Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic meta-review with the goal of documenting the landscape of measures of classroom management in the school-based literature. Our systematic search for systematic reviews and extraction of primary studies in the classroom management research yielded 73 studies for inclusion that captured 76 different classroom management measures. We present an inclusive repository of measures from the field. Results revealed high levels of variability in aspects of both scales and observational measures across a range of domains assessed. We discuss our descriptive analysis of the landscape of classroom management measures and provide implications for future work.

Keywords

observation rating scales instruction

High-quality classroom management practices are an essential set of skills for teachers to acquire. High-quality classroom management can be characterized by positive and proactive schedules, supports, and strategies that promote effective teaching and instruction as well as student motivation, engagement, and success (Sprick et al., 2021). Effective classroom management requires teachers to be continuously sensitive to students’ needs within the context of the classroom environment, respond to student disruptions and distractions in proactive ways that promote and maintain a discipline order in the class, and, at the same time, consider students’ social-emotional development (Cunningham et al., 2023). These supports promote instructional time and student engagement via adjusting the classroom environment, building high-quality teacher–student relationships, and managing student behaviors, among other pathways (Chow et al., 2020). Indeed, studies show that classroom management practices characterized by positive behavior supports can build a high-quality, warm, and positive classroom environment for students, maximize instructional time, and improve student–teacher relationships and academic outcomes (Chow et al., 2021; Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013).

Given the strength of the connection between classroom management and outcomes for both teachers and students, researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers have devoted significant time and funds to assessing the dimensions and quality of classroom management approaches. However, a wide range of classroom management assessments exist. This review fills a need in the field to collate and analyze the landscape of approaches for assessing classroom management practices across these domains, provide considerations for selecting classroom management assessments, and discuss areas for future work.

Classroom Management and Student Outcomes

A teacher’s approach to classroom management influences students’ engagement and academic achievement. The rate of using evidence-based classroom management strategies relates to students’ classroom engagement; teachers who use fewer evidence-based classroom management strategies have lower student engagement rates during instructional time (Gage et al., 2018). Similarly, Larson et al. (2021) found the use of positive behavior support increased students’ active class engagement. Dijk et al. (2019) found a significant indirect effect between classroom management and students’ math achievement via behavior management. Effective classroom management is also linked to students’ interest in learning different subjects (Kunter et al., 2007). This suggests teachers who use effective classroom management strategies can motivate student learning and learning motivation can lead to improved academic achievement (e.g., Adeyemo, 2012; Nisar et al., 2019). In contrast, teachers with poor classroom management skills are more likely to create a less organized classroom structure and emotionally supportive environment, which may lead to more conflict and misbehavior (Chow et al., 2020; Varghese et al., 2019). It is not surprising that teachers who are observed to use lower quality classroom management strategies also report high levels of stress, which may contribute to continued cycles of negative teacher–student interactions (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009).

Effective classroom management methods also affect students’ social and emotional outcomes. The classroom setting is not only a place for students to learn academic knowledge but also a place for students to interact with one another and build social-emotional skills. A focused environment with clear social and behavioral expectations provides a secure setting under which students can learn to manage their own emotions, to navigate conflict, and to have social and emotional success across varying peer/social settings (S. M. Jones & Bouffard, 2013). Through effective classroom management strategies, teachers can support students in developing social-emotional skills, listening attentively, managing behaviors, and regulating emotions. To illustrate, Korpershoek et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis and found a small but significant effect of classroom management strategies on student social-emotional outcomes. Similarly, Morris and colleagues (2013) found that classroom management strategies improved students’ competence in attention and inhibitory control. Furthermore, by using classroom management strategies, teachers also help students to set moral standards (Nucci, 2006).

It is important to note that a range of definitions of classroom management exist in the literature. These can include a breadth of skills and practices that teachers employ to engage and maintain organizational classroom structures, student attention and on task behaviors, and promote productive learning opportunities. We operationally define classroom management as “the actions teachers take to create an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning” (Evertson & Weinstein, 2006). This operationalization is purposely broad to maximize the inclusivity of our review to encompass the full scope of strategies that teachers may employ to maintain classroom structures and promote learning. This operationalization is consistent with theoretical frameworks which conceptualize classroom management as an overarching domain comprising a broad range of subordinate aspects (Marder et al., 2023); we focus on four underlying components that are drawn from a conceptual framework about the structure and nature of relationships and organizational features in the classroom (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2007). These components include teachers’ efforts to manage instructional time, student behaviors, teacher–student relationships, and organizational features of the classroom (e.g., expectations, rules, routines); each (a) are connected to academic and social-emotional student outcomes; (b) are core elements in most teaching quality frameworks (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2010; Klieme et al., 2009) and used daily in teachers’ classroom management practice; and (c) are areas teachers identify as needs for support. Each component is posited to measure a distinct aspect of classroom management that, together or alone, may be responsible for promoting an environment that supports and facilitates both academic and social-emotional learning. Understanding the extent these components are measured in the literature will improve our understanding about measurement selection and areas for future work.

Classroom Management Measures

Classroom management research has increased over the past several decades, resulting in a variety of approaches to assess the features and qualities of classroom management strategies. Modalities of assessment include (but are not limited to) observational assessments, teacher self-reports via surveys and interviews, checklists, informal observational notes, video-based self-reflection and reporting, and coach or principal reports on teacher performance (Bracken & Fischel, 2006; Reddy et al., 2013). Although observational assessments are considered the gold standard for objective measures of classroom management, they are time consuming and costly. Thus, researchers have called for practical, brief, easy, acceptable, and reliable measures that can be employed in classroom settings (e.g., self-report measures; Sutherland et al., 2013). However, it is not clear how many classroom management assessments currently exist, the modality of each, and the dimensions assessed. Thus, when making measurement choices, researchers may default to relying on previous experiences with a measure, highly publicized or cited measures, or create their own measures tailored to specific practices of interest. The field needs a summary assessment of the classroom management measures currently available that can support measurement choices that are based on a comprehensive assessment of measurement features.

This review will provide the field with a comprehensive dataset of classroom management measures used in the school-based literature, to provide a summary evaluation and descriptors of these assessments. Although there have been numerous syntheses of intervention research of both group and single-case designs (e.g., Bowman-Perrott et al., 2016; Chaffee et al., 2017; Kaya & Selvitopu, 2019; Korest & Carlson, 2021; Korpershoek et al., 2016; Long et al., 2019; Maggin et al., 2017), the extent that these reviews capture and evaluate assessments of classroom management over and above implementing an intervention is unknown. This review specifically aims to synthesize this research base with the intention of identifying and reviewing measures or assessments of classroom management. This review aims to collate and analyze the landscape of approaches that have been used to assess classroom management in school-based research to inform decision making in the context of intervention research, evaluation, and practice.

