations were calculated for all of these
variables. As displayed in Table 33, all of these variables are significantly intercorrelated
with numerous correlations surpassing the r > .85 criterion suggested by Kline (2005) as
signaling a potential problem of multicollinearity. To further investigate
multicollinearity, all of the variables in Table 33 were entered as independent variables
simultaneously into a linear regression model in SPSS with academic achievement
134
as the dependent variable to acquire a report of the collinearity diagnostic statistics. The
resulting variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics are reported in Table 34. It has been
suggested that a VIF of 5.0 or greater is something to be concerned about and VIF of 10.0
or greater almost certainly indicates a serious
collinearity problem (Menard, 1995). Using
those criteria, a quick scan of Table 34 leads
to the conclusion that the variables in the
modified full structural model (Figure 34)
have a serious multicollinearity problem.
Kline (2005) suggests problems of
multicollinearity may be dealt with by either
eliminating redundant variables or combining
redundant variables into a single variable. In
this case the multicollinearity is both severe
Table 34. Variance inflation factor
statistics for all predictor factors,
relational schema factors, and outcome
factors in modified full structural model
when regressed on achievement
Subscale
VIF
1. Involvement
21.8
2. Punishment
4.2
3. Autonomy-Support
1.6
4. Aware/Understand
8.5
5. Caring
20.6
6. Closeness
21.0
7. Affective Experience
7.4
8. Social Support Seeking
12.2
9. Emotional Reliance
9.8
10. Internalization
3.2
11. Behavioral Engagement
1.9
12. Emotional Engagement
4.9
and spread across various levels of the model. Dissecting, deleting, recombining, and
renaming factors to address multicollinearity of this magnitude is not a practical solution.
Instead, exploratory factor analysis as presented in the post hoc analysis section generates
a better avenue for further consideration of the data.
Post Hoc Exploratory Factor Analysis
Because of the multicollinearity problems among factors in the hypothesized
model, exploratory factor analysis was utilized to discover underlying empirical structure
in the data. Principal components analysis method of extraction was used because the
end goal was to reduce the set of items to a small number of factors that might be used to
135
create composite scores for use in subsequent analysis. Because avoiding
multicollinearity in the final solution is a primary goal, the orthogonal VARIMAX
rotation, developed by Kaiser (1958), was used. The scree plot (Figure 35) was
examined to see if there was an obvious point at which the last substantial drop in the
magnitude of the eigenvalues would lead to a clear decision about the number of factors
Figure 35. Forward portion of the principal components analysis scree plot
to extract, which is known as the scree test (Cattell, 1966). The most substantial drop
was after the first factor, suggesting a possible best model might be the single factor
solution. However, the second and third factors were retained for extraction as they also
appeared to possess some potentially important information for theory development as
well.
Accordingly, principal components analysis was run with all 170 items from the
C-STRI that came from the 14 original instruments using VARIMAX rotation and
136
extracting 3 factors. The additional 10 items that were added to improve the
measurement of internalization, engagement, and academic achievement were not
included as they were never thought to be measures of the student teacher relationship per
se. To reduce the number of items and clean up the 3-factor extraction results, item
elimination began with deletion of all items that did not have a primary factor loading of
.6 or greater. This step resulted in the deletion of 43 items (see Appendix J for factor
loadings). The principle components analysis was run again with the retained items and
the second step in item elimination was performed. This eliminated all items that had a <
.2 gap between their primary factor loading and any cross-loading. This step resulted in
the deletion of 31 more items (see Appendix K for factor loadings). The analysis was run
again. The third and final item elimination strategy removed all items with a crossloading of .3 or above. This step resulted in 58 more items being deleted (see Appendix
L for factor loadings). The results of this process are displayed in Table 35. Although
the retained items formed three distinct factors empirically, examination of their content
suggested an obvious methods effect with the first factor containing positive relationship
items and the second factor containing negatively worded items. The third factor is not a
measure of the relationship at all; rather, it contains items related a specific teaching
strategy of providing students with opportunities for choice and decision making in the
classroom. In other words, the results provide support for a global relationship quality
construct as opposed to the more complicated multidimensional relational schema
construct hypothesized in this study. While there are numerous items retained in the 3factor model (Figure 34) that could be deleted for redundancy, it would not be
worthwhile to do so because the model is a better illustration of method effects than an
137
Table 35. Factor loadings of items retained for the three factor solution after items
deleted for issues of cross-loading
Item Code
A135_NRS_I
A148_ClsSup
A126_STRS
A18_IPPA_C
A16_IPPA_c
A29_Inv_Att
A13_IPPA_C
A136_NRS_I
A117_STRS
A15_IPPA_C
A17_IPPA_C
A11_IPPA_C
A125_STRS
A121_STRS
A141_Sch_Ut
A149_ClsSup
A122_STRS
A48_Friend
A112_YCAT_C
A106_YCAT_C
A51_Friend
A107_YCAT_C
A104_YCAT_C
A75_PSSM
A108_YCAT_C
A111_YCAT_C
A50_Friend
A53_Friend
A109_YCAT_C
A20_IPPA_A
A160_MePart
A98_YCAT_A
A157_MePart
A166_MePart
A164_MePart
A101_YCAT_A
A159_MePart
A163_MePart
Factor Correlations
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Wording
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.
This teacher’s was like family to me.
If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.
I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.
I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.
This teacher knew a lot about me.
This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.
I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.
This teacher helped me to understand myself better.
This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.
I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.
This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.
I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it
over with this teacher.
This teacher was mean to me.
I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism.
This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.
This teacher was mean.
This teacher got angry with me.
This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid
mistakes.
This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.
This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.
It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher.
This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.
This teacher told me I did not listen.
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining
and responsible for my own behavior.
This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade
to control my behavior.
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing.
Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or
foolish.
This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.
This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.
This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.
This teacher let me choose what I would work on.
This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.
This teacher let me do different activities in class.
This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.
In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules.
1
.804
.803
.790
.777
.734
.733
.711
.706
.694
.692
.689
.677
.653
.652
Factor
2
.297
.137
.224
.277
.026
.243
.245
.181
.269
.287
.231
.291
.295
.079
3
.249
.194
.208
.249
.210
.181
.148
.258
.286
.230
.255
.281
.288
.084
.625
.295
.221
.253
.254
.178
.292
.150
.831
.793
.781
.771
.770
.122
.123
.145
.159
.129
.180
.745
.115
.149
.062
.288
.154
.071
.736
.730
.709
.696
.679
.128
.084
.138
.109
.066
.144
.678
.129
.024
.658
.028
.162
.645
.091
.286
.637
.088
.254
.265
.195
.280
.248
.175
.276
.115
.121
.131
.031
.154
.037
.155
.173
.170
.765
.736
.736
.717
.676
.645
.619
.611
1.00
.533
1.00
.581
.360
1.00
illustration of distinct relationship dimensions. Only 22%, 38 out of 170 items were
retained using the item deletion process outlined above, which eliminated items based on
138
how indistinctive they were. This further illustrates how extremely inter-correlated the
items were, why the hypothesized latent variables displayed extreme multicollinearity,
and gave additional support for the potential that a single factor solution might be best.
As previously mentioned, the scree plot in Figure 35 provided additional evidence that a
single-factor extraction might produce the best results. Therefore, the final step in this
iterative process of exploratory, post hoc data analysis was to run the principle
components analysis once more, this time with the restriction of extracting one factor.
The results are displayed in Table 36.
Table 36. Factor loadings of all items for the single-factor solution
Item
A130_NRS_A
A54_Rel
A132_NRS_A
A131_NRS_A
A133_NRS_A
A76_CLM_SS
A27_Inv_Aff
A153_ClsSup
A8_IPPA_T
A167_RAPS_E
A79_CLM_SS
A170_RAPS_E
A10_IPPA_T
A35_Inv_Dep
A74_PSSM
A49_Friend
A58_PSSM
A34_Inv_Dep
A4_IPPA_T
A1_IPPA_T
A114_STRS
A73_PSSM
A3_IPPA_T
A84_BNS_Rel
A119_STRS
A60_PSSM
A42_ERQ
A36_Inv_Dep
A154_ClsSup
A37_Inv_Dep
Wording
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported.
When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.
This teacher really cared about me.
This teacher really cared about me.
This teacher cared about me.
This teacher understood me.
When I was with this teacher, I felt good.
This teacher cared about my feelings.
When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.
I trusted this teacher.
I could count on this teacher to be there for me.
This teacher liked me the way I was.
This teacher was warm and supportive.
I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.
This teacher was always there for me.
This teacher accepted me as I was.
This teacher respected my feelings.
I trusted this teacher.
I feel proud of knowing this teacher.
I wish I had a different teacher.
When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about.
This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up.
This teacher took my opinions seriously.
If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have been
willing to turn to this teacher.
I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her.
This teacher treated me with respect.
This teacher was never there for me.
139
Loading
.893
.889
.885
.884
.882
.875
.868
.868
.868
.864
.863
.863
.862
.857
.856
.854
.854
.852
.852
.849
.848
.847
.846
.846
.843
.842
.841
.840
.839
.839
Table 36. Continued
A70_PSSM
A57_Rel
A2_IPPA_T
A63_PSSM
A169_RAPS_E
A92_YCATS_W
A46_ERQ
A72_PSSM
A82_CLM_AS
A67_PSSM
A135_NRS_I
A88_YCATS_W
A6_IPPA_T
A144_Emul
A56_Rel
A26_Inv_Aff
A142_Sch_Ut
A147_ClsSup
A120_STRS
A31_Inv_Att
A43_ERQ
A124_STRS
A7_IPPA_T
A69_PSSM
A41_ERQ
A128_STRS
A55_Rel
A44_ERQ
A138_NRS_I
A155_ClsSup
A90_YCATS_W
A9_IPPA_T
A64_PSSM
A91_YCATS_W
A89_YCATS_W
A59_PSSM
A156_ClsSup
A115_STRS
A137_NRS_I
A80_CLM_AS
A61_PSSM
A145_Emul
A18_IPPA_C
A33_Inv_DR
A152_ClsSup
A28_Inv_Aff
A30_Inv_Att
This teacher respected me.
When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant.
I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.
I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.
When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy.
This teacher made the class fun.
If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to turn
to this teacher.
I wished I was in a different teacher’s class.
This teacher liked to help me learn.
I was treated with respect by this teacher.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.
This teacher liked me.
When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view.
I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher.
When I was with this teacher I felt ignored.
This teacher liked me.
I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school.
When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.
I avoided contact with this teacher.
This teacher didn’t understand me.
If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have been
willing to turn to this teacher.
I felt safe and secure with this teacher.
This teacher trusted my judgment.
I could really be myself around this teacher.
If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been willing to
turn to this teacher.
My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the school
year.
When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special.
If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this teacher.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit.
This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.
This teacher said nice things about my work.
When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding.
This teacher was friendly to me.
This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.
This teacher was my friend.
This teacher noticed when I was good at something.
This teacher helped me learn.
This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them.
This teacher cared about how much I learned.
This teacher was interested in me.
I wanted to be like this teacher.
I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.
This teacher talked with me.
This teacher worked with me to solve problems.
This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class.
This teacher knew me well.
140
.838
.837
.833
.831
.830
.827
.826
.825
.825
.823
.823
.823
.822
.822
.821
.821
.820
.819
.818
.818
.818
.817
.817
.816
.815
.813
.811
.810
.810
.809
.809
.809
.809
.806
.804
.799
.799
.798
.797
.793
.792
.791
.786
.783
.783
.779
.777
Table 36. Continued
A23_IPPA_A
A45_ERQ
A168_RAPS_E
A151_ClsSup
A65_PSSM
A139_NRS_I
A40_ERQ
A129_STRS
A81_CLM_AS
A93_YCATS_W
A24_IPPA_A
A143_Emul
A19_IPPA_C
A112_YCAT_C
A149_ClsSup
A116_STRS
A146_Emul
A11_IPPA_C
A134_NRS_A
A32_Inv_DR
A85_BNS_Rel
A126_STRS
A117_STRS
A15_IPPA_C
A66_PSSM
A78_CLM_SS
A12_IPPA_C
A83_CLM_AS
A125_STRS
A122_STRS
A150_ClsSup
A29_Inv_Att
A94_YCATS_W
A75_PSSM
A103_YCAT_A
A97_YCATS_W
A140_Sch_Ut
A21_IPPA_A
A13_IPPA_C
A62_PSSM
A17_IPPA_C
A25_IPPA_A
A141_Sch_Ut
A148_ClsSup
A136_NRS_I
A48_Friend
A68_PSSM
I felt angry with this teacher.
