Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 59, No.

3, Fall 2013, 420-441

Measuring Practicing and Prospective

Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development
and Validation of the Efficacy for Classroom
Management Scale
S. Michael Putman
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Research has shown efficacy exerts a powerful influence on behavior. Classroom management
represents one vehicle for demonstrations of these behaviors, yet few instruments focus solely
on the measurement of this domain-specific form of efficacy. This research explored the
relationship between teacher self-efficacy and classroom management through the development
and validation of the Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale (ECMAN). Results indicated
two factors may contribute to teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom management. Additional
analyses revealed scores on ECMAN were correlated with a previously validated instrument for
measuring efficacy. Implications are described relative to additional validation efforts and
prospective uses for the instrument.

La recherche a démontré que l’efficacité exerce une grande influence sur le comportement. Alors
que la gestion de la classe représente une façon de démontrer ce comportement, peu d’outils
portent uniquement sur l’évaluation de cette forme d’efficacité spécifique au domaine. Cette
recherche a exploré le rapport entre l’auto-efficacité des enseignants et la gestion de la classe
par une échelle nommée Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale (Échelle de l’efficacité en
gestion de classe - ECHAM). Les résultats indiquent que deux facteurs pourraient contribuer à
l’auto-efficacité des enseignants relativement à la gestion de la classe. Des analyses
complémentaires ont établi une corrélation entre les résultats obtenus avec l’échelle ECHAM et
des résultats découlant d’un instrument déjà validé et mesurant l’efficacité. Nous discutons des
incidences relatives à d’autres efforts de validation et des emplois éventuels pour l’instrument.

Introduction

In an era characterized by the changing demographics of student populations as well as a focus

on accountability, classroom management represents an important vehicle for meeting the
complex challenges facing teachers. Not only does management impact multiple aspects of the
classroom, including instruction and the maintenance of an environment conducive to learning
(Brophy, 1988), but it has also demonstrated a related impact on student achievement
(Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992). Teachers who are adept at management are
simultaneously able to demonstrate effective pedagogy while maintaining an atmosphere for
teaching and learning using various strategies for managing behavior. In contrast, those who are

420 © 2013 The Governors of the University of Alberta

 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

ineffective are likely to find it challenging to meet instructional goals due to the resulting display
of disruptive behaviors by students.
Regardless of skill level, many teachers have identified classroom management as an area of
significant concern (Chambers, 2003). This apprehension has been linked to perceptions of too
little training in classroom management and, subsequently, a lack of skills critical for success
(Siebert, 2005). Concerns about management (and teaching, in general) can manifest
themselves in various ways, but, ultimately, a perceived lack of knowledge may cause teachers to
question their capacity to effectively handle disruptions in the classroom. These beliefs about
ability, generally referred to as teacher self-efficacy, serve as a mediator between thoughts and
action. In short, individuals are guided by their beliefs about their ability to effectively use
knowledge in a given situation to be moved to action (Bandura, 1986; Raudenbush et al., 1992).
With respect to management, teacher self-efficacy ultimately impacts the decisions of teachers
for various courses of action as they implement specific classroom management strategies
(Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Efficacious teachers are more likely to use various strategies
that attend to the multiple elements that impact the classroom, including preventive measures
(Chacón, 2005), while less efficacious teachers demonstrate a greater reliance on consequences
and punishment (Gordon, 2001).
Approaches to classroom management and teacher self-efficacy, individually and
collectively, represent significant factors in a variety of decisions and actions in the classroom.
As a result, there is growing interest in measuring teachers’ efficacy for classroom management,
as shown by the increasing numbers of items related to classroom management on scales to
measure general teacher self-efficacy (see O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011). Despite this fact, O’Neill
& Stephenson (2011) have called for continued efforts to create theoretically sound items and
subscales/scales that have been rigorously evaluated to measure the construct. Acknowledging
the researchers’ recommendation, this research was undertaken as a preliminary step in the
development and validation of a new instrument to specifically measure teachers’ efficacy for
classroom management.

Review of Literature

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy was built upon the tenets of self-efficacy described within Bandura’s (1986)
social cognitive theory. Bandura defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities
to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”
(p. 391). Extending this to be encompassing of beliefs relative to teaching, Tschannen-Moran
and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) defined a teacher’s sense of efficacy as the “judgment of his or her
capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning” (p. 783).
Research on teacher self-efficacy has revealed a construct that is complex and multifaceted
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). It is developed as an individual assesses a teaching
situation and discerns her ability to complete the tasks necessary to be considered successful,
then carries out the actions necessary to accomplish the task. Consistent with the sources of self-
efficacy presented by Bandura (1986), a teacher’s sense of efficacy can be impacted by: mastery
experiences, which consist of opportunities for individuals to directly perform actions associated
with teaching; vicarious experiences, which involve direct observations of teaching practices;
and social persuasion, or feedback that communicates information relative to a teaching

421
S. M. Putman

performance. Development of teacher self-efficacy is recursive in nature. That is, if the teacher is
successful in holding student engagement or increasing achievement using specific strategies,
efficacy is likely to increase relative to the performance of similar tasks in the future
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk et al., 1990). On the contrary, when the
performance does not accomplish the goals of the task, the teacher’s sense of efficacy is likely to
be diminished.
Teacher self-efficacy represents an important mediator in the relationship between
knowledge and action. Teachers who were described as efficacious were likely to exhibit
practices that included
• effective planning and instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997);
• the ability to teach within challenging situations (Woolfolk et al., 1990); and
• the capacity to maintain student engagement (Ashton & Webb, 1986).
Researchers have identified positive correlations between these specific practices and
improvements in student achievement (Bakar, Konting, Jamian, & Lyndon, 2008; Raudenbush
et al., 1992). Additionally, efficacious teachers were more likely to experiment with novel
practices and materials or alternative pedagogies as they sought methods to improve their
teaching (Allinder, 1994; Ashton & Webb, 1986). Teachers who would be characterized as having
poor sense of teaching efficacy, on the other hand, were less likely to differentiate instruction,
collaborate with peers, or view inclusive practices positively (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998).
It is important to note teachers may not feel efficacious in all areas and beliefs could be task
specific (e.g., particular to reading instruction or classroom management). As a result,
refinements that enable researchers to view of efficacy as more than a single, generalized factor
have been proposed to more accurately determine levels of efficacy within the range of “typical”
areas of teaching tasks (see Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Focusing concurrently on
areas such as classroom management and student engagement may lead to conclusions
regarding the how these individual processes are related to as well as impact the development of
overall teacher self-efficacy.