Method

Literature Search

For the purposes of this study, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within the past 10 years (2012–present). Given the nature of the systematic review process, it is likely the data (i.e., primary studies within systematic reviews) will include many studies prior to the review publication date and additional substantive search terms to capture the full scope of classroom management studies. To identify systematic reviews of the literature, we searched the Academic Search Complete, ERIC, and PsycINFO electronic databases for all document types using the following search strategy: “classroom management” AND “meta-analysis” OR “systematic review” OR “literature review” OR “meta analysis” OR “meta-synthesis” OR “meta synthesis” and retrieved 151 returns. We conducted this search on May 13, 2022. After removing duplicates, we retained 118 documents for further review. We then conducted title and abstract screening and retained 22 documents for full-text review; 12 reviews remained for primary study extraction.

We extracted all primary studies included in the final set of 12 systematic reviews to serve as our sample for this meta-review of classroom management measures. As such, we compiled a reference list of all included articles from all reviews, resulting in an initial corpus of 307 primary studies. After removing duplicates and articles that could not be located across the databases of four institutions from this comprehensive list, 263 primary studies remained, and we downloaded full-text versions of each study for full-text screening.

Inclusion Criteria

To be included in our study as a systematic review from which we extracted primary studies, documents had to (a) be systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, and (b) include classroom management as a primary construct of interest. At this stage, we searched for the term “classroom management” and included all relevant reviews. We defined “primary construct” as a main variable of analysis including classroom management intervention efficacy and correlational analyses of classroom management’s relation to other constructs (e.g., burnout, self-efficacy, student achievement). The study purpose had to clearly indicate that the review was assessing the importance of classroom management in either of these contexts. Examples of studies that would have been excluded were case studies or policy analyses that focused on classroom management as an important construct but used course taking or licensure as a proxy.

To be included in our study as a primary study, documents had to (a) include participants in preschool through 12th grade and (b) include a measure of teacher classroom management. Of the 263 primary studies, 83 met our inclusion criteria and we included them in full coding. From this set, we identified 10 additional studies that did not meet our criteria (e.g., were child only focused measures). Our final sample included 73 studies which had 76 different measures of classroom management (see Figure S1). During the coding phase (see Study Coding), we further operationalized “classroom management,” in the context of measures in a primary study by organizing the measures by assigning one or more of the following descriptors to each measure: (a) teachers’ instructional management, (b) student behavior management, (c) teacher–student interactions or relationships, (d) classroom organization and/or structure, or (e) other.

Training and Reliability

To index reliability of our screening process, we independently reviewed the downloaded sample of 118 reviews after deduplication. We then compared screening and resolved any discrepancies and were in 100% agreement to produce the full-text review sample of 22 documents. We then reviewed the remaining documents which yielded a set of 13 agreed-upon reviews for primary study extraction; we later excluded one review because it was in higher education (and not K–12), resulting in a final set of 12 reviews.

We trained a team of coders by reading written descriptions of the inclusion criteria, discussing criteria, and reviewing questions related to the screening criteria. Coders independently reviewed their assigned articles and indicated if those articles met the criteria. We had discussions about any articles that a coder was unsure of. After all coders had completed their screening, the first and second authors reviewed a portion of the articles to check agreement with screening criteria. After resolving discrepancies and any disagreements, we excluded 32 articles from the corpus due to not being conducted in a preK–12 setting, 69 for not having any measure of classroom management, and 79 for having only child-focused measures. During the data restructure to prepare for full study and measure level coding, we excluded four studies for child-focused measures related to classroom management (e.g., student behavior). This resulted in 79 studies that we coded for full study information and measure level details.

As with study screening, we trained coders prior to full-text coding. Coders reviewed the coding manual, discussed any questions related to coding, and practiced coding a few articles prior to group discussion. During meetings, we further clarified definitions, reviewed examples and non-examples, and discussed any discrepancies or concerns. Coders then independently coded their remaining articles or measures. We held meetings as needed to ensure coders were comfortable and confident in their coding. We then independently verified a minimum of 25% of the codes for each measure type (observation, survey/scale, other) and corrected any discrepancies identified; agreement across variables was high (>90%). During this process, we identified three additional studies as including student behavior–focused measures instead of teacher-focused measures, and two studies as duplicates. This resulted in excluding six additional studies from our study corpus. As such, our final study corpus included 73 studies.

Study Coding

We coded all articles screened into the review for general study aspects, including country, grade band (preschool, elementary, secondary), measure name, and study. These features were coded to provide an overall description of the measure. We coded individual measures following full-text coding to capture measure-specific information to better understand the variability of the measures of classroom management. This information included (a) whether the measure was previously developed or developed for the specific study; (b) whether the measure was an observational measure, survey measure, or another type of measure; (c) whether the focal population was the teacher or both students and teachers; (d) whether the measure was a single domain or multiple domains; and (e) what domains of classroom management each measure assessed. These codes were chosen to evaluate whether the reported reliability information was only reported for past samples or for the present study sample, to assess common methodological approaches to measuring classroom management, to gauge whose perspectives were more or less represented, to get sense of the scope of each measure, and to assess the extent to which existing measures mapped onto the previous theoretical framework and organization of classroom management domains.

To code the domains, two authors independently reviewed all the studies’ definitions of the measures (Supplementary Tables) and categorized them to four broad domains (pulled from a previous theoretical framework of classroom management; Hamre & Pianta, 2007): teachers’ efforts to manage instructional time, student behaviors, teacher–student relationships, and organizational features of the classroom (e.g., expectations, rules, routines). Upon review of the measures, an “other” category emerged that consisted of measures that assessed constructs such as teacher’s perceptions of their classroom management practices or affective constructs such as teaching self-efficacy. This construct was not represented in the previous framework; as such we chose to add an additional coding domain to describe the study measures.

We coded measure-specific information based on the measure type. For observations, we coded (a) whether the study was previously published, (b) the number of observations per teacher, (c) the length of each observation, (d) the type of sampling used in the observation, and (e) what prior reliability was if previously published, (f) overall reliability (i.e., internal consistency) in the current study, and (g) subscale reliability in the current study if applicable. For survey and scale measures, we coded (a) whether the measure was previously published, (b) whether it was a full survey/scale or subscale of a larger scale, (c) the number of items, (d) the number of subscales (if it was a full survey/scale), (e) the type of rating, (f) prior reliability (i.e., internal consistency), (g) whether the authors conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (h) overall measure reliability, and (i) subscale reliability if applicable.

Results

The purpose of this review was to document a comprehensive dataset of classroom management measures used in the school-based literature and discuss its implications for the field. Most articles included a single measure of classroom management (72%), with two measures included in 24% of articles, and 4% of articles included three or more measures (see Tables 1 and 2 for summary-level descriptive data). Broadly, the measures included in the studies were either observations or surveys/scales.

Table 1.