If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
When I was with this teacher, I felt mad.
When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help.
This teacher was not interested in people like me.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend.
If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the school
year.
This teacher liked to see my work.
This teacher answered my questions.
I didn’t get much attention from this teacher.
I tried to model myself after this teacher.
If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it.
This teacher was mean.
This teacher was mean to me.
I was wary of this teacher.
As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher.
I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.
This teacher spent time with me.
When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship.
If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.
I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.
This teacher helped me to understand myself better.
This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class.
This teacher liked me as much as other students.
I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher.
This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork.
This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.
I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism.
This teacher just looked out for his/herself.
This teacher knew a lot about me.
This teacher told good stories.
It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher.
This teacher told me I was smart.
This teacher smiled a lot.
If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher.
I got upset easily around this teacher.
This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.
Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class.
This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.
This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days.
If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it over with
this teacher.
This teacher’s was like family to me.
In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.
This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.
I felt very different from this teacher.
141
.774
.771
.771
.769
.766
.766
.766
.766
.761
.755
.753
.751
.750
.748
.747
.747
.747
.744
.744
.743
.741
.740
.740
.737
.733
.732
.730
.720
.719
.716
.715
.712
.711
.707
.706
.706
.704
.702
.702
.700
.700
.692
.692
.682
.671
.667
.666
Table 36. Continued
A71_PSSM
A38_Inv_Dep
A77_CLM_SS
A51_Friend
A87_YCATS_W
A102_YCAT_A
A20_IPPA_A
A95_YCATS_W
A106_YCAT_C
A107_YCAT_C
A86_BNS_Rel
A100_YCAT_A
A123_STRS
A108_YCAT_C
A50_Friend
A158_MePart
A162_MePart
A16_IPPA_c
A113_YCAT_C
A39_Inv_Dep
A109_YCAT_C
A104_YCAT_C
A121_STRS
A166_MePart
A111_YCAT_C
A159_MePart
A98_YCAT_A
A160_MePart
A22_IPPA_A
A14_IPPA_C
A96_YCATS_W
A5_IPPA_T
A161_MePart
A165_MePart
A118_STRS
A53_Friend
A101_YCAT_A
A164_MePart
A157_MePart
A99_YCAT_A
A127_STRS
A163_MePart
A105_YCAT_C
A110_YCAT_C
A47_Friend
A52_Friend
This teacher knew I could do good work.
I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things.
This teacher thought it was important to be my friend.
This teacher expected me to make stupid mistakes.
This teacher liked my family.
This teacher did activities with me.
Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish.
This teacher remembered special days for me.
This teacher got angry with me.
This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.
When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy.
This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.
I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.
This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.
This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and
responsible for my own behavior.
This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.
This teacher let me do things my own way.
I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.
This teacher had too many rules for our class.
I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her.
This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing.
This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.
I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.
This teacher let me choose what I would work on.
This teacher told me I did not listen.
This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.
This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.
This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.
I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about.
This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine.
This teacher chose me to be a special helper.
This teacher expected too much of me.
This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class.
This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do.
I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher.
This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to
control my behavior.
This teacher let me do different activities in class.
This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.
This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.
This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.
I felt upset when separated from this teacher.
In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules.
This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me.
This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do.
This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in assignments.
This teacher used sarcasm.
142
.665
.640
.638
.635
.633
.628
.628
.627
.619
.610
.601
.589
.588
.580
.574
.572
.571
.561
.556
.545
.543
.528
.524
.500
.493
.488
.481
.480
.478
.473
.471
.468
.453
.449
.424
.422
.421
.402
.374
.368
.360
.356
.308
.307
.304
-.052
The single-factor loadings offer strong support for a general, global relationship
quality construct. Aside from one outlier item “this teacher used sarcasm” (λ = -.052) the
lowest loading was λ = .304, which is above the cutoff specified previously for an item to
be acceptably distinct from the factor. On the other hand, 65 items loaded λ > .800, 118
items loaded λ > .700, and 135 items loaded λ > .600, which was the cutoff specified
previously for acceptance as a primary factor loading. That is, nearly 80% of the items
loaded strongly in the single-factor model and 99% of the items resulted in λ > .300,
which was used as a cutoff for indicating “salient” factor loadings in a Psychological
Methods journal report on the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research
(Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999).
143
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION
Several interesting findings resulted from this study. The hypothesized model,
which proposed a multidimensional relational schema structure of students’ internal
representation of their relationship with a teacher, was not supported by the data. The
study did, however, provided a first look into the comparative utility of 14 different
student-teacher relationship measures through simultaneous administration of their items
in the context of a single student-teacher relationship. The study demonstrated that
numerous instruments could individually generate acceptable internal consistency and
model fit statistics, and then be successfully recombined into a series of other
measurement models that fit the data as well. Although not in the expected fashion, the
study also afforded empirical evaluation as to which of the 170 items from the 14 original
scales most closely measure the core of student teacher relationship quality and which
items do not. The study exemplified the dangers of negative item wording. Finally the
study provided strong evidence for conceptualizing student teacher relationships as a
single, global relationship quality construct.
Comparing the 14 Original Scales
All of the original 14 scales were examined using confirmatory factor analysis to
check model fit and the results were presented in Table 3. Based on the data collected for
this study, quality of fit varied substantially for the original scales. The Basic Need
Satisfaction in Relationships scale had only one factor with three items so the model was
“just identified” (Kline, 2005) and thus its CFA results are not to be trusted. From the
data collected for this study, five scales produced unacceptable model fit statistics.
Specifically, the Research Assessment Package for Schools generated RMSEA = .326,
144
Teacher as a Social Context generated RMSEA = .104, Sense of Relatedness generated
RMSEA = .162, Student Teacher Relationship Scale generated RMSEA = .128 & CFI =
.849, and the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support generated CFI = .860.
The remaining 8 scales demonstrated acceptable fit RMSEA = .037-.090 and CFI = .912.995. A few of these original scales have the results of exploratory factor analyses
reported in the original publication of the scales, none of them reported measurement
model fit statistics from confirmatory factor analyses. Therefore, the confirmatory factor
analysis results found in this project could not be compared to original model fit
statistics. However, all of the original studies reported internal reliability coefficient
alphas. Table 37 shows the original coefficient alphas and the coefficient alphas found in
this study side-by-side for each of the 14 scales and respective subscales. In comparison
to internal reliability data presented in the original publications for each of the 14 scales,
data from this study suggest slightly more internal consistency; however the patterns of
reliability coefficients match fairly well. All scales and subscales demonstrated
acceptable internal reliability.
To compare the 14 original scales in terms of predictive validity, regression
results (βeta & R2) from Table 18 (internalization), Table 19 (engagement), and Table 20
(achievement) were condensed into a single table. Bivariate correlations were added as
well due to concerns about suppressor effects in the βeta coefficients. Table 38 shows the
results of this predictive validity comparison. Comparison of the bivariate correlations
and Beta coefficients revealed suppressor effects in the scales that were divided into
subscales. The combination of these statistics and the post hoc exploratory factor
analysis call the proposed dimensionality of these original scales into question. More
145
Table 37. Comparison of internal reliability from original publication and this study for
all 14 original scales
Items
Original α
This Study α
Social Support
Academic Support
4
4
.80
.78
.86
.90
Student Classroom Environment
Measure (N = 1788)
Friendly/Fair
7
.70 - .75
.76
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire (N = 5143)
Classroom Supportiveness
Meaningful Participation
10
10
.82
.80
.94
.91
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments (N = 179)
Trust
Communication
Alienation
10
9
6
.91
.91
.86
.95
.92
.86
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation (N = 606)
School Utilization
Teacher Emulation
3
4
.66
.84
.83
.94
Research Assessment Package
for Schools (N = 2429)
Emotional Security
4
.71
.92
Affection
Attunement
Dedication of Resources
Dependability
3
3
2
6
.71
.54
NA
.72
.88
.86
.77
.90
Sense of Relatedness (N = 641)
NA
4
.79
.91
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire (N = 195)
NA
7
.91 - .97
.96
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships (N = 152)
Relatedness
3
.90
.79
Need for Relatedness Scale
(N = 265)
Acceptance
Intimacy
5
5
.89
.91
.94
.93
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale
(N = 72)
NA
16
.85
.94
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support (N = 364)
Warmth
Autonomy
Conflict
11
6
10
.75
.67
.75
.92
.79
.88
Psychological Sense of School
Membership (N = 454)
Belongingness
18
.87
.97
Scale
Subscale
Classroom Life Measure (N = 91)
Teacher as Social Context (N = 500)
will be said about support for a single global relationship quality construct later. Overall,
the data in Table 38 suggest that all of the relationship measures have predictive validity
in relation to internalization, engagement, and achievement. When all three outcomes are
considered together, the Student Classroom Environment Measure, School Utilization &
146
Teacher Emulation, the Emotional Reliance Questionnaire, and the Basic Needs
Satisfaction in Relationships scales performed poorest of the 14 scales; whereas, the
Psychological Sense of School Membership scale performed the best overall.
147
Table 38. Predictive validity comparison of 14 original scales
r
Achievement
β
R2
Classroom Life Measure
Social Support
Academic Support
.63**
.73**
.12*
.63***
.53***
.69**
.78**
.16***
.65***
.62***
.43**
.48**
.09
.40***
.24***
Student Classroom
Environment Measure
Friendly/Fair
.52**
.52***
.27***
.58**
.58***
.34***
.45**
.45***
.20***
Developmental Studies Center
Student Questionnaire
Classroom Supportiveness
Meaningful Participation
.71**
.39**
.69***
.03
.50***
.78**
.47**
.74***
.08**
.61***
.45**
.34**
.38***
.14**
.22***
Inventory of Parent & Peer
Attachments
Trust
Communication
Alienation
.71**
.63**
.63**
.50***
.14**
.10*
.51**
.80**
.69**
.71**
.63***
.09*
.11*
.65***
.47**
.36**
.43**
.47***
-.12
.12
.23***
School Utilization & Teacher
Emulation
School Utilization
Teacher Emulation
.63**
.66**
.31***
.43***
.48***
.70**
.73**
.34***
.47***
.58***
.41**
.37**
.30***
.14**
.17***
Research Assessment Package
for Schools
Emotional Security
.68**
.68***
.47***
.79**
.79***
.62***
.45**
.45***
.20***
Affection
Attunement
Dedication of Resources
Dependability
.65**
.59**
.63**
.66**
.25***
.02
.21***
.27***
.48***
.72**
.67**
.66**
.72**
.28***
.11*
.13**
.29***
.57***
.46**
.41**
.39**
.40**
.35***
.11
.05
-.02
.28***
Sense of Relatedness
NA
.68**
.68***
.46***
.75**
.75***
.57***
.45**
.45***
.20***
Emotional Reliance
Questionnaire
NA
.64**
.64***
.41***
.71**
.71***
.50***
.40**
.40***
.16***
148
r
Engagement
β
R2
Subscale
Teacher as Social Context
r
Internalization
β
R2
Scale
Table 38. Continued
Basic Need Satisfaction in
Relationships
Relatedness
.56**
.56***
.32***
.65**
.65***
.43***
.38**
.38***
.15***
Need for Relatedness Scale
Acceptance
Intimacy
.70**
.61**
.60***
.12*
.49***
.77**
.68**
.65***
.15**
.60***
.45**
.39**
.40***
.07
.21***
Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale
NA
.71**
.71***
.51***
.79**
.79***
.62***
.46**
.46***
.21***
Young Children’s Appraisals
of Teacher Support
Warmth
Autonomy
Conflict
.69**
.51**
.55**
.67***
-.04
.14***
.49***
.79**
.60**
.63**
.67***
.01
.16***
.64***
.48**
.41**
.48**
.20**
.11*
.28***
.28***
.72***
.52***
.81**
.81***
.65***
.50**
.50***
.25***
Psychological Sense of School
Belongingness
.72**
Membership
* significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01; ***significant at p < .001.