Classroom Management

Over the years, explanations of what constitutes classroom management have undergone
multiple revisions. Traditionally, the notion of classroom management has been linked with
discipline and the creation of behavioral standards to ensure an environment that is conducive
to learning. However, some researchers (e.g., Emmer & Hickman, 1991) contend classroom
management and discipline are not analogous. The former has been defined as a more
encompassing term that includes aspects such as the physical organization of the classroom, the
rules, routines, and procedures implemented, and the consequences for misbehaviors (Doyle,
2006). The latter is focused more on the administration of consequences for behavioral
transgressions. Emmer and Hickman (1991) have argued that each differs in its ability to impact
student achievement, which is reinforced by a view that a focus on classroom management as a
process should include organizational as well as instructional components to ensure student
learning.
Recent literature has begun to recognize and acknowledge the multiple facets that
encompass what has been referred to as comprehensive classroom management. Within this
paradigm, teachers exhibit characteristics such as regular and clear communication, high

422
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

expectations, proactively determining student’s needs, and teaching students how to develop
self-control and responsibility (Jones & Jones, 2012). Comprehensive classroom management
also involves factors associated with teaching students communication skills to successfully
enable them to interact and connect with other students. To facilitate this, teachers must be able
to model and effectively reinforce attitudes and behaviors that enhance classroom interactions.
According to several experts, these actions improve both teacher-student and student-student
interactions and relationships and, subsequently, the overall climate of a classroom (see Pianta,
2006; Wentzel, 2006).
Relationship building and effective communication have also been identified as important
aspects of working with students from diverse backgrounds and are encompassed in culturally
responsive classroom management (CRCM) (Monroe & Obidah, 2004; Weinstein, Curran, &
Tomlinson-Clark, 2003). Additional principles associated with CRCM include:
• developing knowledge of students’ cultures;
• establishing relationships with children;
• using communication processes that are culturally congruent;
• assertiveness;
• using a variety of management techniques; and
• clearly stating expectations that are regularly enforced (see Brown, 2004; Weinstein,
Tomlinson-Clark, & Curran, 2004)
Culturally responsive management frameworks also include a focus on the inclusion of various
components that are representative of students’ home and community lives (Monroe & Obidah,
2004).
Weinstein and colleagues (2004) contend that “the literature on classroom management has
paid scant attention to issues of cultural diversity” (p. 26). Given that many teachers note
feelings of a lack of preparedness for working with diverse populations, this is an important
consideration that has broad educational implications. When teachers are already concerned
with issues surrounding classroom management, teaching students whose cultures, languages,
and ethnicities may be highly diverse may intensify apprehension (Milner, 2008). This could
contribute to a disconnect between teachers and students and cause management conflicts in
the classroom. The resulting tension associated with impending disciplinary issues may inhibit
the use of successful management strategies, limiting the success of both teachers and students.

Teacher Self-Efficacy for Classroom Management

As previously described, classroom management has been proposed as a domain-specific area

within teacher self-efficacy (see Chan, 2008; Emmer & Hickman, 1991). Teacher self-efficacy for
classroom management has been defined as “teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to organize
and execute courses of actions required to maintain classroom order” (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000,
p. 242). Teachers with a higher sense of efficacy in this area have more confidence in their
classroom management skills and are more successful at maintaining on-task behavior from
students (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Main & Hammond, 2008). These teachers are more likely to
hold a humanistic orientation, adopting practices that were more student-focused. Emmer and
Hickman (1991) found higher scores on efficacy measures were associated with preferences for

423
S. M. Putman

interactive management strategies and positive expectations for student behavior.

On the other hand, when a teacher maintains a poor sense of efficacy for classroom
management, she is likely to hold an interventionist ideology, resulting in a greater focus on
rules and discipline (see Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980). Such teachers rely on negative
consequences and punishment as a means to influence student behavior. Additionally, Gordon
(2001) found these teachers were more likely to become angry with students and felt less
affection for students with behavior problems. This contradicts the relationship-building tenets
inherent in comprehensive classroom management as well as CRCM, thereby potentially
creating a cyclical effect of conflict, punishment, and diminished efficacy for teachers working
with diverse children.
Various instruments have been created to measure teachers’ general sense of efficacy (see
Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001); however, the measurement
of efficacy for classroom management has received far less attention in both past and present
literature. In a search for instruments that measure teacher self-efficacy for classroom
management, O’Neill and Stephenson (2011) examined articles published between 1965 and
2009. Their search yielded 25 articles that included teacher self-efficacy scales that contained
items that referenced classroom management or a subscale for classroom management within a
more generalized instrument for teacher efficacy. While this appears to represent a significant
number, the researchers identified only thirteen that either constituted an individual scale to
measure teacher self-efficacy for classroom management or contained a subscale measuring the
construct. The remaining instruments included items relevant to efficacy for classroom
management, but were directed towards what O’Neill and Stephenson termed “a broader range
of capabilities” (p. 266).
Further analyses by the O’Neill and Stephenson (2011) revealed a great deal of variability
within the instruments. For example, while the average number of items specific to classroom
management was just under six, there were eight scales that contained three or fewer items,
which raises concerns per Gaudagnoli and Velicer’s (1988) guidelines regarding the
interpretation of factor analyses. Additional analysis of the instruments revealed that the
number of novel items specific to classroom management ranged from a high of 13 (see Emmer
& Hickman, 1991) to a low of 1, which occurred within multiple scales. In other words, many of
the instruments in the literature have relied upon items found within previously written scales
as opposed to creating and validating new items. This may explain why nearly half of the scales
also failed to complete a factor analysis or incorporated a limited number of classroom
management items within a general efficacy scale. Finally, only five met all the criteria for rigor
within the development and validation process, which included consulting literature for item
development, expert review of the items, pilot testing the instrument, and reporting all facets of
the factor analytic techniques. Of these, only one instrument, the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), was validated using data from both preservice
and inservice teachers. Acknowledging the long-term implications beliefs exhibit on behaviors,
this is significant as research may not be able to adequately measure efficacy beliefs developed
within teacher education programs (see Pajares, 1992; Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005).
The current research was undertaken to create an instrument that sought to address many of
previously identified limitations within the measurement of efficacy for management. It also
sought to extend current understandings by enhancing specificity of measurement through the
inclusion of multiple items that addressed the skills and strategies necessary for successful
management. The research questions that guided this investigation were:

424
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

1. What is the underlying factor structure of the Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale?
2. What is the relationship between the scores associated with the Efficacy for Classroom
Management Scale and scores on the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale?

General Method

Overview

The following is a description of two studies that were conducted to address the aforementioned
research questions. Recruitment procedures for each study were identical. However, as the
research was focused upon the development of an instrument to measure teacher self-efficacy
for classroom management, instrumentation within each study varied.

Procedure

Initial activities began with a thorough examination of literature regarding teacher self-efficacy
for classroom management. Concurrent with this examination, items for the proposed
instrument were constructed. The first draft of the instrument, which contained 38 potential
items, was sent to three content area experts to establish the content validity. The reviewers
were asked to provide feedback in the form of comments or questions regarding the overall scale
and individual questions. This process resulted in the removal of eight questions and revisions
to four questions due to question content and specificity. The instrument was then administered
to 13 teachers enrolled in a graduate class at the university where the research occurred. The
teachers examined all 30 items and agreed that all questions were clear and were directly
relevant to classroom management, establishing the face validity of the proposed instrument.
Recruitment of each of the samples used in the two studies described herein consisted of an
email that was sent to preservice teachers enrolled in undergraduate courses in elementary and
early childhood education and practicing teachers completing graduate courses in elementary
education at a midsize university in the Midwest. The email instructed those interested in
participation to access an electronically published copy of the instrument through a link
provided. As follow-up, the instructor of each section of the aforementioned courses was asked
to mention the research and encourage participation, although no controls were maintained to
document whether this was completed and no incentives were provided to the instructor or
potential participants. Reminder emails were sent approximately two and three weeks after the
initial recruitment email to all potential participants.

Study 1

Participants

A total of 293 subjects participated in this study. The sample consisted of 272 females and 21
males. The sample was divided into two classifications: preservice teacher and practicing
teacher. The preservice teacher group consisted of 182 undergraduate students majoring in
elementary or early childhood education. Each preservice candidate had achieved junior status
or higher, but had not yet enrolled in student teaching. The practicing teacher classification

425
S. M. Putman

Table 1
Demographic Information of Participants (Study 1)
Participants
Variable (N = 293)
Preservice Teachers (n = 182)
Gender
Female 165
Male 17
Major
Early Childhood 2
Elementary Education 180
Practicing Teachers (n = 111)
Gender
Female 107
Male 4
Years of Experience
< 3 years 18
3-5 years 46
6-10 years 29
More than 10 years 18
School Classification
Urban 29
Rural 41
Suburban 41
Percentage of Families Meeting Criteria for
Free and Reduced Lunch
< 20% 31
21-40% 20
41-60% 19
61-80% 21
81-100% 18
Note. Participation in the federal free and reduced lunch program indicates a family income near or
below the poverty level. Two practicing teachers did not indicate the level of free and reduced lunch
status of their school.

represented 111 full-time teachers in a Master of Arts in Elementary Education program.

Demographic information for both groups of teachers is presented in Table 1. The average
number of years of experience for the practicing teachers was slightly over six years.

Instrument

The Efficacy for Classroom Management scale (ECMAN) was developed to measure teachers’
efficacy for classroom management. The version of the instrument administered to participants
within Study 1 contained 30 self-report items, which are presented within Table 2. All items
were written in a 4-point response scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The

426
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

instrument was scored with the most positive response receiving four points and each
subsequent less positive response awarded one less point. Seven items required reverse-coding
to access the most positive response. For these items, a “1” was recoded as a “4” prior to
computation of the final score on the instrument. The sum of the scores on the items
represented the participants’ self-efficacy for classroom management.

Method

To uncover the underlying factor structure of the instrument and reduce the number of items
into a smaller set of factors (Stevens, 1996; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), an exploratory factor
analysis was completed. Suitability of the data for the analysis was confirmed through a Kaiser-
Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value of .88 and a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
(p <.001). The size of the sample (N=293) was noted to be slightly smaller than the
recommended ratio of 10 cases per item to be analysed within a factor analysis (see Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). However, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggest that as few as five items per
item is acceptable if solutions have several high loading marker values. Given the latter criteria
was met in combination with the overall proximity to 10 cases per item for this study, it was
deemed acceptable to proceed with the investigation using the factor analysis.

Results

The non-rotated principal axis factor analysis revealed six factors with an eigenvalue greater
than or equal to 1 that accounted for 61% of the variance. Visual examination of the scree plot
(Cattell, 1966) revealed a break after four factors and a second, smaller drop at six factors. A
parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) was also conducted and yielded five factors. As a result, the
decision was made to test four, five, and six factors.
Acknowledging the potential correlation between items, a principal axis factor analysis with
direct oblimin rotation was completed for four, five, and six factors to further aid in the
interpretation of the data. A factor structure coefficient of .30 and greater was considered
significant for the interpretation of variable–factor correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The six factor solution contained several instances of cross-loadings across multiple factors with
two or more items above the .30 threshold in each case, thus it was removed from further
consideration. The four and five factor solutions were very similar. In fact, with the exception of
one item, the first three factors contained the same items with nearly identical factor loadings.
The divergence between the two solutions was found within the division of the remaining items
into one or two factors, respectively. The four factor solution included several items that
demonstrated cross-loadings on two factors above .3, while the five factor solution contained
fewer items that cross-loaded on multiple factors. Using the retention criteria established by
Costello & Osborne (2005), which included a factor structure with the fewest cross-loadings and
no factors with fewer than three items, the five factor solution was chosen for further analysis
(see Table 2). Moderate correlations were present between the five factors of the chosen solution
(see Table 3).