Overview of the Characteristics of Included Measures.

Measure details	Number of measures	Percentage of measures
Observational measure	46	61
Survey measure	28	37
Other	2	2
Teacher focused	59	78
Teacher and student focused	17	22
Previously developed	42	55
Developed for the present study	34	45
Single domain	28	38
Multiple domains	46	62
Measure domains
Instructional	48	63
Behavioral	44	58
Relationships/interactions	9	12
Organization	22	29
Other	22	29

Note. Numbers and percentages for the measure domains section do not add because measures captured multiples domains as indicated in the measure scope section.

Table 2

Included Studies With Corresponding Measures of Classroom Management.

ID No.	Reference	Measure(s)	Age	Country	Overall reliability	Measure category
1	Alakin & Sucuoglu (2015)	Preventative Classroom Management Observation Form (PC.MOF) Teacher Behaviors Observation Form (TCH.BOF)	E	Turkey	NR NR	OBS OBS
2	Arda & Ocak (2012)	Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale Teaching Style Rating Scale	P	Turkey	α = .99 NR	OBS OBS
3	Baker-Henningham & Walker (2009)	(Unnamed) Interviews	P	Jamaica	N/A	O
4	Baker-Henningham & Walker (2018)	Rating scale of child behavior and classroom atmosphere (Unnamed) Observations of teacher behavior to target children (Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behavior 3 Early Childhood Education Rating Scales	P	Jamaica	NR NR NR NR	OBS OBS OBS OBS
5	Baker et al. (2016)	(Unnamed) Discussion posts	E, S	NR	N/A	O
6	Benner et al. (2012)	Classroom Atmosphere Rating Scale	E	United States	NR	OBS
7	Betoret (2009)	(Unnamed) Teacher-perceived self-efficacy in classroom management	E, S	Spain	α = .87	S
8	Bohanon et al. (2012)	Effective Behavior Support Self Assessment Survey	S	United States	NR	S
9	Bradshaw et al. (2018)	TSES (Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale): Classroom Management ASSIST (Assessing School Settings: Interactions of Students and Teachers)	E, S	United States	α = .80 NR	S OBS
10	Brouwers & Tomic (2000)	Dutch Classroom Environment Scale “Order and Organization” Subscale Self-efficacy Scale for Classroom Management and Discipline	S	Netherlands	NR NR	S S
11	Bumen (2009)	Turkish Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) (Unnamed) Observation of teachers’ classroom practices	E, S	Turkey	α =.93 NR	S OBS
12	Bumen (2010)	Turkish Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)	E, S	Turkey	α =.93	S
13	Burke et al. (2011)	Structured Classroom Observation, Form V	E	United States	NR	OBS
14	Cappella et al. (2012)	CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)	E	NR	NR	OBS
15	Chang (2009)	TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Short Form	NR	United States	α = .90	S
16	Cooper et al. (2018)	(Unnamed) Survey on CM and challenging students	E, S	United States	NR	S
17	Davenport & Tansey (2009)	Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)	NR	Ireland	NR	S
18	Dicke et al. (2015)	Classroom Disturbances scale TSES (Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale): Classroom Management	E, S	Germany	NR NR	S S
19	Djalil & Anderson (1989)	Observation Schedule A	E	Indonesia	NR	OBS
20	Durr (2008)	TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)	E, S	United States	NR	S
21	Evers et al. (2002)	(Unnamed) Efficacy Beliefs Scale	S	Netherlands	NR	S
22	Everston (1989)	(Unnamed) Beginning-of-school ratings of CM Classroom Rating Scales	E	United States	NR NR	OBS OBS
23	Everston (1985)	Classroom Rating Scales	E, S	United States	NR	OBS
24	Evertson & Smithey (2000)	Ratings of classroom instruction (RCI) Classroom Activity Record (CAR)	E, S	United States	NR NR	OBS OBS
25	Fabiano et al. (2018)	Classroom Strategies Assessment System Teacher (CSAS-T) Classroom Strategies Assessment System Observation (CSAS-O)	E	United States	ω = .94 NR	S OBS
26	Ficarra & Quinn (2014)	The Survey of Effective Classroom Management Strategies	E, S	United States	α = .85	S
27	Freeman et al. (2018)	(Unnamed) Specific Praise Rates	S	United States	NR	OBS
28	Gottfredson et al. (1993)	Modified Classroom Environment Scale (Teacher Questionnaire) Modified Classroom Environment Scale (Student Questionnaire)	S	United States	α = .94 α = .96	S S
29	Hagermoser Sanetti (2018)	Adapted Classroom Management Survey (Unnamed) Observations of teacher classroom management behaviors	E	United States	NR NR	S OBS
30	Hickey et al. (2017)	T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool) Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)	E	Ireland	NR NR	OBS S
31	Hirsch et al. (2019)	Teacher Survey of Practices TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Adapted (Unnamed) Observation Using MOOSES	E	United States	α = .84 NR NR	S S OBS
32	Hopman et al. (2018)	TSES (Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale)-Short Form	S	Netherlands	NR	S
33	Hutchings et al. (2013)	T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)	P, E	UK	NR	OBS
34	Hyland (2014)	Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ) T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)	E	Ireland	NR NR	S OBS
35	H. A. Jones & Chronis-Tuscano (2008)	(Unnamed)Teacher Use of Classroom Behavior Management Strategies	E	United States	NR	S
36	Kamps et al. (2015)	(Unnamed)Observation of Teacher Behavior 1 Classroom Management Ratings	E	United States	NR NR	OBS OBS
37	Kleinert et al. (2017)	Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC) Up (CCU) Academic Engagement Observation Form	E	United States	NR NR	OBS OBS
38	Knowles et al. (2017)	(Unnamed)TCM observations on teacher use of target strategies	E	United States	NR	OBS
39	Kraft & Blazar (2017)	(Unnamed)Principal Survey	E, S	United States	NR	S
40	Kumarakulasingam (2002)	The Classroom Management & Discipline subscale of the Teacher Efficacy in Classroom Management and Discipline Scale	NR	United States	NR	S
41	Leckey et al. (2016)	Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)	P	United States	NR	S
42	Leflot et al. (2010)	(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behavior Management	E	United States	NR	OBS
43	MacSuga & Simonsen (2011)	Classroom Management Observation Checklist	S	United States	NR	OBS
44	Marquez et al. (2016)	TSES (The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale)—Short Form	E	United States and Thailand	NR	S
45	Martin (2009)	T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool)	E	United States	NR	OBS
46	McGilloway et al. (2010)	T-POT (Teacher Pupil Observation Tool) Teacher Strategies Questionnaire (TSQ)	P	Ireland	NR NR	OBS S
47	Moore et al. (2017)	Survey of Classroom and Behavior Management	P, E	United States	α = .88	S
48	Morris et al. (2013)	CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)	P	United States	NR	OBS
49	Motoca et al. (2014)	SEALS Observation Scales (SOS) Teacher Observation of the management of Behavior and Academics (TOMBA)	S	United States	NR NR	OBS OBS
50	Murray et al. (2012)	CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System) Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)	E	United States	K = .87 K = .90	OBS OBS
51	Murray et al. (2014)	CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)-Subscales (PC, NC, BM) Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)	E	United States	K = .87 K = .90	OBS OBS
52	Murray et al. (2018)	Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI) CLASS (Classroom Assessment Scoring System)-Subscales (PC, NC, BM)	E	United States	K = 0.92 NR	OBS OBS
53	Owens et al. (2017)	Student Behavior-Teacher Response Observation Rating System (SBTR) – Modified	E	United States	NR	OBS
54	Pas et al. (2016)	ASSIST (Assessing School Settings: Interactions of Students and Teachers)	E, S	United States	NR	OBS
55	Reinke et al. (2014)	Brief Classroom Interaction Observation Revised (BICO-R)	E	United States	NR	OBS
56	Reinke et al. (2013)	TSES-(Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale): Classroom Management Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC) (Unnamed)Observations of teacher behavior using MOSSES	E	United States	α = .92 NR NR NR	S OBS OBS OBS
57	Reinke et al. (2012)	Classroom Ecology Checklist (CEC)	E	United States	NR	OBS
58	Reinke et al. (2014)	Brief Classroom Interaction Observation Revised (BICO-R)	E	United States	NR	OBS
59	Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2007)	Classroom Practices Measure (Unnamed)Observed use of RC Practices	E	United States	α = .91 NR	S OBS
60	Roache & Lewis (2011)	(Unnamed) Questionnaire about use of management strategies	E, S	Australia	NR	S
61	Roeloft et al. (1994)	Management and Instruction Scale (MIS)	E, S	Netherlands	NR	OBS
62	Sawka et al. (2002)	Teacher Implementation of Procedures	NR	United States	NR	OBS
63	Scott et al. (2011)	(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Behaviors 4	S	United States	NR	OBS
64	Simonsen et al. (2014)	(Unnamed) Observations of Teacher Use of Praise	S	United States	NR	OBS
65	Simonsen et al. (2013)	Systematic Direct Observation	S	United States	NR	OBS
66	Simonsen et al. (2010)	(Unnamed) Classroom Management Skills via Direct observation	S	NR	NR	OBS
67	Snyder et al. (2011)	Classroom Interaction Coding System	P	United States	NR	OBS
68	Sullivan et al. (2014)	Behavior Management Strategies	S	Australia	NR	S
69	Tiano & McNeil (2006)	Teacher Rating of Class Manageability	P	United States	NR	S
70	Veenman et al. (1989)	Management and Instruction Scale (MIS)	E	Netherlands	NR	OBS
71	Webster-Stratton et al. (2008)	Teacher Coder Impression Inventory (TCI)	P, E	NR	NR	OBS
72	Wood et al. (1996)	(Unnamed) Teacher Questionnaire (Unnamed) Observation of Teacher Behavior 2	P, E, S	UK	NR NR	S OBS
73	Zentall & Javorsky (2007)	(Unnamed) Classroom Observations	E, S	United States	NR	OBS