149
Multiple Models Can Fit the Data
The exercise of fitting data to a hypothesized model through an iterative process
like the one used in this project can be problematic. One might even say that this project
serves as a prime example of how the use of model fit to judge the quality of a model can
be misleading in some cases. Even if a model is consistent with data, a researcher cannot
determine if it reflects a true phenomenological process because another model, or even
several other models might also fit the data collected.
In this study, each of the measurement models, with only slight modifications
required, came to “fit” the data acceptably well. A researcher’s experience as this
happens is typically of relief and satisfaction. Moreover, this feeling was experienced
tenfold as the full model underwent its final modification and it too “fit” the data.
However, the path coefficients, multicollinearity analyses, and exploratory post hoc data
analyses together remind us of the fact that even when a model fits, the researcher should
always explore alternative models. Perhaps Norman Cliff (1983, 118, italics in original)
put it best, “Even without resorting to alternative variables as explanations of data, it is
well to remember that models other than the one that “fits” will fit the data equally well.
Indeed, the very form of the equations underlying LISREL guarantee that in virtually
every application there are an infinity of models that will fit the data equally well.”
Methods Effects of Negative Item Wording
Using positively worded items and negatively worded items in a single
questionnaire has been encouraged by experts in educational testing for a long time (e.g.,
Anastasi, 1982; Cronbach 1950; Spector, 1992). The rationale is that reversed wording
helps to avoid participant bias such as response acquiescence or to add mental speed
150
bumps that slow down cognitive processing to improve the thoughtfulness of responses
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, multiple psychometric
studies of self-esteem scales have produced evidence that including both items worded
negatively and items worded positively can thwart accurate analysis and interpretation of
survey data by creating systematic measurement error (Horan, DiStefano, & Motl, 2003;
DiStefano & Motl, 2006; 2009; Marsh, 1996). Similar evidence is demonstrated in the
data collected for this study as displayed in Table 35. The student teacher relationship
construct appears to be multidimensional, yet a closer look reveals the distinction
between factors 1 and 2 is clearly the wording of the items as positive statements or
negative statements. In terms of item content that led to the hypothesized
multidimensionality of C-STRI items, there is greater variety within factors 1 and 2 in
Table 35 than there is between them.
One could argue that the two factors represent positive aspects of the relationship
(warmth) and negative aspects of relationship (conflict) and that the items in factor 3
represent a third factor (autonomy). This is the model proposed by Mantzicopoulos and
Neuharth-Pritchett (2003). However, the factor loadings for the single factor model
(Table 36) cast strong doubt on the distinction between the warmth and conflict
dimensions. The items loading on factor 3 in Table 35 do include items from the YCATS instrument’s autonomy subscale and similar items about opportunities for students
to experience choices in the classroom from the meaningful participation subscale of the
Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002) and they do create a
distinct factor; yet, these items represent a teaching strategy that may or may not have an
151
influence on the relationship. Further, there is much more to autonomy-support than
being offered a choice (Reeve & Jang, 2006).
The Global Relationship Quality Construct
Other researchers have wrestled with this same issue when measuring attachment
using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The
initial report stated that based on the eigenvalue criterion of greater than 1, they extracted
3 factors (trust, communication, and alienation). However, due to highly correlated
subscales (r between .70 and .76), the authors utilized a combined score for overall
attachment instead of the individual factor scores for the analyses. Johnson, Ketring, and
Abshire (2003) ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the IPPA and found that it did not fit
(χ2 = 735.32, p < .001; CFI = .73; RMSEA = .09). When they ran the data using
exploratory factor analysis, two factors emerged. The first factor they found relates to
trust/avoidance and the items seem to represent the general relationship quality construct.
On the other hand, the second dimension they found had 6 items loading λ = .594 to .401
and the items represented communication, which might better be construed as an
interpersonal strategy that likely influences relationship quality. Measuring a sample of
(N = 1059) Italian adolescents, Pace et al. (2011) found acceptable fit of a uni-factorial
solutions of the IPPA items, which corroborates the evidence in this dissertation that
relationship quality may be best measured along one dimension.
Taking another angle, we ought to reflect again upon the performance of the
original instruments. The strength of the suppressor effects displayed among all of the
scales that were originally proposed to be multidimensional in Table 38 suggests that the
predictive power within each of the subscales is shared among them. In fact, the
152
subscales may not truly represent distinct factors at all. Instead, they may all be artifacts
of a global relationship quality construct. Another way to investigate this proposition is
to examine the bivariate correlations among the subscales. For the Student Classroom
Environment Measure, the Social Support and Academic Support subscales are highly
correlated (r = .82). A correlation of this magnitude provides a strong case for the single
factor model. The Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire, the Classroom
Supportiveness and Meaning full Participation subscales are moderately correlated (r =
.53), which suggests that they contain some distinct elements but nonetheless share a
large amount of variance. Remember, several of the Meaningful Participation items were
among the items that loaded on the third factor in the exploratory factor analysis where
three factors were extracted. Those items, measuring the allowance of student choices as
a classroom strategy, are likely responsible for lowering the bivariate correlation. Similar
to Armsden and Greenberg’s (1987) original findings, the Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment subscales were highly correlated (r = .73 - .85). School Utilization and
Teacher Emulation were also highly correlated (r = .76), as were the subscales of the
Teacher as a Social Context scale (r = .75 - .84), and the Acceptance and Intimacy
subscales of the Need for Relatedness Scale (r = .82). Finally, the Young Children’s
Appraisals of Teacher Support scale produced subscale correlations of r = .51 - .76 with
the lower correlations being those that relate to the Autonomy subscale, which includes
the other items that made up the third factor in the three-factor exploratory factor analysis
model.
The fact that half of the original 14 scales measured the quality of the relationship
as a single factor should not be left unmentioned. All seven of the single factor scales
153
produced reasonable predictive validity as reported in Table 38 and one of them, the
Psychological Sense of School Membership, arguably performed the best overall. All of
this evidence, along with the importance of selecting the most parsimonious theory,
suggests that empirically conceptualizing relationship quality as a unidimensional
construct may be best.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the data were collected from college
students’ retrospective reports of relationships with high school teachers. The reasoning
for this is that college students are a convenient population to study; however, their
relationships with current college professors may have been under developed depending
on the time of participation in the study and because relationships with college professors
are often less developed due to the format of collegiate instruction, especially in the large
lecture classes of freshman and sophomores. In most cases, the relationships participants
were asked to recall occurred between 1-2 years ago, but in some cases up to 5 years ago.
Nonetheless it seemed reasonable to assume that university student participants could
remember their relationships with several high school teachers. That said, the fact that
they are all university students separates them from being a representative high-school
student population as many high school students do not attend a university. Therefore
this sample may have been biased in terms of higher than average achievement.
Additionally, some of their reconstructions of these relationships may have been
inaccurate or subject to cognitive bias. Ideally, predictor variables and outcome variables
should be actual teacher behaviors or at least students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors
as they are happening rather than memories skewed by known systematic errors of
154
cognitive bias such as confirmation bias. However, it should be noted that the purpose of
this study was to explore the underlying structure of students’ internal representations of
the relationship and not the accuracy of participants’ memories.
That said, an argument could still be made that the passing of time causes a
reduction in the level of detail contained in students’ relation schemas. That is, there may
be a more complex internal representation of the relationship while it is current and as
time passes that representation may fade into a generalized, relatively positive or
relatively negative internal representation of the relationship.
Second, also related to the study being based on self-report, there is no way to
know if participants put effort into making distinct responses to the massive variety of
items. It is possible that the huge number of items led participant to speed up the process
of filling out the survey by relying on a global assessment of whether the relationship was
positive or negative rather than fully reading each item or putting much thought into their
responses. There was also the potential problem of reactivity where participants may
have begun to think about what is socially desirable or what the researcher was looking
for and they may begin answering questions accordingly.
The sample of participants is another limitation. Because of the characteristics of
the Midwestern university student population from which the convenience sample came,
the sample was not very diverse in terms of ethnicity, age, or socioeconomic status.
Finally, external validity is also constricted by limiting the student-teacher
relationships under examination to those from the final high school years. In other
words, it is possible that these student-teacher relationships do not reflect what is most
relevant in students’ relationships with teachers before and/or after the high school years.
155
General Conclusions and Next Steps
On one hand, the data from this study may suggest that elements of selfperception, teacher perception, and if-then interactional expectation scripts may be
indistinct as relational schema components. That is, judgements about the teacher,
judgements about one’s self in relation to the teacher, and expectations about interactions
with the teacher may all be dependent on the student’s global assessment of the quality of
their relationship with that teacher. On the other hand, the data may suggest that aspects
of students’ relational schemas about a particular teacher may be multidimensional, yet
coherent and so highly interconnected that they failed to reveal any empirical distinction
in the data collected for this study.
Theoretical positions on the structure of relational schemas, often called internal
working models, are well established, as reviewed in the literature that led to the
hypotheses formulated for this study. Unfortunately, empirical tests of those theoretical
propositions are lacking and the data collected in this study does little to support them;
rather, these data suggest that such complexities may be unnecessary when examining the
quality of a student-teacher relationship and its impact on student engagement and
achievement. Accordingly, it is no surprise that so many diverse approaches to
measuring student-teacher relationship quality have produced consistent results in terms
of predicting students’ cognitive, developmental, behavioral, and achievement related
outcomes.
Conclusions such as these should be considered tentative. Further studies using a
variety of social cognitive methodology are still required. For example, a distinction
between relational schema components may be better assessed using implicit priming
156
techniques as opposed to retrospective self-reports. In the adult attachment literature,
researches have had some success using implicit methods to examine cognitive processes
underlying working models, however, direct evidence of structure and function does not
exist (Peitromonaco & Barrett, 2000).
As usual, we are left with more questions than answers. Are student-teacher
relational schemas multidimensional? Are student’s relational schemas the best construct
to examine when measuring relationship quality with their teachers? Are relational
schemas enduring individual differences, entirely relationship specific, or some
combination of the two? Might relational schemas be multidimensional when relevant to
an existing relationship and more general with the passage of time following an end to
the relationship? Further research is required to address questions like these and more.
157
APPENDIX A. ORIGINAL 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS
Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachment – Revised Version (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)
Trust (10 items).
1) My __ respects my feelings.
2) I feel my __ does a good job as my __.
3) I wish I had a different __. (reverse score)
4) My __ accepts me as I am.
5) My __ expects too much of me. (reverse score)
6) When we discuss things, my __ cares about my point of view.
7) My __ trusts my judgment.
8) My __ understands me.
9) When I am angry about something, my __ tries to be understanding.
10) I trust my __.
Communication (9 items).
11) I like to get my __’s point of view on things I am concerned about.
12) I feel it is no use letting my feelings show around my __. (reverse score)
13) My __ can tell when I am upset about something.
14) My __ has her own problems, so I don’t bother her with mine. (reverse score)
15) My __ helps me to understand myself better.
16) I tell my __ about my problems and troubles.
17) My __ helps me to talk about my difficulties.
18) I can count on my __ when I need to get something off my chest.
19) If my __ knows something is bothering me, she asks me about it.
158
Alienation (6 items). (all reverse scored)
20) Talking over my problems with my __ makes me feel ashamed or foolish.
21) I get upset easily around my __.
22) I get upset a lot more than my __ knows about.
23) I feel angry with my __.
24) I don’t get much attention from my __.
25) My __ doesn’t understand what I am going through these days.
Teacher as Social Context (TASC; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992)
Affection (3 items).