427
 S. M. Putman

Table 2
Rotated Pattern Matrix-Principal Axis Factor Analysis (Study 1)
Factora
Item 1 2 3 4 5
1. I feel comfortable managing the classroom. .744 -.023 -.001 -.046 .116
2. I feel calm when I am in control of the classroom. .721 -.018 -.052 -.110 -.011
3. Parents appreciate my ability to maintain an orderly classroom. .716 .086 .024 .070 .060
4. Parents believe I am teaching their students to be responsible .683 -.096 .191 -.011 -.057
for their own behavior.
5. Students trust my ability to keep the classroom safe and free .611 .103 -.030 .122 .095
from disruptions.
6. I am capable of handling even the most challenging students. .584 .155 -.061 .192 .092
7. If a student exhibits defiant behavior, I know how to alter his .291 .123 .147 .101 .039
behavior.
8. I know more about the management and organization of a -.088 .736 -.115 .161 .212
classroom than my peers.
9. I manage the classroom better than most teachers. .097 .699 -.010 .167 .179
b
10. I find myself reprimanding the students more than my peers. .043 .607 -.103 -.035 -.222
11. The rules used in my classroom are more effective than those of -.055 .606 .225 -.080 .171
my peers.
12. I have to put forth more effort than my peers when it comes to .050 .566 -.028 .022 -.262
managing students' behavior.b
13. I worry about what my peers think about how I manage my -.012 .533 -.168 .015 -.151
classroom.b
14. The principal cites my classroom as an example of what a well- .238 .416 .126 .209 .090
managed classroom looks like.
15. I often receive compliments on the behavior of the students I .197 .377 .051 .317 .150
am teaching
16. I understand what I need to do to manage the classroom .179 -.077 .719 -.035 .062
environment more than I did before.
17. I am now more confident in my ability to recognize potential .112 -.088 .689 .023 .166
misbehaviors or problems before they occur.
18. I am able to react faster and more efficiently to problems in the .257 -.322 .632 -.073 -.177
classroom than I could in the past.
19. Maintaining order in the classroom is easier than it used to be. -.150 -.032 .592 .031 -.062
20. I can successfully intervene in difficult situations more .047 .064 .516 .087 -.045
effectively than my peers.
21. I am confident that I can use a variety of management .371 -.240 .437 .085 .045
strategies to be successful.
22. Classroom management has become one of my strengths. .233 .226 .398 .239 .135
23. In comparison to other areas of teaching, classroom -.165 .133 -.108 .871 -.002
management is my strongest area.
24. Determining the management-related needs of a class is one of -.082 -.008 .075 .813 .052
my strengths.
25. My peers say I manage my classroom very well. .232 -.077 .020 .627 .026
26. I believe I am effective in guiding the behavior of all students .332 -.286 .214 .371 -.050
in a class.
27. Keeping students consistently on task is still difficult for me. b -.078 .078 -.057 .028 .665
28. I am unsure how to handle situations when students are .150 -.014 -.020 .030 .490
defiant.
29. I discipline my students more than my peers.b .034 -.207 .008 .043 .425
30. I am uncomfortable when I have to discipline children. .234 -.041 .030 .013 .342
Reliability .82 .81 .84 .75 .61
Note. N = 293.
a Oblimin Rotation. b Question was reverse-coded.
_____________________

428
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

Table 3
ECMAN Factor Correlations – Principal Components Analysis with Oblique Rotation (Study 1)
Factor 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 .005 .395 .367 .339
2 1 -.121 .248 -.002
3 1 .231 .157
4 1 .359
5 1

The first factor contained seven items and explained 25.6% of the variance. Examination of
the items within the factor revealed one item (If a student exhibits defiant behavior, I know how
to alter his behavior) slightly below the factor structure coefficient of .30 considered salient for
the interpretation of variable–factor correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). As a result it was
flagged for potential removal. Internal consistency was measured using the coefficient alpha,
which was calculated to be α = .82. The analysis revealed a small improvement (+.01) in
Cronbach’s alpha, to α = .83, if the item was removed. Upon further review, due to the perceived
importance of the item in relation to classroom management and minimal improvement in the
coefficient alpha, it was determined that the item would be retained and modified to reflect a
greater emphasis on the subsequent impact on the student’s behavior. Thus, the first factor
retained seven items.
Factor 2 contained eight items and explained 14.7% of the variance. One item (I often receive
compliments on the behavior of the students I am teaching) cross-loaded on two factors at levels
that were in close proximity. Additionally, a review of the item revealed that it represented a
specific behavior of others that may or may not impact overall efficacy. The item was therefore
removed. The coefficient alpha of the factor was computed to be α = .81. Cronbach’s alpha was
improved to α = .84 with the removal of one item (I find myself reprimanding the students more
than my peers). Removal was also deemed appropriate due to the conceptual similarity of the
item with another (I can successfully intervene in difficult situations more effectively than my
peers). Thus, the item was removed and six items were retained for further analysis.
The third factor accounted for 6.7% of variance with seven items. This factor contained two
items that loaded onto two factors above .3, which would warrant consideration for removal. For
the first item (I am able to react faster and more efficiently to problems in the classroom than I
could in the past), the relative “strength” of loading on the second factor for two items in
comparison to the primary factor facilitated the decision to retain it. Examination of the second
item (I am confident that I can use a variety of management strategies to be successful) revealed
a non-specificity with respect to what it means to be “successful”, which may have impacted the
association between the two factors. The item was subsequently identified for rewording to
ensure an accurate description of “success” through the use of a variety of management
strategies. Finally, a third item (Classroom management has become one of my strengths) was
identified and removed based on the relative levels of cross-loadings across four factors. Overall,
the factor demonstrated a high internal consistency (α = .84), which was not improved with the
removal of any items. As a result, six items were retained.
Factor 4 contained four items. It explained 5.8% of the variance. Reliability was acceptable,
as indicated by an alpha coefficient of α = .75. Analysis of the factor structure and Cronbach’s