Note. E = elementary; NR = not reported; N/A = not applicable; OBS = observation; P = preschool; S = secondary; S = Survey/Scale; O = other.

In the observations category, we identified 46 unique observational measures used in 50 studies (29 published, 17 unpublished). The measures had an average number of six observations (min = 1, max = 56), and an average length of 43 min (min = 5, max = 180), suggesting a wide range of time cost across the corpus. In terms of data collection, 24 used time sampling procedures, 19 used summative ratings, two combined the two approaches, and one did not report the method. In terms of reliability and validity, 31% of studies using previously published measures reported prior reliability and validity. Only 9% reported overall reliability information for their study sample, and 17% of studies reported subscale or component reliability information (see Table S1 in the online supplemental materials for observational measures details).

In the surveys and scales category, we identified 28 measures that were used across 33 studies (21 published, seven unpublished, 10 modified/adapted). The scale measures had an average of 22 items (min = 1, max = 64) and an average of 2.5 subscales (min = 0, max = 6) again suggesting a range of time costs across measures. Of the 28 measures, 22 were surveys, four were subscales of existing scales, and two did not report. The majority were teacher/self-report measures, though one study included teacher and student reports, and another used a principal survey. For previously published measures, 43% reported prior internal consistency. Overall, 35% of studies reported overall internal consistency for the current sample and 50% of studies reported subscale reliability, both exceeding observational measures. See Tables S2 and S3 in the online supplemental materials for included survey and scale measures descriptive information and operational definitions.

In terms of classroom management domains, 28 of the measures assessed a single domain. Five measured teacher instructional delivery, three measured classroom organization, one measured teacher behavior/behavior management, and none individually measured teacher–student interactions or relationships. Of these 28 single-domain measures, 19 classified as “other.” Although a coding domain of “other” was not derived from the previous framework, this domain was created upon review of the measures (described above); these measures primarily assessed constructs such as teacher’s perceptions of their classroom management practices or affective constructs such as teaching self-efficacy. Measures coded in this category were primarily teacher report via interview or survey methods. Forty-six measures assessed multiple domains: of this subset nearly all measured teacher behavior/behavior management (n = 43) or teacher instructional delivery (n = 43). Classroom organization was captured in 19 of these measures, and student–teacher relationships or interactions were measured in nine of the multiple-domain assessments. Interestingly, only 10 of these measures assessed all domains (except for “other”) and these measures tended to be collected via observations (see Table 1 and Table S3 for details).

In terms of reliability, most studies did not report internal consistency for the current sample or reported acceptable levels of internal consistency. We considered it acceptable when the measure, or 50% of subscales, had Cronbach’s alphas above .7, Kappas above .8, or Omegas above .7 (Green & Yang, 2015). For previously published observation measures, all either met our acceptability cutoff (35%) or did not report sample reliability (68%). No study that developed observations reported sample reliability. For surveys and scales, 50% not reporting sample reliability and most meeting the acceptability cutoff. For study-developed survey measures, 30% did not report sample reliability.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic meta-review, with the goal of documenting the landscape of measures of classroom management in the school-based literature. Our results center on a compilation of measures that researchers have used to assess classroom management, and our discussion focuses on some patterns that emerge when examining the full body of measures as well as patterns in the group of observational measures and the group of survey and scale measures used in the literature. We view the primary contribution of this study is this collective list of measures that will allow researchers to have a more exhaustive list of options to select from, as well as avail researchers with options related to resources and time. For example, researchers can efficiently read through the operational definitions of measures to narrow down a list of measures that are aligned with their purpose and intent of their individual study’s classroom management construct and intent.

