Teacher autonomy positively impacts various profession-related variables, including professional self-efficacy, motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, teacher success, and job performance. The development and adaptation of sound instruments will contribute to achieving a complete understanding of teachers’ autonomous behavior and its underlying mechanism. Thus, based on an extensive literature review and earlier research findings, Evers, Verboon, and Klaeijsen developed a promising tool to measure the autonomous behaviors of teachers. The purpose of the current study was to further examine the factor structure of the Teacher Autonomous Behavior Scale for a Turkish sample (n = 711). Although the comparison of diverse models revealed ambiguous results, examination of bifactor indices revealed that the instrument was essentially unidimensional, unlike the original correlated four-factor model. Thus, a unidimensional model with four parcels was recommended. Correlations of Teacher Autonomous Behavior with other constructs provided evidence to support convergent and discriminant validity. Multigroup CFA revealed strict measurement invariance across gender and school stages in the Turkish sample while it demonstrated configural and metric invariance across Turkish and Dutch teachers.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848
2.
AkbarilakehM.KhaliliA. (2022). Psychometrics of the Persian version of the scale for assessing the autonomous work behavior of faculty members in Iran. Research and Development in Medical Education, 11(7), 7–7. https://doi.org/10.34172/rdme.2022.007
3.
Al-BatainehO. T.MahasnehA. M.Al-ZoubiZ. (2021). The correlation between level of school happiness and teacher autonomy in Jordan. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 1021–1036. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14258a
4.
American Educational Research Association. (2014). American psychological association, & National Council on measurement in education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
5.
AyralM.ÖzdemirN.TürediA.Yılmaz-FındıkL.BüyükgözeH.DemirezenS.ÖzarslanH.TahirbegiY. (2014). The relationship between teacher autonomy and student achievement: PISA sample. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.4os12a
6.
BakkenesI.De BrabanderC.ImantsJ. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 166–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131619921968518
7.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley Publications.
8.
BorsaJ. C.DamásioB. F.BandeiraD. R. (2012). Adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos entre culturas: Algumas considerações. Paidéia, 22(53), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-863x2012000300014
9.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
10.
ChenF.CurranP. J.BollenK. A.KirbyJ.PaxtonP. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720
11.
Çolakİ.AltınkurtY. (2017). The relationship between school climate and teacher autonomy behaviors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 33–71. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2017.002
12.
Çolakİ.AltınkurtY.YılmazK. (2017). The relationship between teachers’ autonomy behaviors and job satisfaction. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 189–208.
13.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16
14.
DeciE. L.ConnellJ. P.RyanR. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580
15.
DerakhshanA.CoombeC.ArabmofradA.TaghizadehM. (2020). Investigating the effects of English language teachers’ professional identify and autonomy in their success. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.22054/ILT.2020.52263.496
16.
DikilitaşK.MumfordS. E. (2019). Teacher autonomy development through reading teacher research: Agency, motivation and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1442471
17.
DilekçiÜ. (2022). Teacher autonomy as a predictor of job satisfaction. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 11(2), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1020340
18.
DueberD. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. https://dx.doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01
19.
EversA. T.VerboonP.KlaeijsenA. (2017). The development and validation of a scale measuring teacher autonomous behaviour. British Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 805–821. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3291
20.
FernetC.LavigneG. L.VallerandR. J.AustinS. (2014). Fired up with passion: Investigating how job autonomy and passion predict burnout at career start in teachers. Work & Stress, 28(3), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.935524
21.
FriedmanI. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005
22.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
GüvençH. (2011). Autonomy support and self–efficacy perceptions of primary school teachers. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 17(1), 99–116.
25.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
26.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SorbomD. (Eds), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.
27.
HelgøyI.HommeA. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232
28.
HerzogW.BoomsmaA.ReineckeS. (2007). The model-size effect on traditional and modified tests of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301602
29.
HetlandH.HetlandJ.Schou AndreassenC.PallesenS.NotelaersG. (2011). Leadership and fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs at work. Career Development International, 16(5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111168903
30.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
31.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
32.
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). www.InTestCom.org
33.
JASP Team. (2022). JASP. [Computer software]. Version 16.1.
34.
JensenU. T.BroL. L. (2018). How transformational leadership supports intrinsic motivation and public service motivation: The mediating role of basic need satisfaction. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017699470
35.
JohariJ.Yean TanF.Tjik ZulkarnainZ. I. (2018). Autonomy, workload, work-life balance and job performance among teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0226
36.
KahveciG.DemirtaşZ. (2013). Development study of organizational silence scale for teachers. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 12(43), 167–182.
37.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
38.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
39.
KorkmazS.GöksülükD.ZararsızG. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2014-031
40.
KwakmanK. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4
41.
LambT. E. (2000). Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urban context. In SinclairB.McGrathI.LambT. E. (Eds), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 118–127). Addison Wesley Longman.
42.
LeeI. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
MustafaM.CullingfordC. (2008). Teacher autonomy and centralised control: The case of textbooks. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.07.003
46.
MuthénB. O.KaplanD.HollisM. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika, 52(3), 431–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02294365
47.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
48.
NakataY. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of Japanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 900–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001
49.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
50.
OatesJ. V. (2011). Teaching China in Scotland’s secondary schools as Sino-Scottish engagement intensifies. Educational Review, 63(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2010.500053
51.
OsborneJ. W. (2002). Effect sizes and the disattenuation of correlation and regression coefficients: Lessons from educational psychology. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7275/0k9h-tq64
52.
Öztürkİ. H. (2012). Teacher’s role and autonomy in instructional planning: The case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and implementation of annual instructional plans. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 271–299.
53.
PearsonL. C.HallB. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155
54.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38–54.
55.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.44-51
56.
ReiseS. P.ScheinesR.WidamanK. F.HavilandM. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling a bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
57.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
58.
RutkowskiL.SvetinaD. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257
59.
SarisW. E.SatorraA.van der VeldW. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433
60.
SezerS.CanE. (2019). School happiness: A scale development and implementation study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19(79), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.79.8
61.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
62.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
63.
SmithR. C. (1995). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In SinclairB.McGrathI.LambT. E. (Eds), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 89–99). Addison Wesley Longman.
64.
SpreitzerG. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
65.
StuckyB. D.EdelenM. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). Routledge.
66.
UçarZ. (2018). Algılanan Özerklik ve Etki İle Psikolojik Sahiplenme Arasındaki İlişkide Kontrol Algısının Aracılık Etkisi: Banka Çalışanları Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Academic Review), 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018135910
67.
UlaşJ.AksuM. (2015). Development of teacher autonomy scale for Turkish teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.023
VangriekenK.KyndtE. (2020). The teacher as an island? A mixed method study on the relationship between autonomy and collaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(1), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00420-0
70.
WagenmakersE.-J.FarrellS. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 192–196. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206482
71.
WebbR.VulliamyG.HämäläinenS.SarjaA.KimonenE.NevalainenR. (2004). Pressures, rewards and teacher retention: A comparative study of primary teaching in england and Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383042000198530
72.
WuS. M. (2015). Development and application of the measures of school value, teacher autonomy, and teacher motivation. The New Educational Review, 39(1), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2015.39.1.20
73.
XuH. (2015). The development of teacher autonomy in collaborative lesson preparation: A multiple-case study of EFL teachers in China. System, 52, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.007
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