429
S. M. Putman

alpha values led to the decision to remove one item (I believe I am effective in guiding the
behavior of all students in a class). Notably, the item loaded above .30 on two factors and
Cronbach’s alpha improved to α = .81 if the item was deleted. Thus, three factors were retained.
Factor 5 also contained four items initially and explained 5.5% of the variance. One item (I
am uncomfortable when I have to discipline children) was identified for removal from the
instrument due to cross-loading with Factor 1 as well as a conceptual similarity to item #2,
which represented the highest loading item on Factor 1. The alpha coefficient of .61 was the
lowest among the five factors. Analysis revealed no improvements in the reliability with the
removal of any item; however, the decision was made to remove the previously mentioned item
due to the potential redundancy in information. As a result, three items were retained for
further analysis.
As a result of this exploratory factor analysis, 25 of the original 30 items were retained for
additional testing. Among the remaining 25 items, two were specifically identified for rewording
to add specificity and clarity as a result of the analysis conducted in Study 1. Additional items
were also flagged for modification to overcome potential measurement and interpretation errors
that have been associated with instruments that contain both positively and negatively worded
items (DiStefano & Motl, 2006). The subsequent rewording of the items was intended to create
items with affirmative connotations. For example, “Keeping students consistently on task is still
difficult for me” would be modified to “Keeping students on task is not difficult for me”. As a
result of the latter modifications, no reverse-coding of responses would be necessary within
future administrations.

Study 2

Participants

A total of 191 subjects participated in the second study. The sample consisted of 173 females and
18 males. The sample consisted of 122 preservice teachers majoring in elementary or early
childhood education and 69 practicing teachers enrolled in a Master of Arts in Elementary
Education program. The average number of years of experience for the practicing teachers that
comprised the graduate students was 4.8 years. Additional demographic information for the
both groups is shown in Table 4.

Instruments

Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale (revised). Based on the factor analysis
addressed within Study 1, a revised version of ECMAN was created and contained 25 items.
Removal of five items from the original instrument proceeded as described. The items that
required reverse coding were revised to diminish the likelihood of errors of measurement
associated with the intermixing of positively and negatively worded items (DiStefano & Motl,
2006). Two items were reworded as a direct result of the activities conducted in Study 1. Upon
further review of the instrument, additional items underwent revisions to better align with
measurement of efficacy (e.g., to add specificity or to add/remove quantifiers). For one item
(Parents believe I am teaching their students to be responsible for their own behavior), reference
to parents was removed as it was determined that the item emphasized parents’ beliefs as
opposed to those of the teacher. Instead, the sentence stem was modified to begin with “I can,”

430
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

Table 4
Demographic Information of Participants (Study 2)
Variable Participants (N = 191)
Preservice Teachers (n = 122)
Gender
Female 106
Male 16
Major
Early Childhood 4
Elementary Education 118
Practicing Teachers (n = 69)
Gender
Female 67
Male 2
Years of Experience
< 3 years 8
3-5 years 31
6-10 years 15
More than 10 years 15
School Classification
Urban 17
Rural 21
Suburban 31
Percentage of Families Meeting Criteria for
Free and Reduced Lunch
< 20% 23
21-40% 12
41-60% 9
61-80% 14
81-100% 11
Note. Participation in the federal free and reduced lunch program indicates a family income near or
below the poverty level.

which is more indicative of the teacher’s beliefs and consistent with efficacy scale development
(see Bandura, 2006). The second item (I am confident that I can use a variety of management
strategies to be successful) underwent significant changes, although these changes did not alter
the conceptual meaning of the item. Instead, the vague notion of being “successful” was
superseded by a statement (to maintain control of my classroom/students) directed towards
informing the respondent how success would be defined. This would also add specificity within
the task being measured, per Bandura’s (1986) recommendations. Another item (If a student
exhibits defiant behavior, I know how to alter his behavior) was given the additional quantifier
“to diffuse the situation” to provide added specificity and an outcome associated with the
teacher’s action. Minor modifications were made to two additional items to add clarity to each
item. One item (I understand what I need to do to manage the classroom environment more
than I did before) remained semantically equivalent, but the researcher felt the revised item (My
understanding of what I need to do to manage the classroom environment has improved) more

431
S. M. Putman

clearly articulated the underlying idea within the item. For the remaining item (I am now more
confident in my ability to recognize potential misbehaviors or problems before they occur), in
addition to minor wording changes (e.g., removing “now more”), a quantifier “and take care of
them before a disruption occurs” was included to address the outcome associated with the
concepts addressed within the item. Finally, the response scale of the ECMAN was expanded to
a seven point scale to increase the ability to differentiate among levels of responses. The ECMAN
was again scored using the most positive response with the sum of all responses indicating an
overall level of efficacy for classroom management.
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used to assess the sense of efficacy of all
participants due to its recognized acceptance within the field. There are two versions of the
TSES – a long form, which consists of 24 items, and a short form, which includes 12 items. For
this research, the long form was used. The teachers’ sense of efficacy score is based upon
responses to 24 items written along a 9-point continuum from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). As
the scale is designed to measure domain-specific efficacy, the scale can be subdivided to
measure the related constructs of efficacy in: student engagement, instructional strategies, and
classroom management. Each subscale on the long form features eight questions focused upon
the respective construct. The long form of the instrument has a high overall reliability (α = .90),
as does each subscale: α = .87 for student engagement, α = .91 for instructional strategies, and α
= .90 for management. The validity of the TSES was measured through its correlation with other
existing scales of teaching efficacy and suggested that the TSES effectively assesses the construct
of teacher self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Method

Per the creators’ guidelines, a principal axis factor analysis of the responses from the TSES was
conducted to verify the consistency of the underlying three-factor structure of the TSES for this
sample (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The data analysis for the ECMAN scale was
initiated through the computation of descriptive statistics for each item (see Table 4). As a result
of the changes made to the ECMAN within the creation of the revised version, a principal axis
factor analysis was utilized to continue to refine and understand the factors within the proposed
instrument. Upon completion of the factor analysis, total scores were computed for the ECMAN
and TSES, including the classroom management subscale, as well as scores for the factors of
ECMAN, as identified by the analysis. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to note
the relationship between the scores on each variable as well as to establish the convergent
validity of the ECMAN.