From this study, researchers can measure classroom management across a range of domains and via a range of modalities. This variety offers researchers flexibility in measurement choice which may be dictated partly by study time, costs, personnel, and agreements between researchers and school partners. This work provides researchers the ability to select from a library of measures that have the potential to be well aligned across sample characteristics and research questions in this area, as well as measures that may be more distal to better understand generalized or transfer effects. In addition, many measures were used in the context of classroom management practices that are evidence-based because they were developed as part of classroom management or related intervention studies. This collection of measures will continue to be useful for future intervention studies that aim to measure different aspects or the collective construct of classroom management.

This review also documents several areas of need in the measurement of classroom management. As is evident in our final list of included measures and corresponding definitions, there are a broad range of constructs captured in the umbrella term of “classroom management.” Given that we collated these measures from studies included in systematic reviews of the classroom management literature, it is important to consider the variability in constructs that are synthesized in the original reviews. When interpreting results of individual studies as well as systematic reviews, it is unlikely that authors, measures, and definitions are referring to (and reflecting) the same construct, teacher behavior, or contextual elements. Varying definitions of classroom management or focal practices may be part of the reason for the wide range of practices assessed under each measure. This range points to an important area for future work; a consistent definition of the construct of classroom management may centralize the approaches and quality of measurement, and in turn, consistent measurement may improve our ability to make comparisons across samples and interventions.

As expected, most studies were conducted in the United States. It was somewhat surprising given the substantial amount of school-based, teacher-focused research that has been conducted in Europe and other countries around the world. This may be due, in part, to how individual studies operationally define the construct of classroom management. We relied on previously conducted reviews that each conducted their own systematic reviews of the literature for the present review’s data. It is possible that there are other ways to describe and label classroom management that may be represented more in different countries and cultures.

Studies primarily included either observational assessments or teacher reports of classroom management. Future studies could include both assessment methods to make comparisons between teacher perceptions of their management practices and objective assessments of these practices—both of which are important and differentially predictive of child outcomes. Future work could probe surveys and observational measures of classroom management that can be aligned to assess the extent to which these reporters overlap or intentionally develop measures that are designed to assess different constructs (perceptions vs. behavior). This may be important to be able to determine which measures are sensitive to change and under which instructional and intervention contexts.

It is also important to consider how to balance considerations of cost (time cost, labor cost, disruption of class schedules) and measure depth (capturing many aspects of classroom management) as they relate to reliability. In some instances, a short, simple, highly reliable measure that captures one aspect of classroom management may be well aligned with the goals of a project, while in other instances, more comprehensive, time-intensive observational measures may be better aligned. Aligning the purpose of the measure (e.g., to evaluate the impacts of an intervention, to screen or quickly assess teacher skills, to comprehensively index the current state of a classroom environment) with the intended domains and resources available is an important consideration at the design stage of studies.

The sheer variability of the measures was challenging to synthesize. Classroom management research may benefit from a consolidation of measures to be able to understand the mechanisms through which teacher behavior more precisely can positively change student outcomes. Having more consistency and reliability in the outcome measures, which will include substantial measurement and validation work, will allow researchers to have more confidence that intervention effects are due to intervention components and changes in teacher behavior if the outcome measures were more reliable and consistent across studies. A future, targeted review could apply a more stringent criterion for inclusion based on measure quality. Amid this variation, we provide recommendations based on our findings.

Recommendations

We recommend reporting the reliability of the measure given the current sample. This adds transparency and allows others to accurately assess whether the measure may be appropriate for their sample. Many studies that used well-known measures did not report either the prior reliability or the current sample reliability. This makes interpreting their results challenging, because it is unclear whether the measure performed as well, better, or poorer than previous studies, including the original norming sample of the measure. Research can be challenging, and many factors may contribute to variation in reliability. Although ideally measures will present high levels of reliability, reporting the reliability of each measure in each sample can provide important context for appropriately interpreting study results. One possible way to improve the science in this area is by using factor analysis methods when using a newly developed or modified version of a previously published survey or scale. We found one study that used a revised version of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale-short form, reported both prior and current sample reliability and conducted a CFA to confirm that the revised sales were operating as expected (see Chang, 2009). We suggest reporting clear and transparent information on how the measure was used, including the number and length observations, and if they used a full scale or selected subscales. This will be essential for interpretations, informing future studies, and transparency and replication.

From a resource perspective, authors should consider measures aligned with project constraints in terms of cost (e.g., time, financial cost). In some fields, observational measures may be the gold standard. However, project constraints may dictate that a less costly survey measure be used. We recommend choosing a measure that is aligned with the focus of your project or intervention. As shown in this review, measures can focus on a single aspect of classroom management or numerous aspects. Carefully selecting a measure in which the definition and constructs of classroom management are aligned with project goals is critical.

Limitations

Our purpose was to provide a compendium of classroom management measures in the research literature, and we note several limitations that should be considered to contextualize our results. First, the literature we synthesized favors studies written and published in English, centers the research on English-speaking countries, and it is possible that the systematic reviews that we drew our study sample from might have also excluded non-English studies in their review process. Individual studies and corresponding measures collected rely on search procedures of included reviews. Another point related to the individual reviews that needs to be thought through carefully when interpreting our findings is that the included studies of this review rely heavily on the purposes of the 12 reviews we sampled from. For example, review of intervention effects is not going to include descriptive studies; it is possible that there are several measures missing that were used in descriptive studies that did not meet inclusion criteria for the original reviews.

We also note that these measures represent a wide range of levels of detail in reporting, which somewhat hinder our confidence in summary recommendations overall. Specific to reliability, we focused on internal consistency coefficients, and for observational measures, we did not synthesize the extent to which studies evaluated interobserver agreement, which will be important in work focused on the specific aspects of observational measure reliability. This limits the current review in terms of making quality-based recommendations of observational measures of classroom management beyond the data we report from each individual study.

Conclusion

This review supplies the field with a summary of the measures used in the classroom management literature, explores variation within measures, and provides summary-level recommendations. Given that observational assessments have been considered the gold standard for objective measures of classroom management, it is not surprising that most measures reviewed were observational. Future studies should analyze the interobserver agreement properties of the observational measures to speak more substantively to their reliability. Future studies should also consider the role of other variables that are known to affect reliability of observations such as observer qualifications, training procedures, and the conditions under which the observations were conducted. There was also wide use of surveys and scales providing researchers with a range of practical, brief, easy, acceptable, and reliable measures that can be employed in classroom settings (e.g., self-report).