26) My teacher likes me.
27) My teacher really cares about me.
28) My teacher doesn’t seem to enjoy having me in her class. (reverse score)
Attunement (3 items).
29) My teacher knows a lot about me.
30) My teacher knows me well.
31) My teacher just doesn’t understand me. (reverse score)
Dedication of resources (2 items).
32) My teacher spends time with me.
33) My teacher talks with me.
Dependability (6 items).
34) My teacher is always there for me.
35) I can count on my teacher to be there for me.
36) I can rely on my teacher to be there when I need him/her.
159
37) My teacher is never there for me. (reverse score)
38) I can’t depend on my teacher for important things. (reverse score)
39) I can’t count on my teacher when I need him/her. (reverse score)
Emotional Reliance Questionnaire (Butzel, Ryan, 1997)
No subscales (7 items).
40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.
41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would be willing to
turn to (my) _____.
42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would be
willing to turn to (my) _____.
43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would be
willing to turn to (my) _____.
44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.
45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would be willing to turn to (my) _____.
46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would be willing to turn to
(my) _____.
Student Classroom Environment Measure (Feldlaufer et al., 1988)
Teacher—unfair/unfriendly (7 items).
47) Students are criticized for turning math work in late or failing to turn in
assignments. (reverse score)
48) The teacher says to some students or the class as a whole that they may get a
bad grade or report card in math. (reverse score)
49) The teacher is warm and supportive.
160
50) The teacher seems pessimistic about the ability of students to be selfdisciplining and responsible for their own behavior. (reverse score)
51) The teacher seems to expect some students to do shoddy work or make stupid
mistakes in math. (reverse score)
52) The teacher uses sarcasm. (reverse score)
53) The teacher threatens to give more work, math tests, or to lower grades to
control student behavior. (reverse score)
Sense of Relatedness (Furrer & Skinner, 2003)
No subscales (4 items).
54) When I am with my teacher I feel accepted.
55) When I am with my teacher I feel like someone special.
56) When I am with my teacher I feel ignored. (reverse score)
57) When I am with my teacher I feel unimportant. (reverse score)
Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993)
No subscales (18 items).
58) I feel like a real part of (name of school).
59) People here notice when I'm good at something.
60) Other students in this school take my opinions seriously.
61) Most teachers at (name of school) are interested in me.
62) Sometimes I feel as if I don’t belong here. (reverse score)
63) There’s at least one teacher or other adult in this school I can talk to if I have
a problem.
64) People at this school are friendly to me.
161
65) Teachers here are not interested in people like me. (reverse score)
66) I am included in lots of activities at (name of school).
67) I am treated with as much respect as other students.
68) I feel very different from most other students here. (reverse score)
69) I can really be myself at this school.
70) The teachers here respect me.
71) People here know I can do good work.
72) I wish I were in a different school. (reverse score)
73) I feel proud of belonging to (name of school).
74) Other students here like me the way I am.
75) It is hard for people like me to be accepted here. (reverse score)
Classroom Life Measure (Johnson et al., 1985)
Teacher social support (4 items).
76) My teacher really cares about me.
77) My teacher thinks it is important to be my friend.
78) My teacher likes me as much as other students.
79) My teacher cares about my feelings.
Teacher academic support (4 items).
80) My teacher cares about how much I learn.
81) My teacher likes to see my work.
82) My teacher likes to help me learn.
83) My teacher wants me to do my best in schoolwork.
Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships (LaGuardia, Ryan, Cochman, Deci, 2000)
162
Relatedness (3 items).
84) When I am with XXXXX, I feel loved and cared about.
85) When I am with XXXXX, I often feel a lot of distance in our relationship.
(reverse score)
86) When I am with XXXXX, I feel a lot of closeness and intimacy.
Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & NeuharthPritchett, 2003)
Warmth (11 items).
87) My teacher likes my family.
88) My teacher likes me.
89) My teacher is my friend.
90) My teacher says nice things about my work.
91) My teacher helps me when I don’t understand.
92) My teacher makes the class fun.
93) My teacher answers my question.
94) My teacher tells good stories.
95) My teacher remembers special days for me.
96) My teacher chooses me to be a special helper.
97) My teacher smiles a lot.
Autonomy (6 items).
98) My teacher lets me choose work that I want to do.
99) My teacher lets me choose where I want to sit.
100) My teacher lets me do activities I want to do.
163
101) My teacher lets me do different activities in class.
102) My teacher does activities with me.
103) My teacher tells me I am smart.
Conflict (10 items). (all reverse scored)
104) My teacher tells me I am going to get in trouble a lot.
105) My teacher tells me to do work that is too hard for me.
106) My teacher gets angry with me.
107) My teacher tells me that I am doing something wrong a lot.
108) My teacher tells me that I don’t try hard enough.
109) My teacher tells me to stop doing work I like doing.
110) My teacher tells me to do work I don’t want to do.
111) My teacher tells me I do not listen.
112) My teacher is mean.
113) My teacher has too many rules for our class.
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991)
No subscales (18 items).
114) This student trusts me.
115) It is easy to be in tune with what this student is feeling.
116) This child seems wary of me. (reverse score)
117) This child challenges my efforts to reach him/her.
118) This child seeks help, recognition, and support from me.
119) I am able to console this child.
120) This child avoids contact with me. (reverse score)
164
121) This child constantly needs reassurance from me.
122) This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism. (reverse score)
123) This child responds to my efforts to teach.
124) This child seems secure with me.
125) I share an affectionate, warm relationship with the student.
126) If upset, the child will seek comfort from me.
127) This child overreacts to separation from me.
128) My relationship with this child has become more positive during the school
year.
129) My relationship with this child has become more negative during the school
year. (reverse score)
Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10; Richer & Vallerand, 1998)
Acceptance (5 items).
130) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel supported.
131) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel understood.
132) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel listened to.
133) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel valued.
134) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel safe.
Intimacy (5 items).
135) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel close to them.
136) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel attached to them.
137) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel bonded to them.
138) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel close-knit.
165
139) In my relationship with my teacher, I feel as a friend.
Relatedness (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994)
School utilization (3 items).
140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with my teacher.
141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it
over with my teacher.
142) I can usually rely on my teacher when I have problems at my school.
Emulation (4 items).
143) I try to model myself after my teachers.
144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like my teacher.
145) I would like to be more like my teacher.
146) When I am an adult, I’ll probably be a lot like my teacher.
Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002)
Classroom supportiveness (10 Items).
147) When someone in my class does well, everyone in the class feels good.
148) My class is like a family.
149) Students in my class are mean to each other. (reverse score)
150) Students in my class just look out for themselves. (reverse score)
151) When I’m having trouble with my schoolwork, at least one of my classmates
will try to help.
152) Students in my class work together to solve problems.
153) The students in my class don’t really care about each other.
154) Students in my class treat each other with respect.
166
155) Students in my class help each other, even if they are not friends.
156) Students in my class help each other learn.
Meaningful participation (10 items).
157) In my class the teacher and students decide together what the rules will be.
158) In my class I get to do things that I want to do.
159) Students in my class can get a rule changed if they think it is unfair.
160) In my class students have a say in deciding what goes on.
161) In my class the students get to help plan what they will do.
162) The teacher lets us do things our own way.
163) In my class the teacher is the only one who decides on the rules. (reverse
score)
164) In my class the teacher and students together plan what we will do.
165) The teacher in my class asks the students to help decide what the class
should do.
166) The teacher lets me choose what I will work on.
Research Assessment Package for Schools (IRRE, 1998)
Teacher emotional security (4 items).
167) When I’m with my teacher, I feel good.
168) When I’m with my teacher, I feel mad. (reverse score)
169) When I’m with my teacher, I feel unhappy. (reverse score)
170) When I’m with my teacher, I feel happy.
167
APPENDIX B. REVISED 14 INSTRUMENTS, SUBSCALES, AND ITEMS
Inventory of Parent & Peer Attachment – Revised Version (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)
Trust (10 items).
1) This teacher respected my feelings.
2) I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.
3) I wish I had a different teacher. (reverse score)
4) This teacher accepted me as I was.
5) This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score)
6) When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view.
7) This teacher trusted my judgment.
8) This teacher understood me.
9) When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding.
10) I trusted this teacher.
Communication (9 items).
11) I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.
12) I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher. (reverse
score)
13) This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.
14) This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine.
(reverse score)
15) This teacher helped me to understand myself better.
16) I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.
17) This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.
168
18) I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.
19) If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it.
Alienation (6 items). (all reverse scored)
20) Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish.
21) I got upset easily around this teacher.
22) I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about.
23) I felt angry with this teacher.
24) I didn’t get much attention from this teacher.
25) This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days.
Teacher as Social Context (TASC; Belmont, Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1992)
Affection (3 items).
26) This teacher liked me.
27) This teacher really cared about me.
28) This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class. (reverse score)
Attunement (3 items).
29) This teacher knew a lot about me.
30) This teacher knew me well.
31) This teacher didn’t understand me. (reverse score)
Dedication of resources (2 items).
32) This teacher spent time with me.
33) This teacher talked with me.
Dependability (6 items).
34) This teacher was always there for me.
169
35) I could count on this teacher to be there for me.
36) I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her.
37) This teacher was never there for me. (reverse score)
38) I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things. (reverse score)
39) I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her. (reverse score)
Emotional Reliance Questionnaire (Butzel, Ryan, 1997)
No subscales (7 items).
40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been
willing to turn to this teacher.
42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to
turn to this teacher.
Student Classroom Environment Measure (Feldlaufer et al., 1988)
Teacher—unfair/unfriendly (7 items).
170
47) This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in
assignments. (reverse score)
48) This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.
(reverse score)
49) This teacher was warm and supportive.
50) This teacher seemed pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and
responsible for my own behavior. (reverse score)
51) This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid mistakes.
(reverse score)
52) This teacher used sarcasm. (reverse score)
53) This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to
control my behavior. (reverse score)
Sense of Relatedness (Furrer & Skinner, 2003)
No subscales (4 items).
54) When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.
55) When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special.
56) When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. (reverse score)
57) When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. (reverse score)
Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993)
No subscales (18 items).
58) I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.
59) This teacher noticed when I was good at something.
60) This teacher took my opinions seriously.
171
61) This teacher was interested in me.
62) Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class. (reverse score)
63) I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.
64) This teacher was friendly to me.
65) This teacher was not interested in people like me. (reverse score)
66) This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class.
67) I was treated with respect by this teacher.
68) I felt very different from this teacher. (reverse score)
69) I could really be myself around this teacher.
70) This teacher respected me.
71) This teacher knew I could do good work.
72) I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. (reverse score)
73) I feel proud of knowing this teacher.
74) This teacher liked me the way I was.
75) It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. (reverse score)
Classroom Life Measure (Johnson et al., 1985)
Teacher social support (4 items).
76) This teacher really cared about me.
77) This teacher thought it was important to be my friend.
78) This teacher liked me as much as other students.
79) This teacher cared about my feelings.
Teacher academic support (4 items).
80) This teacher cared about how much I learned.
172
81) This teacher liked to see my work.
82) This teacher liked to help me learn.
83) This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork.
Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships (LaGuardia, Ryan, Cochman, Deci, 2000)
Relatedness (3 items).
84) When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about.
85) When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship.
(reverse score)
86) When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy.
Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS; Mantzicopoulos & NeuharthPritchett, 2003)
Warmth (11 items).
87) This teacher liked my family.
88) This teacher liked me.
89) This teacher was my friend.
90) This teacher said nice things about my work.
91) This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.
92) This teacher made the class fun.
93) This teacher answered my questions.
94) This teacher told good stories.
95) This teacher remembered special days for me.
96) This teacher choose me to be a special helper.
97) This teacher smiled a lot.
173
Autonomy (6 items).
98) This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.
99) This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.
100) This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.
101) This teacher let me do different activities in class.
102) This teacher did activities with me.
103) This teacher told me I was smart.
Conflict (10 items). (all reverse scored)
104) This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.
105) This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me.
106) This teacher got angry with me.