Results

The suitability of the responses from the TSES to undergo factor analysis was confirmed by a
Kaiser-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value of .94 and significant Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity (p < .001). An examination of the results of the principal axis factor analysis revealed
three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. A visual examination of the scree plot also
supported a three-factor structure. To ensure consistency with the original procedures used
within the development of the instrument, a varimax rotation was selected for the rotational
technique. The results revealed that the total variance extracted by the three factors was 69%,

432
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

with factors 1, 2, and 3 representing 25.5%, 23.1%, and 20.9% of the variance respectively. The
results of the analysis support the suitability of measurement of the three subscales as described
by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).
The analysis of the data representing responses on the ECMAN was deemed appropriate for
factor analytical techniques due to a Kaiser-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value of .93
and significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p< .001). A principal axis factor analysis was
completed, revealing four factors that had an eigenvalue greater than 1. The scree plot and
parallel analysis however, appeared to indicate three factors. Acknowledging the suggestion of
Costello and Osborne (2005) to test the number of factors “above and below” (p. 3) those
identified by the various methods, it was deemed necessary to test solutions with two, three, and
four factors using a principal axis factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation. The four factor
solution was deemed unacceptable due to the prevalence of low factor loadings on several
factors and significant number of items that cross-loaded onto three factors above the previously
identified threshold of .30. Next the three factor solution was considered. Analysis of the
component matrix again revealed the presence of multiple cross-loadings, with each item of the
factor loading on an additional factor above .30. The two factor solution proved to be the most
parsimonious and was selected due to moderate correlations between factors and a simple, yet
substantial and meaningful structure (see Tables 5 and 6).
Factor 1 encompassed 17 items. This factor explained 33.8% of the variance. One item (My
understanding of what I need to do to manage the classroom environment has improved) loaded
onto both factors above the .3 threshold, and a decision was made to remove the item. Another
item (I do not worry about what my peers think about how I manage my classroom/students)
did not demonstrate factor structure coefficient above .30 and was flagged for removal.
Confirmation of the decision for removal of this item was indicated within the measurement of
the internal consistency of the factor. The coefficient alpha was calculated and measured α = .92
when the item was included. However, this value was improved slightly to α = .93 when it was
not included. Fifteen of the original seventeen items associated with the factor were retained.
The eight items contained in Factor 2 explained 19.6% of the variance. Item analysis was
conducted to note whether any items should be noted for potential removal. One item (I am able
to react faster and more efficiently to problems in the classroom (or with students) than I could
in the past) demonstrated similar loadings above .30 across both factors, and was selected for
removal. Overall, the factor demonstrated a high internal consistency (α = .86). Thus, seven of
the original eight items were retained.
As a result of the previously described analyses, the ECMAN (see Appendix) was reduced to
22 items and was comprised of two factors. Factor 1 was labeled general management efficacy
(15 items) and Factor 2 as social comparisons for management (7 items). Overall, internal
consistency of the instrument with the revisions was high (α = .94). No further improvements
were noted with the removal of any additional items.
The administration of the TSES was included in Study 2 as a method to verify the convergent
validity of the ECMAN through correlation with an instrument that has provided evidence of
reliability and validity. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between the total score
of the ECMAN, scores computed for each of the hypothesized subscales of ECMAN, total score
on the TSES, and the classroom management subscale of the TSES (see Table 7). The analysis
revealed moderate to strong correlations between the ECMAN total score with the TSES total
score and classroom management subscale, r=.57 and r=.56, respectively. Each of these were

433
 S. M. Putman

Table 5
Rotated Pattern Matrix-Principal Axis Factor Analysis (Study 2)
Factora
Item M SD 1 2
1. Parents appreciate my ability to maintain an orderly classroom. 5.91 0.95 .897 -.059
2. My peers would say I manage my classroom/students very well. 5.57 1.03 .866 -.036
3. My peers believe I am capable of managing the behavior of 5.67 1.05 .836 -.023
challenging students.
4. I feel comfortable managing the classroom/students. 5.84 1.13 .823 -.153
5. I can successfully teach students to be responsible for their 6.05 0.96 .785 -.065
own behavior.
6. Students trust my ability to keep the classroom safe and free 5.71 1.05 .782 .003
from disruptions.
7. I successfully use a variety of management strategies to 5.88 1.06 .782 -.050
maintain control of my classroom/students.
8. If a student exhibits defiant behavior, I can successfully alter 5.13 1.21 .760 .005
the behavior and diffuse the situation.
9. I am confident in my ability to handle situations where students 5.18 1.12 .693 .147
are defiant.
10. I am confident in my ability to recognize potential misbehaviors 5.51 1.14 .687 .154
or problems and take care of them before a disruption occurs.
11. Determining the management-related needs of a class is one of 5.33 1.27 .678 .170
my strengths.
12. In comparison to other areas of teaching, classroom 4.84 1.27 .675 .104
management is my strongest area.
13. Keeping students consistently on task is not difficult for me. 4.96 1.22 .636 -.139
14. I feel calm when I am in control of the classroom/students. 6.22 1.07 .571 .227
15. The principal uses my classroom as an example of what a well- 4.89 1.25 .554 .121
managed classroom looks like.
16. My understanding of what I need to do to manage the 5.81 1.17 .444 .336
classroom environment has improved.
17. I do not worry about what my peers think about how I manage 4.44 1.85 .299 .123
my classroom/students.
18. The rules used in my classroom are more effective than those of 4.13 1.34 -.165 .931
my peers.
19. I can successfully intervene in difficult situations more 4.35 1.33 -.020 .859
effectively than my peers.
20. I have to put forth less effort than my peers when it comes to 3.61 1.63 -.033 .761
managing students' behavior.
21. My knowledge of classroom management means that I need to 4.33 1.52 .006 .741
discipline my students less than most teachers.
22. I know more about the management and organization of a 4.40 1.38 .166 .629
classroom than many of my peers.
23. I believe I manage the classroom/students better than many 4.61 1.33 .187 .554
teachers.
24. I am able to react faster and more efficiently to problems in the 5.40 1.35 .311 .411
classroom (or with students) than I could in the past.
25. Maintaining order in the classroom is easier than it used to be. 4.29 1.95 .186 .389
Reliability .92 .86
Note. N = 191
a
Oblimin Rotation: Factor 1 = General Management Efficacy; Factor 2 = Social Comparisons for
Management