Broadly, the measures in this review indexed teachers and teacher behavior with some measures including student–teacher interactions and child behavior. Future studies should consider carefully how measures of classroom management account for and integrate contextual factors as well as individual differences of teacher and students and the classroom ecology. As a field, we should move beyond only assessing how much or how well a teacher delivers a practice and consider other factors such as student responsiveness to teachers’ attempts to deliver a practice, the importance of mulitple dimensions of classroom context, and the general dyadic and interactive nature of classroom relationships (Chow et al., 2020). Although the racial-ethnic sample composition was not a focus of this review, future work should prospectively examine the role of different racial classroom compositions, students with disabilities, and emergent bilinguals in determining how classroom management assessment can promote inclusive measurement practices and intervention development.

There has been a long and influential history of research that focuses on assessing or improving classroom management in school settings. However, the ways in which studies operationalize and measure classroom management remain heterogeneous. We have documented a comprehensive set of measures drawn from systematic reviews of the classroom management research literature to aid researchers in understanding, planning, and implementing studies moving forward. Future studies should critically consider how the type of measure and the scope of the measure definition may influence assessment or the interpretation of intervention effects.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings by Jason C. Chow, Robin Sayers, Yang Fu, Kristen L. Granger, Shannon McCullough, Corinne Kingsbery and Ashley Morse in Assessment for Effective Intervention

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings by Jason C. Chow, Robin Sayers, Yang Fu, Kristen L. Granger, Shannon McCullough, Corinne Kingsbery and Ashley Morse in Assessment for Effective Intervention

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings by Jason C. Chow, Robin Sayers, Yang Fu, Kristen L. Granger, Shannon McCullough, Corinne Kingsbery and Ashley Morse in Assessment for Effective Intervention

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 – Supplemental material for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-aei-10.1177_15345084231208671 for A Systematic Meta-Review of Measures of Classroom Management in School Settings by Jason C. Chow, Robin Sayers, Yang Fu, Kristen L. Granger, Shannon McCullough, Corinne Kingsbery and Ashley Morse in Assessment for Effective Intervention

Footnotes

Authors Note

Jason C. Chow is now affiliated with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Robin Sayers is now affiliated with WestEd, California, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jason C. Chow

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material for this article is available at .

References

Adeyemo

S. A.

(2012). The relationship between effective classroom management and students’ academic achievement. European Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3), 367–381. https://www.academia.edu/download/55029084/adayemo.PDF

Akalin

Sucuoglu

(2015). Effects of classroom management intervention based on teacher training and performance feedback on outcomes of teacher-student dyads in inclusive classrooms. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(3), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.3.2543

Arda

T. B.

Ocak

(2012). Social competence and promoting alternative thinking strategies—PATHS preschool curriculum. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2691–2698. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1002870.pdf

Baker

Gentry

Larmer

(2016). A model for online support in classroom management: Perceptions of beginning teachers. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 6(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.5929/2016.6.1.3

Baker-Henningham

Walker

(2009). A qualitative study of teacher’s perceptions of an intervention to prevent conduct problems in Jamaican pre-schools. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35(5), 632–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00996.x

Baker-Henningham

Walker

(2018). Effect of transporting an evidence-based, violence prevention intervention to Jamaican preschools on teacher and class-wide child behaviour: A cluster randomised trial. Global Mental Health, 5, e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2017.29

Benner

G. J.

Nelson

J. R.

Sanders

E. A.

Ralston

N. C.

(2012). Behavior intervention for students with externalizing behavior problems: Primary-level standard protocol. Exceptional Children, 78(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800203

Betoret

F. D.

(2009). Self-efficacy, school resources, job stressors and burnout among Spanish primary and secondary school teachers: A structural equation approach. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802459234

Bohanon

Fenning

Hicks

Weber

Thier

Aikins

Morrisey

Briggs

Bartucci

McArdle

Hoeper

Irvin

(2012). A case example of the implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support in a high school setting using change point test analysis. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.588973

10.

Bowman-Perrott

Burke

M. D.

Zaini

Zhang

Vannest

(2016). Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: A meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(3), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715592355

11.

Bracken

S. S.

Fischel

J. E.

(2006). Assessment of preschool classroom practices: Application of Q-sort methodology. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.006

12.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Pas

E. T.

Bottiani

J. H.

Debnam

K. J.

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Rosenberg

M. S.

(2018). Promoting cultural responsivity and student engagement through double check coaching of classroom teachers: An efficacy study. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0119.V47-2

13.

Brouwers

Tomic

(2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8

14.

Bümen

N. T.

(2009). Possible effects of professional development on Turkish teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practice. Professional Development in Education, 35(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580802568385

15.

Bümen

N. T.

(2010). The relationship between demographics, self-efficacy, and burnout among teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 17–36. https://ejer.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ejer_2010_issue_40.pdf#page=18

16.

Burke

R. V.

Oats

R. G.

Ringle

J. L.

Fichtner

L. O. N.

DelGaudio

M. B.

(2011). Implementation of a classroom management program with urban elementary schools in low-income neighborhoods: Does program fidelity affect student behavior and academic outcomes? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2011.585944

17.

Cappella

Hamre

B. K.

Kim

H. Y.

Henry

D. B.

Frazier

S. L.

Atkins

M. S.

Schoenwald

S. K.

(2012). Teacher consultation and coaching within mental health practice: Classroom and child effects in urban elementary schools. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 80(4), 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027725

18.

Chaffee

R. K.

Briesch

A. M.

Johnson

A. H.

Volpe

R. J.

(2017). A meta-analysis of class-wide interventions for supporting student behavior. School Psychology Review, 46, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0015.V46-2

19.

Chang

M. L.

(2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y

20.

Chow

J. C.

Cunningham

J. E.

Wallace

E. S.

(2020). Interaction-centered model of language and behavioral development. In Farmer

T. W.

Conroy

M. A.

Farmer

E. M. Z.

Sutherland

K. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 83–95). Routledge.

21.

Chow

J. C.

Granger

K. L.

Broda

M. D.

Peterson

(2021). Predictive role of classroom management in literacy development in preschool children at risk of EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 47(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920972322

22.

Cooper

J. T.

Gage

N. A.

Alter

P. J.

LaPolla

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

Scott

T. M.

(2018). Educators’ self-reported training, use, and perceived effectiveness of evidence-based classroom management practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1298562

23.

Cunningham

J. E.

Chow

J. C.

Meeker

K. A.

Taylor

Hemmeter

M. L.

Kaiser

A. P.

(2023). A conceptual model for a blended intervention approach to support early language and social-emotional development in toddler classrooms. Infants & Young Children, 36(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000232

24.

Davenport

Tansey

(2009). Outcomes of an Incredible Years classroom management programme with teachers from multiple schools (pp. 2–17). National Educational Psychological Service.

25.

Dicke

Elling

Schmeck

Leutner

(2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.013

26.

Dijk

Gage

N. A.

Grasley

B. N.

(2019). The relation between classroom management and mathematics achievement: A multilevel structural equation model. Psychology in the Schools, 56(7), 1173–1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22254

27.