107) This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.
108) This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.
109) This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing.
110) This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do.
111) This teacher told me I did not listen.
112) This teacher was mean.
113) This teacher had too many rules for our class.
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991)
No subscales (18 items).
114) I trusted this teacher.
115) This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.
116) I was wary of this teacher. (reverse score)
174
117) I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.
118) I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher.
119) This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up.
120) I avoided contact with this teacher. (reverse score)
121) I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.
122) I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism. (reverse score)
123) I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.
124) I felt safe and secure with this teacher.
125) This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.
126) If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.
127) I felt upset when separated from this teacher.
128) My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the
school year.
129) My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the
school year. (reverse score)
Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10; Richer & Vallerand, 1998)
Acceptance (5 items).
130) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported.
131) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood.
132) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to.
133) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.
134) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.
Intimacy (5 items).
175
135) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.
136) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.
137) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them.
138) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit.
139) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend.
Relatedness (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994)
School utilization (3 items).
140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher.
141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it
over with this teacher.
142) I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school.
Emulation (4 items).
143) I tried to model myself after this teacher.
144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher.
145) I wanted to be like this teacher.
146) As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher.
Developmental Studies Center Student Questionnaire (DSC, 2002)
Classroom supportiveness (10 Items).
147) When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.
148) This teacher’s was like family to me.
149) This teacher was mean to me. (reverse score)
150) This teacher just looked out for his/herself. (reverse score)
151) When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help.
176
152) This teacher worked with me to solve problems.
153) This teacher cared about me.
154) This teacher treated me with respect.
155) This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.
156) This teacher helped me learn.
Meaningful participation (10 items).
157) This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.
158) This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.
159) This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.
160) This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.
161) This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class.
162) This teacher let me do things my own way.
163) In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. (reverse
score)
164) This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.
165) This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do.
166) This teacher let me choose what I would work on.
Research Assessment Package for Schools (IRRE, 1998)
Teacher emotional security (4 items).
167) When I was with this teacher, I felt good.
168) When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. (reverse score)
169) When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. (reverse score)
170) When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.
177
APPENDIX C. C-STRI ITEMS GROUPED BY PROPOSED MODEL FACTORS
Predictor: Academic Support
2) I feel this teacher did a good job as my teacher.
5) This teacher expected too much of me. (reverse score)
59) This teacher noticed when I was good at something.
66) This teacher made sure I was included in lots of activities in class.
71) This teacher knew I could do good work.
90) This teacher said nice things about my work.
91) This teacher helped me when I didn’t understand.
93) This teacher answered my questions.
94) This teacher told good stories.
102) This teacher did activities with me.
103) This teacher told me I was smart.
105) This teacher told me to do work that was too hard for me. (reverse score)
147) When I did well, this teacher made me feel good.
151) When I had trouble with my schoolwork, this teacher tried to help.
152) This teacher worked with me to solve problems.
156) This teacher helped me learn.
Predictor: Punishment (all reverse scored)
47) This teacher criticized me for turning work in late or failing to turn in
assignments.
48) This teacher told me publicly that I might get a bad grade in that subject.
178
50) This teacher was pessimistic about my ability to be self-disciplining and
responsible for my own behavior.
51) This teacher seemed to expect me to do shoddy work or make stupid mistakes.
52) This teacher used sarcasm.
53) This teacher threatened to give me more work, tests, or to lower my grade to
control my behavior.
104) This teacher told me I was going to get in trouble a lot.
106) This teacher got angry with me.
107) This teacher told me that I was doing something wrong a lot.
108) This teacher told me that I didn’t try hard enough.
111) This teacher told me I did not listen.
112) This teacher was mean.
120) I avoided contact with this teacher.
122) I saw this teacher as a source of punishment and criticism.
149) This teacher was mean to me.
Predictor: Involvement
7) This teacher trusted my judgment.
24) I didn’t get much attention from this teacher. (reverse score)
32) This teacher spent time with me.
33) This teacher talked with me.
34) This teacher was always there for me.
35) I could count on this teacher to be there for me.
36) I could rely on this teacher to be there when I needed him/her.
179
37) This teacher was never there for me. (reverse score)
38) I couldn’t depend on this teacher for important things. (reverse score)
39) I couldn’t count on this teacher when I needed him/her. (reverse score)
56) When I was with this teacher I felt ignored. (reverse score)
60) This teacher took my opinions seriously.
67) I was treated with respect by this teacher.
95) This teacher remembered special days for me.
96) This teacher chose me to be a special helper.
97) This teacher smiled a lot.
128) My relationship with this teacher became more positive throughout the
school year.
129) My relationship with this teacher became more negative throughout the
school year. (reverse score)
150) This teacher just looked out for his/herself. (reverse score)
154) This teacher treated me with respect.
Predictor: Autonomy Support
98) This teacher let me choose work that I wanted to do.
99) This teacher let me choose where I wanted to sit.
100) This teacher let me do activities I wanted to do.
101) This teacher let me do different activities in class.
109) This teacher told me to stop doing work I liked doing. (reverse score)
110) This teacher told me to do work I didn’t want to do. (reverse score)
113) This teacher had too many rules for our class. (reverse score)
180
157) This teacher let me help decide what the rules were going to be.
158) This teacher let me do things that I wanted to do.
159) This teacher let me get a rule changed if I thought it was unfair.
160) This teacher let me have a say in deciding what went on in class.
161) This teacher let me help plan what we would do in class.
162) This teacher let me do things my own way.
163) In this class the teacher was the only one who decided on the rules. (reverse
score)
164) This teacher included me when planning what we did in class.
165) This teacher asked me to help decide what the class should do.
166) This teacher let me choose what I would work on.
Caring (Perceptions of Teacher)
1) This teacher respected my feelings.
4) This teacher accepted me as I was.
6) When we discussed things, this teacher cared about my point of view.
26) This teacher liked me.
27) This teacher really cared about me.
28) This teacher didn’t seem to enjoy having me in his/her class. (reverse score)
49) This teacher was warm and supportive.
61) This teacher was interested in me.
64) This teacher was friendly to me.
65) This teacher was not interested in people like me. (reverse score)
70) This teacher respected me.
181
74) This teacher liked me the way I was.
75) It was hard for people like me to be accepted by this teacher. (reverse score)
76) This teacher really cared about me.
77) This teacher thought it was important to be my friend.
78) This teacher liked me as much as other students.
79) This teacher cared about my feelings.
80) This teacher cared about how much I learned.
81) This teacher liked to see my work.
82) This teacher liked to help me learn.
83) This teacher wanted me to do my best in schoolwork.
84) When I was with this teacher, I felt loved and cared about.
87) This teacher liked my family.
88) This teacher liked me.
89) This teacher was my friend.
125) This teacher shared an affectionate, warm relationship with me.
148) This teacher’s was like family to me.
153) This teacher cared about me.
Awareness/Understanding (Perceptions of Teacher)
8) This teacher understood me.
13) This teacher could tell when I was upset about something.
15) This teacher helped me to understand myself better.
22) I get upset a lot more than this teacher knew about. (reverse score)
182
25) This teacher didn’t understand what I was going through in those days.
(reverse score)
29) This teacher knew a lot about me.
30) This teacher knew me well.
31) This teacher didn’t understand me. (reverse score)
115) This teacher was in tune with what I was feeling.
Closeness (Perceptions of Self)
10) I trusted this teacher.
54) When I was with this teacher I felt accepted.
55) When I was with this teacher I felt like someone special.
57) When I was with this teacher I felt unimportant. (reverse score)
68) I felt very different from this teacher. (reverse score)
69) I could really be myself around this teacher.
85) When I was with this teacher, I often felt a lot of distance in our relationship.
(reverse score)
86) When I was with this teacher, I felt a lot of closeness and intimacy.
114) I trusted this teacher.
116) I was wary of this teacher. (reverse score)
124) I felt safe and secure with this teacher.
130) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt supported.
131) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt understood.
132) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt listened to.
133) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt valued.
183
134) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt safe.
135) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close to them.
136) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt attached to them.
137) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt bonded to them.
138) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt close-knit.
139) In my relationship with this teacher, I felt like a friend.
Affective Experience (Perceptions of Self)
21) I got upset easily around this teacher. (reverse score)
23) I felt angry with this teacher. (reverse score)
127) I felt upset when separated from this teacher.
167) When I was with this teacher, I felt good.
168) When I was with this teacher, I felt mad. (reverse score)
169) When I was with this teacher, I felt unhappy. (reverse score)
170) When I was with this teacher, I felt happy.
Social Support Seeking (Interpersonal Scripts)
9) When I was angry about something, this teacher tried to be understanding.
14) This teacher had his/her own problems, so I didn’t bother him/her with mine.
(reverse score)
16) I told this teacher about my problems and troubles.
17) This teacher helped me to talk about my difficulties.
18) I could count on this teacher when I needed to get something off my chest.
19) If this teacher knew something was bothering me, he/she asked me about it.
184
20) Talking over my problems with this teacher made me feel ashamed or foolish.
(reverse score)
63) I could talk to this teacher if I had a problem.
119) This teacher was able to comfort me or cheer me up.
142) I could usually rely on this teacher when I had problems at my school.
155) This teacher helped me, even if he/she was busy.
Emotional Reliance (Interpersonal Scripts)
12) I felt it was no use letting my feelings show around this teacher. (reverse
score)
40) If I were feeling alone or depressed, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
41) If I were feeling anxious or scared about something, I would have been
willing to turn to this teacher.
42) If I were feeling excited about something happening in my life, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
43) If I were feeling very bad about myself and needed a boost, I would have
been willing to turn to this teacher.
44) If I were feeling overwhelmed, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
45) If I were feeling frustrated or angry, I would have been willing to turn to this
teacher.
46) If I were feeling proud of my accomplishments, I would have been willing to
turn to this teacher.
185
117) I allowed this teacher to connect/relate with me.
126) If upset, I would seek comfort from this teacher.
Outcome: Internalization
73) I feel proud of knowing this teacher.
143) I tried to model myself after this teacher.
144) I would feel good if someone said I was a lot like this teacher.
145) I wanted to be like this teacher.
146) As I get older, I’ll probably be a lot like this teacher.
*171) I believe learning the content of this teacher’s class is important.
*172) I felt that completing the assignments in this class was beneficial to me.
*173) I believe the content of this teacher’s class is valuable to understand.
*174) Because of this teacher, I believe more in the purpose of learning the
content of the class.
Outcome: Engagement
3) I wish I had a different teacher. (reverse score)
11) I liked to get this teacher’s point of view on things I was concerned about.
58) I felt like a real part of this teacher’s class.
62) Sometimes I felt as if I didn’t belong in this teacher’s class. (reverse score)
72) I wished I was in a different teacher’s class. (reverse score)
92) This teacher made the class fun.
118) I tried to get help, recognition, and support from this teacher.
121) I tried to get support and encouragement from this teacher.
123) I participated deeply in this teacher’s class.
186
140) If I had a problem with my school work I would share it with this teacher.
141) If I were having trouble understanding a subject at school, I would talk it
over with this teacher.
*175) I tried hard to do well in this teacher’s class.
*176) I paid attention when in this teacher’s class.
*177) I felt interested when in this teacher’s class.
*178) I enjoyed learning in this teacher’s class.
*179) I felt engaged by the content when in this teacher’s class.
Outcome: Academic Achievement
*180) What grade did you receive in this teacher’s class?
* Indicates items that are not from the original 14 scales. They have been added to
strengthen outcome factors and improve assessment of predictive validity.
187
APPENDIX D. TEXT FOR INVITATION PARTICIPATE EMAIL
Dear _(insert name of course or University)_ Student:
Please use the link below to participate in a simple, yet important study to improve the
measurement of student-teacher relationships in educational psychology research.
As a participant you will get a chance to win $50 and you will be helping me finish
my doctoral degree. If you have already completed the survey, thank you! You do not
need to do it again.