434
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

Table 6
ECMAN Factor Correlations–Principal Components Analysis with Oblique Rotation (Study 2)
Factor 1 2
1 1 .500
2 1

Table 7
Correlations Between ECMAN, TSES, and Subscales
PMES Total Factor 1 Factor 2 TSES Total TSES-CM
PMES Total 1 .944* .77* .57* .56*
Factor 1 1 .51* .66* .61*
Factor 2 1 .29* .27*
TSES-Total 1 .92*
TSES-CM 1
* p < .01
Note. Factor 1: General Management Efficacy; Factor 2: Social Comparisons for Management

statistically significant at p<.01 Also notable were the results of the analysis of the correlations
between the two factors of the ECMAN with the TSES total score and classroom management
subscale. As shown in Table 7, Factor 1, general management efficacy, was strongly correlated
with both, demonstrating statistical significance. However, while statistically significant, the
relationships between Factor 2 and both measures were fairly weak, potentially decreasing the
overall correlation between the scales.

Discussion and Implications

The Efficacy for Classroom Management scale represents a new instrument with 22 novel items
focused entirely on classroom management. A systematic approach (see Figure 1) was used

Study 1 Study 2 Efficacy for Classroom

− 30 items − 25 items Management Scale
− Principal axis factor − Principal axis − 22 items
analysis with direct factor analysis with − Two subscales
oblimin rotation direct oblimin (General Management
− 5 factors rotation Efficacy; Social
− 2 factors Comparisons for
Management)

Modifications Modifications
− 7 items revised − 3 items removed
(wording)
− 5 items removed
− 5 items revised
(negative to positive
orientation)
− Response scale (4
point to 7 point)
Figure 1. Graphic overview of the validation process of the Efficacy for Classroom Management
Scale

435
S. M. Putman

within the development of ECMAN to ensure psychometric requirements were met. This process
began with the establishment of content validity through examinations of the literature and
consultation with experts in the field and proceeded through several administrations of the
instrument with efforts to refine and improve it. During this process, preliminary work towards
establishing construct validity was initiated through the assessment of the underlying factor
structure of the instrument as measured in two separate studies. Within each study the
instrument satisfied criteria established by Gaudagnoli and Velicer (1988) regarding levels of
factor loadings as well and sample sizes. These factors and related analyses assisted in the
identification of two potential subscales within the instrument. Finally, ECMAN demonstrated
convergent validity through the moderate to strong correlations with the TSES and its classroom
management subscale, which has consistently demonstrated reliable and valid scales measuring
teaching efficacy.
ECMAN was built on the understanding of the content and context specificity of beliefs and
self-efficacy (see Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). It represents a new avenue to
broaden understandings related to classroom management in several ways. One of the strengths
of the version of the ECMAN established after the second study is that it measures beliefs about
classroom management at several points in time relative to misbehavior. ECMAN includes
multiple items that request teachers to consider their ability to identify management related
needs of students or potential issues prior to the necessity of intervention as well as their ability
to teach students responsibility for their own behavior. Similarly, reactions to misbehavior form
an important component in successfully managing the classroom, and ECMAN includes items
that are directed towards whether the teacher believes she can successfully intervene or diffuse a
situation.
ECMAN also incorporates Bandura’s (1997) recommendations for the inclusion of barrier
items that facilitate the differentiation of levels of efficacy as well as items that include specific
tasks or actions. Accordingly, multiple items were directed towards working with challenging
students and maintaining control and order as these have been previously identified as serving
for the former criteria. O’Neill and Stephenson (2011) further note that words such as
“discipline, control, behave, and behavioural” (p. 289) as contributing to an overall
identification of unique factors associated with classroom management efficacy in the
development of other instruments. To address the latter recommendation, within the second
study on ECMAN, several items were modified to ensure specificity within the language as well
as the outcomes. For example, the item “If a student exhibits defiant behavior, I know how to
alter his behavior to diffuse the situation” presents a specific action “alter his behavior,” in
relation to a student’s behavior. This item also addresses maintaining order, which was
associated with the key words identified by O’Neill and Stephenson.
ECMAN also contains a subscale that measures efficacy within the assessment of perceived
management capabilities in relation to peers. These comparisons were created to represent a
form of social persuasion or internal feedback that communicates information about
performance, which is potentially gained through knowledge of peers and observation (vicarious
experience). Notably, however, this scale demonstrated lower than expected correlations with
both the total score and classroom management subscale score for the TSES. This would point
to the necessity of further analysis in this area. It may be that tenets of social persuasion have
limited applicability in this case as the respondents are making inferences about the
management of others and are being requested to internalize this within a social comparison.
This conclusion may be substantiated by several comments made by teachers in response to an