Djalil

Anderson

L. W.

(1989). The impact of a research-based teacher training program on Indonesian teachers, classrooms, and students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(89)90001-2

28.

Durr

A. J.

(2008). Identifying teacher capacities that may buffer against teacher burnout [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University].

29.

Evers

W. J.

Brouwers

Tomic

(2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158865

30.

Evertson

C. M.

(1989). Improving elementary classroom management: A school-based training program for beginning the year. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885935

31.

Evertson

C. M.

Smithey

M. W.

(2000). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598721

32.

Evertson

C. M.

Weinstein

C. S.

(2006). Classroom management as a field of inquiry. In Evertson

C. M.

Weinstein

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 3–16). Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Fabiano

G. A.

Reddy

L. A.

Dudek

C. M.

(2018). Teacher coaching supported by formative assessment for improving classroom practices. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000223

34.

Ficarra

Quinn

(2014). Teachers’ facility with evidence-based classroom management practices: An investigation of teachers’ preparation programmes and in-service conditions. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 16(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2014-0012

35.

Freeman

Kowitt

Simonsen

Wei

Dooley

Gordon

Maddock

(2018). A high school replication of targeted professional development for classroom management. Remedial and Special Education, 39(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517719547

36.

Gage

N. A.

Scott

Hirn

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

(2018). The relationship between teachers’ implementation of classroom management practices and student behavior in elementary school. Behavioral Disorders, 43(2), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917714809

37.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Hybl

L. G.

(1993). Managing adolescent behavior a multiyear, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030001179

38.

Green

S. B.

Yang

(2015). Evaluation of dimensionality in the assessment of internal consistency reliability: Coefficient alpha and omega coefficients. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(4), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12100

39.

Hagermoser Sanetti

L. M.

Williamson

K. M.

Long

A. C.

Kratochwill

T. R

. (2018). Increasing in-service teacher implementation of classroom management practices through consultation, implementation planning, and participant modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717722357

40.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In Pianta

R. C.

Cox

M. J.

Snow

K. L.

(Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 49–83). Paul H. Brookes.

41.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2010). Classroom environments and developmental processes: Conceptualization and measurement. In Meece

Eccles

(Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development (pp. 25–41). Routledge.

42.

Hickey

McGilloway

Hyland

Leckey

Kelly

Bywater

Comiskey

Lodge

Donnely

O’Neill

(2017). Exploring the effects of a universal classroom management training programme on teacher and child behaviour: A group randomised controlled trial and cost analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15579747

43.

Hirsch

S. E.

Lloyd

J. W.

Kennedy

M. J.

(2019). Professional development in practice: Improving novice teachers’ use of universal classroom management. The Elementary School Journal, 120(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/704492

44.

Hopman

J. A.

Tick

N. T.

van der Ende

Wubbels

Verhulst

F. C.

Maras

Breeman

L. D.

Van Lier

P. A.

(2018). Special education teachers’ relationships with students and self-efficacy moderate associations between classroom-level disruptive behaviors and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.004

45.

Hutchings

Martin-Forbes

Daley

Williams

M. E.

(2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of a teacher classroom management program on the classroom behavior of children with and without behavior problems. Journal of school psychology, 51(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.001

46.

Hyland

Ni Mhaille

Lodge

McGilloway

(2014). Conduct problems in young, school-going children in Ireland: Prevalence and teacher response. School Psychology International, 35(5), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313515984

47.

Jennings

P. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

(2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

48.

Jones

H. A.

Chronis-Tuscano

(2008). Efficacy of teacher in-service training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 45(10), 918–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20342

49.

Jones

S. M.

Bouffard

S. M.

(2013). Social and emotional learning in schools: From programs to strategies. Social Policy Report, 26(4), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00073.x

50.

Kamps

Thiemann-Bourque

Heitzman-Powell

Schwartz

Rosenberg

Mason

Cox

(2015). A comprehensive peer network intervention to improve social communication of children with autism spectrum disorders: A randomized trial in kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1809–1824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2340-2

51.

Kaya

Selvitopu

(2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of some factors on teachers’ classroom management skills. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(2), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.621313

52.

Kleinert

W. L.

Silva

M. R.

Codding

R. S.

Feinberg

A. B.

James

P. S. S.

(2017). Enhancing classroom management using the classroom check-up consultation model with in-vivo coaching and goal setting components. School Psychology Forum, 11(1), 5–19. https://web.s.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=19382243&AN=121889533&h=qSnsIUGkN81u03NQnOnIfBdaVjczZVBuaFlXat48o%2bWdbAgz0CsaK5tJ7uf141qxoEPrVkHXHoZ7gY2A%2bf4%2ffQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d19382243%26AN%3d121889533

53.

Klieme

Pauli

Reusser

(2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In Janik

Seidel

(Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.

54.

Knowles

Massar

Raulston

T. J.

Machalicek

(2017). Telehealth consultation in a self-contained classroom for behavior: A pilot study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1167012

55.

Korest

Carlson

J. S.

(2021). A meta-analysis of the current state of evidence of the Incredible Years teacher-classroom management program. Children, 9(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9010024

56.

Korpershoek

Harms

de Boer

van Kuijk

Doolaard

(2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799

57.

Kraft

M. A.

Blazar

(2017). Individualized coaching to improve teacher practice across grades and subjects: New experimental evidence. Educational Policy, 31(7), 1033–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904816631099

58.

Kumarakulasingam

T. M.

(2002). Relationships between classroom management, teacher stress, teacher burnout, and teachers’ levels of hope. University of Kansas.

59.

Kunter

Baumert

Köller

(2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002

60.

Larson

K. E.

Pas

E. T.

Bottiani

J. H.

Kush

J. M.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2021). A multidimensional and multilevel examination of student engagement and secondary school teachers’ use of classroom management practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(3), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720929352

61.

Leckey

Hyland

Hickey

Lodge

Kelly

Bywater

Comisky

Donnely

McGilloway

(2016). A mixed-methods evaluation of the longer-term implementation and utility of a teacher classroom management training programme in Irish primary schools. Irish Educational Studies, 35(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2016.1147974

62.

Leflot

Van Lier

P. A.

Onghena

Colpin

(2010). The role of teacher behavior management in the development of disruptive behaviors: An intervention study with the good behavior game. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9411-4

63.

Long

A. C. J.

Miller

F. G.

Upright

J. J.

(2019). Classroom management for ethnic–racial minority students: A meta-analysis of single-case design studies. School Psychology, 34(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000305

64.

MacSuga

A. S.

Simqnsen

(2011). Increasing teachers’ use of evidence-based classroom management strategies through consultation: Overview and case studies. Beyond Behavior, 20(2), 4–13. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA323857650&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10742956&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=mlin_oweb&isGeoAuthType=true&aty=geo

65.

Maggin

D. M.

Pustejovsky

J. E.

Johnson

A. H.

(2017). A meta-analysis of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 38(6), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517716900

66.