Participation in the study involves reading an informed consent page and completing a
questionnaire about your experiences with a teacher that you had in high school. This
typically takes participants 20 minutes so make sure you have sufficient time when you
begin.
http://nmu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eg0gTn8voHzlnOR
If the link is not working, try copying and pasting it directly into the address bar of
your internet browser.
Thank you!
Jon Barch
[email protected]
Associate Director of the Center for Student Enrichment, Northern Michigan University
and
Educational Psychology Doctoral Student, University of Iowa
188
APPENDIX E. ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
189
APPENDIX F. INITIAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
190
APPENDIX G. END OF SURVEY THANK YOU NOTE
191
APPENDIX H. C-STRI STATEMENTS FOR COUSE SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT
192
193
APPENDIX I. SAMPLE OF C-STRI QUESTIONS FORMATTED AS A
PARTICIPANT WOULD HAVE SEEN
*The first 3 items shown above were always delivered first; the remaining 179 items, 4 of
which are shown above, were delivered in an order randomized for each participant. See
Appendix C for a full list of the C-STRI Items.
194
APPENDIX J. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR
EXTRACTION AND ALL C-STRI ITEMS INCLUDED
Component
Identified for
Deletion
1
2
3
.665
.500
.209
A2_IPPA_T
.668
.513
.112
A3_IPPA_T
.673
.514
.145
Item Code
A1_IPPA_T
A4_IPPA_T
.687
.497
.174
A5_IPPA_T
X
.555
.114
.053
A6_IPPA_T
X
.596
.511
.255
A7_IPPA_T
X
.575
.521
.260
A8_IPPA_T
.507
.685
.205
A9_IPPA_T
.490
.600
.247
A10_IPPA_T
.647
.568
.133
A11_IPPA_C
.309
.673
.270
.462
.548
.156
.264
.706
.146
.345
.329
.058
A15_IPPA_C
.313
.678
.225
A16_IPPA_C
.018
.707
.236
A17_IPPA_C
.241
.680
.259
A18_IPPA_C
.288
.767
.244
A19_IPPA_C
.320
.700
.199
A20_IPPA_A
.629
.263
.083
A21_IPPA_A
.710
.288
.092
.336
.323
.108
.769
.332
.102
A12_IPPA_C
X
A13_IPPA_C
A14_IPPA_C
A22_IPPA_A
X
X
A23_IPPA_A
A24_IPPA_A
X
.465
.572
.171
A25_IPPA_A
X
.480
.473
.160
A26_Inv_Aff
.681
.450
.192
A27_Inv_Aff
.545
.654
.191
A28_Inv_Aff
.746
.342
.153
A29_Inv_Att
.254
.710
.198
A30_Inv_Att
.318
.749
.183
A31_Inv_Att
.612
.539
.133
A32_Inv_DR
.344
.642
.260
.538
.534
.197
A34_Inv_Dep
.535
.673
.110
A35_Inv_Dep
.503
.677
.197
A36_Inv_Dep
.513
.667
.139
A33_Inv_DR
X
195
A37_Inv_Dep
.675
.498
.154
A38_Inv_Dep
X
.504
.400
.094
A39_Inv_Dep
X
.426
.329
.117
A40_ERQ
.326
.734
.158
A41_ERQ
.399
.726
.179
A42_ERQ
.434
.720
.200
A43_ERQ
.365
.754
.202
A44_ERQ
.432
.683
.187
A45_ERQ
.348
.700
.207
A46_ERQ
.451
.689
.184
.421
-.052
.200
A48_Friend
.768
.157
.146
A49_Friend
.615
.548
.229
A50_Friend
.667
.127
.132
A47_Friend
X
A51_Friend
.728
.165
.110
.122
-.158
-.095
A53_Friend
.603
-.001
.053
A54_Rel
.653
.580
.185
A55_Rel
.400
.688
.253
A56_Rel
.709
.449
.130
A57_Rel
.725
.447
.154
A58_PSSM
.624
.558
.184
.537
.552
.215
.601
.542
.240
A52_Friend
A59_PSSM
X
X
A60_PSSM
A61_PSSM
X
.485
.586
.229
A62_PSSM
X
.582
.399
.125
A63_PSSM
.469
.674
.196
A64_PSSM
.721
.389
.204
A65_PSSM
.673
.405
.128
.475
.488
.284
A66_PSSM
X
A67_PSSM
.766
.391
.139
A68_PSSM
X
.445
.496
.096
A69_PSSM
X
.558
.574
.169
.722
.445
.166
.568
.374
.092
A72_PSSM
.677
.488
.126
A73_PSSM
.545
.645
.137
A74_PSSM
.669
.512
.193
A75_PSSM
.720
.277
.115
A76_CLM_SS
.569
.634
.208
A70_PSSM
A71_PSSM
X
196
A77_CLM_SS
.180
.607
.366
A78_CLM_SS
.656
.365
.145
A79_CLM_SS
.566
.620
.207
A80_CLM_AS
.648
.469
.127
.576
.468
.187
A82_CLM_AS
.681
.475
.146
A83_CLM_AS
.667
.354
.099
A84_BNS_Rel
.448
.708
.215
.535
.512
.106
.124
.609
.365
.357
.494
.194
A88_YCATS_W
.688
.453
.174
A89_YCATS_W
.334
.724
.302
A90_YCATS_W
.627
.451
.280
.689
.446
.128
.552
.560
.258
.707
.376
.074
.461
.482
.253
.117
.664
.339
A81_CLM_AS
A85_BNS_Rel
X
X
A86_BNS_Rel
A87_YCATS_W
X
A91_YCATS_W
A92_YCATS_W
X
A93_YCATS_W
A94_YCATS_W
X
A95_YCATS_W
A96_YCATS_W
X
.078
.429
.450
A97_YCATS_W
X
.503
.447
.218
.152
.256
.733
A98_YCAT_A
A99_YCAT_A
.232
.140
.416
A100_YCAT_A
X
.269
.323
.671
A101_YCAT_A
.184
.182
.622
A102_YCAT_A
X
.299
.473
.372
A103_YCAT_A
X
.480
.470
.220
.704
.042
.088
.395
.018
.104
A106_YCAT_C
.731
.128
.138
A107_YCAT_C
.728
.119
.133
A108_YCAT_C
.684
.118
.135
A109_YCAT_C
.624
.141
.092
.279
.113
.150
A111_YCAT_C
.647
.046
.089
A112_YCAT_C
.770
.275
.147
.584
.175
.152
A114_STRS
.633
.564
.127
A115_STRS
.348
.725
.246
A116_STRS
.690
.374
.092
A117_STRS
.281
.692
.277
A104_YCAT_C
A105_YCAT_C
A110_YCAT_C
A113_YCAT_C
X
X
X
197
A118_STRS
.055
.539
.066
A119_STRS
.419
.719
.249
A120_STRS
.675
.474
.139
A121_STRS
.083
.643
.100
A122_STRS
.780
.228
.121
.320
.470
.183
A124_STRS
.617
.520
.164
A125_STRS
.301
.630
.307
A126_STRS
.225
.769
.222
A123_STRS
X
X
A127_STRS
X
-.052
.449
.319
A128_STRS
X
.555
.587
.132
A129_STRS
.753
.344
.079
A130_NRS_A
.620
.618
.187
A131_NRS_A
.567
.649
.209
A132_NRS_A
.609
.606
.214
A133_NRS_A
.594
.622
.200
.556
.470
.170
A135_NRS_I
.313
.792
.253
A136_NRS_I
.188
.682
.281
A137_NRS_I
.330
.751
.222
A138_NRS_I
.318
.783
.216
A139_NRS_I
.295
.698
.322
A134_NRS_A
A140_Sch_Ut
X
.381
.590
.158
A141_Sch_Ut
.303
.627
.211
A142_Sch_Ut
.389
.734
.200
A143_Emul
.346
.678
.196
A144_Emul
.477
.660
.175
A145_Emul
.388
.689
.210
A146_Emul
.361
.673
.154
.588
.533
.208
A148_ClsSup
.135
.775
.219
A149_ClsSup
.821
.237
.108
A150_ClsSup
.686
.333
.087
A147_ClsSup
X
X
A151_ClsSup
X
.584
.499
.124
A152_ClsSup
X
.545
.560
.117
A153_ClsSup
.628
.569
.199
A154_ClsSup
.754
.417
.162
.595
.524
.178
A156_ClsSup
.670
.460
.116
A157_MePart
.054
.202
.721
A158_MePart
.285
.295
.643
A155_ClsSup
X
198
A159_MePart
.185
.282
.614
A160_MePart
.147
.253
.751
A161_MePart
.042
.337
.699
A162_MePart
.301
.294
.601
A163_MePart
.168
.107
.611
A164_MePart
.064
.260
.651
A165_MePart
.074
.305
.690
A166_MePart
.172
.276
.705
A167_RAPS_E
.537
.645
.216
A168_RAPS_E
.778
.326
.082
A169_RAPS_E
.733
.432
.147
A170_RAPS_E
.543
.639
.214
199
APPENDIX K. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR
EXTRACTION AFTER FIRST ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM DELETION
Component
Item Code
A1_IPPA_T
Identified for
Deletion
X
1
.676
2
.491
3
.211
A2_IPPA_T
X
.676
.502
.121
A3_IPPA_T
X
.676
.510
.150
A4_IPPA_T
.696
.490
.173
A8_IPPA_T
X
.515
.678
.205
A9_IPPA_T
X
.497
.594
.246
A10_IPPA_T
X
.657
.558
.137
A11_IPPA_C
.316
.670
.274
A13_IPPA_C
.272
.700
.144
A15_IPPA_C
.312
.683
.222
A16_IPPA_C
.025
.713
.228
A17_IPPA_C
.252
.678
.255
A18_IPPA_C
.289
.774
.243
A19_IPPA_C
.324
.700
.194
A20_IPPA_A
.628
.262
.087
A21_IPPA_A
.711
.284
.105
A23_IPPA_A
.773
.327
.111
.690
.440
.190
A26_Inv_Aff
A27_Inv_Aff
X
.554
.648
.190
A28_Inv_Aff
.751
.329
.161
A29_Inv_Att
.261
.712
.189
.324
.749
.174
.611
.533
.142
A30_Inv_Att
A31_Inv_Att
X
A32_Inv_DR
.351
.631
.262
A34_Inv_Dep
X
.543
.665
.115
A35_Inv_Dep
X
.509
.675
.194
A36_Inv_Dep
X
.516
.663
.141
A37_Inv_Dep
.679
.487
.163
A40_ERQ
.325
.742
.160
A41_ERQ
.401
.729
.180
A42_ERQ
.435
.722
.198
A43_ERQ
.364
.760
.203
A44_ERQ
.434
.680
.195
A45_ERQ
.349
.705
.208
A46_ERQ
.455
.684
.184
200
A48_Friend
A49_Friend
X
.770
.153
.144
.622
.543
.231
A50_Friend
.666
.125
.128
A51_Friend
.730
.154
.115
.609
-.006
.048
A53_Friend
A54_Rel
X
.661
.573
.187
A55_Rel
.406
.688
.246
A56_Rel
.710
.439
.141
A57_Rel
.726
.440
.161
A58_PSSM
X
.627
.548
.185
A60_PSSM
X
.606
.535
.240
A63_PSSM
.474
.671
.200
A64_PSSM
.732
.377
.206
A65_PSSM
.672
.398
.135
A67_PSSM
.778
.379
.145
A70_PSSM
.734
.433
.171
A72_PSSM
.680
.482
.137
A73_PSSM
X
.555
.639
.134
A74_PSSM
X
.678
.505
.193
.723
.268
.125
.578
.628
.204
.188
.609
.355
.663
.355
.150
A75_PSSM
A76_CLM_SS
X
A77_CLM_SS
A78_CLM_SS
A79_CLM_SS
X
.576
.611
.209
A80_CLM_AS
.657
.452
.133
A82_CLM_AS
.688
.459
.156
A83_CLM_AS
.681
.332
.108
A84_BNS_Rel
.457
.704
.211
A86_BNS_Rel
.130
.614
.354
A88_YCATS_W
.698
.441
.177
A89_YCATS_W
.339
.725
.298
.628
.442
.276
A91_YCATS_W
.698
.428
.133
A93_YCATS_W
.716
.356
.087
A95_YCATS_W
.123
.668
.330
A98_YCAT_A
.146
.263
.736
A100_YCAT_A
.264
.326
.677
A101_YCAT_A
.180
.180
.631
A104_YCAT_C
.705
.035
.089
A106_YCAT_C
.738
.123
.139
A107_YCAT_C
.723
.123
.127
A90_YCATS_W
X
201
A108_YCAT_C
.680
.121
.121
A109_YCAT_C
.623
.134
.098
A111_YCAT_C
.648
.043
.079
.774
.270
.151
A112_YCAT_C
A114_STRS
X
.643
.554
.133
A115_STRS
.353
.723
.245
A116_STRS
.693
.371
.095
A117_STRS
.285
.691
.279
A119_STRS
.426
.720
.244
A120_STRS
.678
.466
.145
A121_STRS
.091
.639
.094
.787
.223
.122
.620
.511
.169
A125_STRS
.304
.638
.294
A126_STRS
.231
.776
.213
A129_STRS
.758
.336
.091
A122_STRS
A124_STRS
X
A130_NRS_A
X
.627
.611
.187
A131_NRS_A
X
.575
.641
.211
A132_NRS_A
X
.616
.595
.220
A133_NRS_A
X
.604
.615
.196
A135_NRS_I
.320
.793
.245
A136_NRS_I
.197
.689
.264
A137_NRS_I
.330
.759
.211
A138_NRS_I
.324
.786
.205
A139_NRS_I
.299
.706
.311
A141_Sch_Ut
.312
.619
.210
A142_Sch_Ut
.392
.735
.197
.355
.678
.190
.482
.660
.175
A145_Emul
.397
.687
.209
A146_Emul
.366
.676
.151
A148_ClsSup
.144
.782
.207
A149_ClsSup
.830
.229
.115
.688
.321
.094
A143_Emul
A144_Emul
X
A150_ClsSup
A153_ClsSup
X
.640
.561
.194
A154_ClsSup
.765
.405
.168
A156_ClsSup
.676
.445
.125
A157_MePart
.051
.203
.728
A158_MePart
.282
.299
.647
A159_MePart
.187
.280
.613
A160_MePart
.143
.255
.757
202
A161_MePart
.042
.340
.701
A162_MePart
.295
.302
.601
A163_MePart
.161
.111
.617
A164_MePart
.064
.255
.665
A165_MePart
.074
.301
.697
.168
.279
.714
.544
.643
.213
.782
.320
.091
.737
.429
.151
.549
.634
.218
A166_MePart
A167_RAPS_E
X
A168_RAPS_E
A169_RAPS_E
A170_RAPS_E
X
203
APPENDIX L. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3-FACTOR
EXTRACTION AFTER SECOND ROUND OF C-STRI ITEM DELETION
Item Code
A4_IPPA_T
A11_IPPA_C
A13_IPPA_C
A15_IPPA_C
A16_IPPA_C
A17_IPPA_C
A18_IPPA_C
A19_IPPA_C
A20_IPPA_A
A21_IPPA_A
A23_IPPA_A
A26_Inv_Aff
A28_Inv_Aff
A29_Inv_Att
A30_Inv_Att
A32_Inv_DR
A40_ERQ
A41_ERQ
A42_ERQ
A43_ERQ
A44_ERQ
A45_ERQ
A46_ERQ
A48_Friend
A50_Friend
A51_Friend
A53_Friend
A55_Rel
A56_Rel
A57_Rel
A63_PSSM
A64_PSSM
A65_PSSM
A67_PSSM
A70_PSSM
A72_PSSM
A75_PSSM
A77_CLM_SS
A78_CLM_SS
A80_CLM_AS
A82_CLM_AS
A83_CLM_AS
A84_BNS_Rel
A86_BNS_Rel
A88_YCATS_W
A89_YCATS_W
A91_YCATS_W
Identified for
Deletion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
204
1
.484
.670
.703
.683
.729
.684
.779
.705
.272
.290
.334
.442
.336
.721
.756
.628
.753
.736
.725
.768
.684
.712
.686
.164
.131
.168
.009
.689
.437
.441
.672
.378
.404
.379
.431
.480
.272
.616
.354
.442
.451
.331
.700
.623
.440
.732
.423
Component
2
.685
.311
.268
.308
.031
.249
.289
.320
.635
.713
.775
.684
.751
.262
.323
.344
.329
.401
.434
.366
.434
.350
.450
.775
.669
.740
.624
.401
.703
.720
.470
.726
.672
.771
.725
.674
.723
.185
.654
.643
.678
.676
.449
.128
.689
.339
.688
3
.182
.274
.142
.224
.212
.249
.239
.189
.084
.112
.116
.193
.163
.180
.169
.267
.152
.175
.197
.199
.195
.204
.187
.141
.128
.109
.037
.247
.152
.170
.202
.212
.138
.155
.181
.150
.130
.348
.161
.150
.172
.116
.216
.347
.184
.294
.146
A93_YCATS_W
A95_YCATS_W
A98_YCAT_A
A100_YCAT_A
A101_YCAT_A
A104_YCAT_C
A106_YCAT_C
A107_YCAT_C
A108_YCAT_C
A109_YCAT_C
A111_YCAT_C
A112_YCAT_C
A115_STRS
A116_STRS
A117_STRS
A119_STRS
A120_STRS
A121_STRS
A122_STRS
A125_STRS
A126_STRS
A129_STRS
A135_NRS_I
A136_NRS_I
A137_NRS_I
A138_NRS_I
A139_NRS_I
A141_Sch_Ut
A142_Sch_Ut
A143_Emul
A145_Emul
A146_Emul
A148_ClsSup
A149_ClsSup
A150_ClsSup
A154_ClsSup
A156_ClsSup
A157_MePart
A158_MePart
A159_MePart
A160_MePart
A161_MePart
A162_MePart
A163_MePart
A164_MePart
A165_MePart
A166_MePart
A168_RAPS_E
A169_RAPS_E
X
X
.351
.680
.268
.330
.176
.044
.134
.134
.136
.144
.057
.275
.721
.380
.692
.718
.472
.646
.234
.646
.785
.341
.795
.696
.765
.793
.715
.621
.739
.679
.684
.675
.793
.235
.324
.405
.440
.201
.302
.281
.257
.342
.309
.118
.253
.301
.283
.327
.431
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
205
.708
.125
.138
.258
.172
.714
.748
.728
.685
.633
.657
.774
.347
.697
.283
.423
.679
.093
.791
.303
.233
.760
.316
.194
.330
.324
.300
.311
.390
.353
.395
.365
.146
.834
.686
.756
.666
.042
.275
.181
.135
.032
.290
.162
.053
.064
.160
.786
.735
.102
.319
.734
.676
.639
.087
.132
.125
.111
.094
.070
.155
.247
.096
.278
.246
.148
.084
.121
.287
.205
.096
.245
.259
.207
.200
.303
.213
.197
.193
.214
.157
.197
.117
.100
.176
.140
.732
.649
.615
.760
.703
.599
.612
.671
.702
.715
.097
.158
REFERENCES
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillian.
Anderman, E. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 795-809.
Anderman, L. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as
predictors of students’ positive and negative affect following transition to middle
school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89-103.
Anderman, L. & Anderman, E. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’
achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21-37.
Anderson, R., Manoogian, S., & Reznick, J. (1976). The undermining and enhancing of
intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 915-922.
Andersen, S. & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive
theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619-645.
Armsden, G. & Greenberg, M. (1978). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454.
Baker, J. (2006). Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school
adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 211-229.
Baldwin, M. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.
Baldwin, M. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-evaluative reactions.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13(4), 380-403.
206
Baldwin, M. (1997). Relational schemas as a source of if-then self-inference procedures.
Review of general psychology, 1(4), 326-335.
Baldwin, M. & Holmes, J. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1087-1098.
Baldwin, M. & Meunier, J. (1999). The cued activation of attachment relational schemas.
Social Cognition, 17, 209-227.
Baldwin, M. & Sinclair, L (1996). Self-esteem and “if…then” contingencies of
interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
1130-1141.
Bao, X. & Lam, S. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and
relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269-283.
Bargh, J. & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social
perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious
awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 437-449.
Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the
Child Development Project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors.
The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(1), 75-99.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as
communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes,
motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research
Journal, 32(3), 627-658.
207
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school
communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137-151.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497-529.
Behrends, R. & Blatt, J. (1985). Internalization and psychological development through
the life cycle. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 40, 11-39.
Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as Social Context
(TASC). A measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement,
structure, and autonomy Support. Technical Report No. 102. University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in the school environment and
children’s early school adjustment. In K. Wentzel & J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social
motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp.199-225). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school
adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 61-79.
Birch, S. & Ladd, G. (1998). Children’s interpersonal behaviors and the teacher-child
relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934-946.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
208
Bowlby, J. (1973). Self-reliance and some conditions that promote it. In R. Gosling (Ed.),
Support, innovation, and autonomy. London: Tavistock.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209).
Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Browne, M. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen
& J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Butzel, J. & Ryan, R. (1997). The dynamics of volitional reliance: A motivational
perspective on dependence, independence and social support. In G. R. Pierce, B.
Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and
Personality (pp. 49-67). New York: Plenum Press.
Cameron, L., Ittenbach, R., McGrew, K., Harrison, P., Taylor, L., & Hwang, Y. (1997).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the K-ABC with gifted referrals. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 57(5), 823-840.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 3–52). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological
situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77.
Capaldi, D. & Rothbart, M. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent
temperament measure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153-173.
209
Carroll, J. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Carvallo, M. & Gabriel, S. (2006). No man is an island: The need to belong and
dismissing avoidant attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32(5), 697-709.
Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.
Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115-126.
Connell, J. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system
processes across the life-span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in
transition: From infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Connell, J. & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe
(Eds.) Self Processes in Development: Minnesota Symposium on Child
Psychology, Vol. 23 (pp. 43-77). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The
NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.
Crittenden, P. (1990). Internal representational models of attachment relationships. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 11, 259-277.
Cronbach, L. (1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.
210
Crosnoe, R., Morrison, F., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Keating, D., Friedman, S., ClarkeStewart, K., & The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Early Child Car Research Network (2010). Instruction,
Teacher-Student Relations, and Math Achievement Trajectories in Elementary
School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 407-417.
Davis, H. (2001). The quality and impact of relationships between elementary school
children and teachers. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,
431-453.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.
In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38.
Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Demanet, J. & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School belonging and school misconduct: The
differing role of teacher and peer attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41, 499-514.
Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria. (2000). Clip Ons:
Approaches to school improvement. Connecting students to schools. Retrieved
March 29, 2006, from http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/standards/pdf/SOC_CLIPON.pdf
Developmental Studies Center (2002). Student Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript.
211
DiStefano, C. & Motl, R. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with
negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling,
13, 440-464.
DiStefano, C. & Motl, R. (2009). Self-esteem and method effects associated with
negatively worded items: Investigating factorial invariance by sex. Structural
Equation Modeling, 16, 134-146.
Doumen, S., Koomen, H., Buyse, E., Wouters, S., & Verschueren, K. (2012). Teacher
and observer views on student-teacher relationships: Convergence across
kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 61-76.
Drugli, M. & Hjemdal, O. (2013). Factor structure of the Student–Teacher Relationship
Scale for Norwegian school-age children explored with confirmatory factor
analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(5), 457-466.
Eccles, J. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (pp. 139-186). San Diego, CA:
Academic.
Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American
Psychologist, 28, 404-416.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,
4(3), 272-299.
212
Fairbairn, W. (1952). An object-relations theory of personality. New York: Basic Books.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer
perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior
high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 133-156.
Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory
of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723.
Fiske, S. (1982). Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. C.
Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie
Symposium on Cognition (pp. 55-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. & Cox, M. (1979). Person concepts: The effect of target familiarity and
descriptive purpose on the process of describing others. Journal of Personality,
47, 136-161.