Marder

Thiel

Göllner

(2023). Classroom management and students’ mathematics achievement: The role of students’ disruptive behavior and teacher classroom management. Learning and Instruction, 86, 101746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101746

67.

Marquez

VinCent

Marquez

Pennefather

Smolkowski

Sprague

(2016). Opportunities and challenges in training elementary school teachers in classroom management: Initial results from classroom management in action, an online professional development program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(1), 87–109. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/150825/

68.

Martin

P. A.

Daley

Hutchings

Jones

Eames

Whitaker

C. J.

(2010). The teacher-pupil observation tool (T-POT) development and testing of a New classroom observation measure. School Psychology International, 31(3), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310362040

69.

McGilloway

Hyland

Ní Mháille

Lodge

O’Neill

Kelly

Leckey

Bywater

Comiskey

Donnelly

(2010). Positive classrooms, positive children: A randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme in an Irish context (short-term outcomes). University of York.

70.

Mitchell

M. M.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.005

71.

Moore

T. C.

Wehby

J. H.

Oliver

R. M.

Chow

J. C.

Gordon

J. R.

Mahany

L. A.

(2017). Teachers’ reported knowledge and implementation of research-based classroom and behavior management strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516683631

72.

Morris

Lloyd

C. M.

Millenky

Leacock

Raver

C. C.

Bangser

(2013). Using classroom management to improve preschoolers’ social and emotional skills: Final impact and implementation findings from the Foundations of Learning Demonstration in Newark and Chicago. MDRC.

73.

Motoca

L. M.

Farmer

T. W.

Hamm

J. V.

Byun

S. Y.

Lee

D. L.

Brooks

D. S.

Rucker

Moohr

M. M.

(2014). Directed consultation, the SEALS model, and teachers’ classroom management. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426614521299

74.

Murray

D. W.

Murr

Rabiner

D. L.

(2012). Preliminary effects of the Incredible Years teacher training program on classroom management skills. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

75.

Murray

D. W.

Rabiner

D. L.

Carrig

M. M.

(2014). Grade level effects of the incredible years teacher training program on emotion regulation and attention. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

76.

Murray

D. W.

Rabiner

D. L.

Kuhn

Pan

Sabet

R. F.

(2018). Investigating teacher and student effects of the Incredible Years Classroom Management Program in early elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.004

77.

Nisar

Khan

I. A.

Khan

(2019). Relationship between classroom management and students academic achievement. Pakistan Journal of Distance and Online Learning, 5(1), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.30971/pjdol.v5i1.284

78.

Nucci

(2006). Classroom management for moral and social development. In Evertson

C. M.

Weinstein

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 711–731). Lawrence Erlbaum.

79.

Owens

J. S.

Coles

E. K.

Evans

S. W.

Himawan

L. K.

Girio-Herrera

Holdaway

A. S.

Zoromski

A. K.

Schamberg

Schulte

A. C.

(2017). Using multi-component consultation to increase the integrity with which teachers implement behavioral classroom interventions: A pilot study. School Mental Health, 9, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9217-4

80.

Pas

E. T.

Johnson

S. R.

Larson

K. E.

Brandenburg

Church

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2016). Reducing behavior problems among students with autism spectrum disorder: Coaching teachers in a mixed-reality setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 3640–3652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2898-y

81.

Reddy

L. A.

Fabiano

Dudek

C. M.

Hsu

(2013). Development and construct validity of the Classroom Strategies Scale-Observer Form. School Psychology, 28(4), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000043

82.

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Darney

Pitchford

Becker

Domitrovich

Ialongo

(2012). Using the classroom check-up model to support implementation of PATHS to PAX. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 5(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2012.707441

83.

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Stormont

(2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS: Identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712459079

84.

Reinke

W. M.

Stormont

Herman

K. C.

Newcomer

(2014). Using coaching to support teacher implementation of classroom-based interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9186-0

85.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Chiu

Y. J. I.

(2007). Promoting social and academic competence in the classroom: An intervention study examining the contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach. Psychology in the Schools, 44(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20231

86.

Roache

Lewis

(2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom management on student responsibility. Australian journal of Education, 55(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500204

87.

Roelofs

Veenman

Raemaekers

(1994). Improving instruction and classroom management behaviour in mixed-age classrooms: Results of two improvement studies. Educational Studies, 20(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569940200108

88.

Sawka

K. D.

McCurdy

B. L.

Mannella

M. C.

(2002). Strengthening emotional support services: An empirically based model for training teachers of students with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266020100040401

89.

Scott

T. M.

Alter

P. J.

Hirn

R. G.

(2011). An examination of typical classroom context and instruction for students with and without behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(4), 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0039

90.

Simonsen

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

Briere

D. E.

III Freeman

Myers

Scott

T. M.

Sugai

(2014). Multitiered support framework for teachers’ classroom-management practices: Overview and case study of building the triangle for teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(3), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713484062

91.

Simonsen

MacSuga-Gage

A. S.

Fallon

L. M.

Sugai

(2013). The effects of self-monitoring on teachers’ use of specific praise. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712440453

92.

Simonsen

Myers

DeLuca

(2010). Teaching teachers to use prompts, opportunities to respond, and specific praise. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409359905

93.

Snyder

Low

Schultz

Barner

Moreno

Garst

Leiker

Schrepferman

(2011). The impact of brief teacher training on classroom management and child behavior in at-risk preschool settings: Mediators and treatment utility. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.06.001

94.

Sprick

Edwards

Coughlin

(2021). CHAMPS: A proactive & positive approach to classroom management. Safe & Civil Schools, Ancora Publishing.

95.

Sullivan

A. M.

Johnson

Owens

Conway

(2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6

96.

Sutherland

K. S.

McLeod

B. D.

Conroy

M. A.

Cox

J. R.

(2013). Measuring implementation of evidence-based programs targeting young children at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders: Conceptual issues and recommendations. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113515025

97.

Tiano

J. D.

McNeil

C. B.

(2006). Training Head Start teachers in behavior management using Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100334

98.

Varghese

Vernon-Feagans

Bratsch-Hines

(2019). Rural classroom environments as contexts for teacher-child relationships. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(3), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.154521

99.

Veenman

Lem

Roelofs

(1989). Training teachers in mixed-age classrooms: Effects of a staff development programme. Educational Studies, 15(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569890150207

100.

Webster-Stratton

Jamila Reid

Stoolmiller

(2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x

101.

Wood

Hodges

Aljunied

(1996). The effectiveness of assertive discipline training: Look before you leap off this wagon. Educational Psychology in Practice, 12(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266736960120307

102.

Zentall

S. S.

Javorsky

(2007). Professional development for teachers of students with ADHD and characteristics of ADHD. Behavioral Disorders, 32(2), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290703200202

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB

0.06 MB