Fleming, J. (1972). Early object deprivation and transference phenomena: The working
alliance. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 41(1), 23-49.
Fraire, M., Longobardi, C., Prino, L. E., Sclavo, E., & Settanni, M. (2013). Examining
the student-teacher relationship scale in the Italian context: A factorial validity
study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(3), 851-882.
Freeman, T. & Anderman, L. (2002, August). College freshmen’s classroom belonging:
Relations to motivation and instructor practices. Poster presented at the annual
conference of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
213
Freeman, T., Anderman, L., & Jensen, J. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen
at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education,
75(3), 203-220.
Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its Discontents. (J. Riviere, Trans.) London: Hogarth
Press.
Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148-162.
Garland, R. (1991). The mid-point on a Likert rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing
Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the
study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177-196.
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among
adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the
Schools, 30, 79-90.
Goodenow, C. & Grady, K. (1993). The relationship of school belongingness and friends’
values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of
Experimental Education, 62, 60-71.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 40, 1337-1345.
214
Gregoriadis, A. & Tsigilis, N. (2008). Applicability of the Student-Teacher Relationship
Scale (STRS) in the Greek educational setting. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 26(2), 108-120.
Grossnickle, D. (1986). High school dropouts: Causes, consequences, and cures.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Grusec, J. & Goodenow, J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s
Internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view.
Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4-19.
Gutman, L. & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the
academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle
school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223-248.
Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of
children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625638.
Hamre, B. & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade
classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child
Development, 76(5), 949-967.
Henricsson, L. & Rydell, A. (2004). Elementary school children with behavior problems:
Teacher-child relations and self-perception. A prospective study. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 50(2), 111-138.
Higgins, E. & Bargh, J. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review
of Psychology, 38, 369-425.
215
Higgins, E., Rholes, W., & Jones, C. (1977). Category accessibility and impression
formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
Hodgins, H., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and
relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 227-237.
Horan, P, DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. (2003). Wording effects in self-esteem scales:
Methodological artifact or response style? Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 444455.
Horn, J. (1994). Theory of fluid and crystalized intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 443-451). New York: Prentice Hall.
Horn, J. & Cattell, R. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystalized
general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270.
Horney, K. (1945). Our Inner Conflicts: A constructive Theory of Neurosis. New York:
Norton.
Horowitz, M. (1989). Relationship schema formulation: Role-relationship models and
intrapsychic conflict. Psychiatry, 52, 260-274.
House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science,
241, 540-545.
Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher
relationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social Development,
9(2), 191-204.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
216
IRRE (1998). Research Assessment Package For Schools (RAPS): Student Supports and
Opportunities in School: Engagement, Beliefs about Self, and Experiences of
Interpersonal Support: Manual for Elementary and Middle School Assessments.
Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Research and Reform in Education, Inc.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and
personal support in the classroom. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 77-82.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Buckman, L., & Richards, P. (1985). The effect of prolonged
implementation of cooperative learning on social support within the classroom.
The Journal of Psychology, 119, 405-411.
Johnson, L., Ketring, S., & Abshire, C. (2003). The revised inventory of parent
attachment: Measuring attachment in families. Contemporary Family Therapy,
25(3), 333-349.
Joreskog, K. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Retrieved September
16, 2015 from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandard
izedCoefficientbe.pdf.
Kaiser, H. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 23(3), 187-200.
Kennedy, G. & Tuckman, B. (2013). An exploration into the influence of academic and
social values, procrastination, and perceived school belongingness on academic
performance. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 435-470.
Kesner, J. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher relationships.
Journal of School Psychology, 28, 133-149.
217
Kester, V. (1994). Factors that affect African-American students’ bonding to middle
school. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 63-73.
Klem, A. & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Second
edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kohl, D., Recchia, S., & Steffgen, G. (2013). Measuring school climate: An overview of
measurement scales. Educational Research, 55(4), 411-426.
Koomen, H., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. (2012). Validating
the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement
invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 215-234.
Ladd, G., Birch, S., & Buhs, E. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in
kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70(6), 13731400.
Ladd, G. & Burgess, K. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the
linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school
adjustment? Child development, 72, 1579-1601.
Laguardia, J., Ryan, R., Couchman, C. & Deci, E. (2000). Within-person variation in
security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment,
need satisfaction, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79, 367-384.
218
Lisonbee, J., Mize, J., Payne, A., Granger, D. (2008). Children's cortisol and the quality
of teacher-child relationships in child care. Child Development, 79(6), 1818-1832.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Patterns of relatedness in maltreated and
nonmaltreated children: Connections among multiple representational models.
Development and Psychopathology, 3, 207-226.
Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1992). Maltreated children’s reports of relatedness to their
teachers. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in
children’s lives (Vol. 57, pp. 81-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An
examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 35, 81-99.
Maassen, G. & Bakker, A. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and
interpretations. Sociological Research and Methods, 30(2), 241-270.
Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and
their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of
School Psychology, 43, 425-442.
Mantzicopoulos, P. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2003). Development and validation of a
measure to assess head start children’s appraisals of teacher support. Journal of
School Psychology, 41, 431-451.
Marchand, G. & Skinner, E. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academic helpseeking and concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 65-82.
219
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Marsh, H. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively meaningful
distinction or artifacts? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810819.
Marsh, H., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis
testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralizing Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling,
11, 320-341.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Matzye, C. (1995). Parental involvement in middle school. ERIC Document ED 385 365.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2013). Changes in teachers’
involvement versus rejection and links with academic motivation during the first
year of secondary education: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1348-1371.
McCallum, R. & Bracken, B. (1993). Interpersonal relations between school children and
their peers, parents and teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 155-176.
McCrae, R. & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 8190.
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on
quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
220
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes
toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child
Development, 60, 981-992.
Milatz, A., Gluer, M., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., & Ahnert, L. (2014). The
Student-Teacher Relationship Scale revisited: Testing factorial structure,
measurement invariance and validity criteria in German-speaking samples. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 357-368.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Mitchell-Copeland, J., Denham, S., & DeMulder, E. (1997). Q-Sort assessment of childteacher attachment relationships and social competence in preschool. Early
Education and Development, 8, 27-39.
Nichols, S. (2008). An exploration of students’ belongingness beliefs in one middle
school. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 145-169.
Noodings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools: an alternative Approach to
Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
O'Connor, E. & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher-child relationships and
achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American
Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 340-369.
221
Oldfather, P. & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of
intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 139158.
Ogilvie, D. & Ashmore, R. (1991). Self-with-other representation as a unit of analysis in
self-concept research. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self (pp. 282–314).
New York: Guilford Press.
Pace, C., Martini, P., & Zavattini, G. (2011). The factor structure of the Inventory of
Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 83-88.
Palermo, F., Hanish, L., Martin, C., Fabes, R., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers’
academic readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 407-422
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. (2011). Positive classroom motivational
environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social
climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 367-382.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the
classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83-98.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pianta, R. (1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers.
Journal of School Psychology, 32, 15-31.
Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
222
Pianta, R. (2006). Teacher-child relationships and early literacy. In D. Dickinson & S.
Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 149-162). New
York: Guilford Press.
Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F., (2008). Classroom
effects on children's achievement trajectories in elementary school. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2) 365-397.
Pianta, R. & Nimetz, S. (1991). Relationships between children and teachers:
Associations with classroom and home behavior. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 12, 379-393.
Pianta, R. & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher-child relationships and the process of
adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other
adults in children’s lives (pp. 61-80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pianta, R. & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in
the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458.
Pietromonoco, P. & Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do
we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General
Psychology, 4(2), 155-175.
Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett, P.
McGhee, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 175–191). New
York: Methuen.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
223
Preston, C. & Colman, A. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:
Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta
Psychologica, 104, 1-15.
Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy
during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209-218.
Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., Tabor, J.,
Beuhring, T., Sieving, R., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, L., & Udry, J.
(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal
study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association,
278(10), 823-832.
Richer, S. & Vallerand, R. (1998). Construction and validation of the perceived
relatedness scale. Revue Européene de Psychologie Appliquée 48, 129–137.
Roeser, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in
school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 408-422.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychopathology.
Boston: Houghten Mifflin
Rogers, T. (1977). Self-reference in memory: Recognition of personality items. Journal
of Research in Personality, 11, 295-305.
224
Rudasill, K. (2011). Child temperament, teacher-child interactions, and teacher-child
relationships: A longitudinal investigation from first to third grade. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 147-156.
Russell, D. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646.
Ryan, R. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self
in psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 1-56).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press
Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of the integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397-427.
Ryan, R., Avery, R. & Grolnick, W. (1985). A Rorschach assessment of children’s
mutuality of autonomy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 6-12.
Ryan, R., Connell, J., & Deci, E. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination
and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education, 2 (pp. 13-51). New York: Academic.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),
68-78.
Ryan, R., & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and
projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.
225
Ryan, R. & Powelson, C. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to
motivation in education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 49-66.
Ryan, R., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Ryzin, M., Gravely, A., & Roseth, C. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and engagement
in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12.
Safran, J. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light of interpersonal
theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 87-105.
Sandler, J. & Rosenblatt, B. (1962). The concept of the representational world. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 17, 128-145.
Schafer, J. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical
Research, 8, 3-15.
Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. New York: International Universities
Press.
Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schlomer, G., Bauman, S., & Card, N. (2010). Best practices for missing data
management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
57(1), 1-10.
Schneider, D. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,
294-309.
226
Shochet, I. & Smith, C. (2014). A prospective study investigating the links among
classroom environment, school connectedness, and depressive symptoms in
adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1), 480-492.
Shochet, I., Smith, C., Furlong, M., & Homel, R. (2011). A prospective study
investigating the impact of school belonging factors on negative affect in
adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 586595.
Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and students engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571-588.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinderman, T. (2008). Engagement and
disafection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765-781.
Skues, J., Cunningham, E., & Pokharel, T. (2005). The influence of bullying behaviours
on sense of school connectedness, motivation and self-esteem. Australian
Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 15(1), 17-26.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Kim, D., & Watson, M. (1997). Teacher practices associated
with students’ sense of the classroom as a community. School Psychology of
Education, 1, 235-267.
Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district
study of educational change: Direct and mediated effects of the child development
project. Social Psychology of Education, 4(1), 3-51.
227
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating
classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24(6), 719-748.
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Delucchi, K., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing
children’s prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research
Journal, 25(4), 527-554.
Spector, P. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Srull, T. & Wyer, R. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of
information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1662.
Stemler, S. (2001). An Introduction to Content Analysis. (ERIC Digest). Retrieved from
ERIC Database (ED458218).
Stipek, D. & Miles, S. (2008). Effects of aggression on achievement: Does conflict with
the teacher make it worse? Child Development, 79(6), 1721-1735.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of
Children's Academic Competence from their effortful control, relationships, and
classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67-77.
Van Ryzin, M., Gravely, A., & Roseth, C. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and
engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1-12.
228
Webb, M. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2011). Examining factorial validity and
measurement invariance of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 205-215.
Wentzel, K. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom
behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
173-182.
Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived
pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.
Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of
parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.
Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships at
school: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.
Wentzel, K., Baker, S., & Russell, S. (2012). Young adolescents’ perceptions of teachers’
and peers’ goals as predictors of social and academic goal pursuit. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 61(4), 605-633.
Winnicott, D. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitating environment. New
York: International Universities Press.
Woodcock, R. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258.
Woodcock R. & Johnson, M. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement.
Itasca, IL: Riverside.
229
Ye, F. & Wallace, T. (2014). Psychological Sense of School Membership scale: Method
effects associated with negatively worded items. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 32(3), 202-215.
You, S., Ritchey, K., Furlong, M., Shochet, I., & Boman, P. (2011). Examination of the
latent structure of the Psychological Sense of School Measurement scale. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 225-237.
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. (2014). Support, belonging,
motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study.
Instructional Science, 42, 661-684.
230