436
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

open-prompt for comments at the end of the survey. One teacher wrote, “I don’t like comparing
myself to my peers as those who see this do not know what my peers are like.” Another quote
was especially descriptive in this regard: “I don't want to compare myself to my peers as 'better
than or more than'. We all have different students with different needs and I try my best to meet
the needs of my students as I am sure they do.” While, overall, very few comments were made,
this noted lack of comfort in comparing themselves to peers suggests the necessity of remaining
vigilant for similar responses in further studies using ECMAN.
As with any research, there are potential limitations within the current study. First, the
sample sizes as well as the small population from which the participants were drawn, may
impact the overall findings relative to the scale. Additional research on larger, more diverse
samples may yield information on the current factor structure of the ECMAN as well as the
related subscales. Based on the previously included comments, it was clear that several
participants were not comfortable in comparing their perceptions of their actions and strategies
relative to those of their peers. This may have resulted in instances of a social desirability
response bias, which would represent a confounding variable for items within the social
comparisons for management subscale. Furthermore, several instances of item cross-loadings
were still observed across factors at levels greater than .3 in Study 2. This would suggest
reasonable association between the two factors, which is not surprising given that the intended
purpose is focused upon the measurement of efficacy. However, the lack of “clean” factors
suggests the need to further examine the wording of items or the feasibility of two subscales, as a
one factor solution may form a more distinct domain-specific factor.

Implications

Acknowledging information presented as part of the limitations, further efforts to validate

ECMAN with a larger, more diverse sample represent a significant focus moving forward. Doing
so will facilitate confirmation of the factor structure, providing additional validation of the scale.
While falling outside of the research questions used for this investigation, it is interesting to note
that teachers who self-identified as teaching in an urban context demonstrated the lowest mean
on each measure among the groups of practicing teachers, with the exception of the social
comparison subscale. Given that only seventeen participants were represented in this group, the
lowest among three, conclusions are notably limited, but specific attention should be directed
toward recruiting participants from among teachers at urban institutions to further examine this
outcome.
Given the importance of relationship-building as a management strategy, there is a noted
lack of items related to the development of interpersonal relationships within and among
students. Research has confirmed that actions specific to the development of these relationships
is challenging for teachers (Chan, 2008), yet represents an important component within
culturally responsive classroom management. Acknowledging the suggestion of Bandura (1997)
in regard to the construction of barrier items to ensure variability within responses, it may prove
impactful to include additional items reflecting relationship building in any subsequent
revisions to the instrument as additional research is conducted.
In its current form, ECMAN can be used to facilitate self-reflection as teachers interpret and
explore their own beliefs (Bandura, 1986). Examinations of scores may help teachers and
researchers identify areas of concern or perceived weakness regarding prevention or response as
indicated by a poor sense of efficacy in relation to specific items or the subscale measuring

437
S. M. Putman

general efficacy for management. Calibrating beliefs with performances may also facilitate task
and efficacy analysis. Similarly, researchers have noted that it is important to help preservice
teachers establish an accurate sense of efficacy for teaching, especially in relation to classroom
management (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2011; Woolfolk Hoy and Spero, 2005). Given the validation
efforts included preservice teachers as participants, the instrument can be utilized in helping
them develop this capacity, as assisted by university personnel. As a note of caution, however,
O’Neill and Stephenson (2011) speculated that the inexperience of preservice teachers may
contribute to findings that indicate a one-dimensional factor within scales where multiple
domains are hypothesized. It will be important to verify the factor structure of results obtained if
the instrument is used with this population.

Conclusion

According to O’Neill & Stephenson (2011), investigations into methods to strengthen and
develop efficacy relative to classroom management are still needed. The development of ECMAN
represents one step in this process. Experts continue to agree that the beliefs of the teacher form
a vital link between effective teaching, classroom management and, subsequently, student
learning. Thus, measuring efficacy in specific domains of teaching such as classroom
management may have long-term implications on professional knowledge, student academic
growth and, as education continues to change and evolve, it represents another method that
could be employed to ensure knowledgeable and efficacious teachers remain in the field.

References

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95.
doi:10.1177/088840649401700203
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longman.
Bakar, A. R., Konting, M. M., Jamian, R., & Lyndon, N. (2008). Teaching efficacy of Universiti Putra
Malaysia science student teachers. College Student Journal, 42, 493-509. Retrieved from
http://www.projectinnovation.com/College_Student_Journal.html
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Englewood
Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 4, 1-18. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90020-0
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Brown, D. F. (2004). Urban teachers’ professed classroom management strategies. Theory Into Practice,
42, 277-282. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4204_3
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–
276. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Chacón, C. (2005). Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in

438
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257-272. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.001

Chambers, S. M. (2003, February). The impact of length of student teaching on the self-efficacy and
classroom orientation of preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED477509.pdf
Chan, D. (2008). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong
Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 181-194. doi:10.1080/01443410701491833
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net
DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively
worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13,
440-464. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1303_6
Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson and C. S.
Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary
issues (pp. 97-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-765. doi:10.1177/0013164491513027
Gaudagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher Efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1980). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about discipline. Educational
Leadership, 37, 459–464.
Gordon, L. M. (2001, Fall). High teacher efficacy as a marker of teacher effectiveness in the domain of
classroom management. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Council on Teacher
Education, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED465731.pdf
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30,
179-185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447
Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2012). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support
and solving problems (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Main, S., & Hammond, L. (2008). Best practice or most practiced? Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about
effective behavior management strategies and reported self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 33, 28-39. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol33/iss4/3
Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and
community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1573-1598.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.011
Monroe, C. R., & Obidah, J. E. (2004). The influence of cultural synchronization on a teacher’s
perceptions of disruption: A case study of an African-American middle school classroom. Journal of
Teacher Education, 55, 256-268. doi:10.1177/0022487104263977
O’Neill, S. C., & Stephenson, J. (2011). The measurement of classroom management self-efficacy: A review
of measurement instrument development and influences. Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31(3), 261-299.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2010.545344
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307-332. doi:10.2307/1170741
Pianta, R. C. (2006). Classroom management and relationships between children and teachers:
Implications for research and practice. In C. M. Evertson and C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 685-710). Mahwah, NJ:

439
S. M. Putman

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of
high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167. doi:10.2307/2112680
Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers’ success in classroom management by leveraging a
local union’s resources: A professional development school initiative. Education, 125(3), 385-392.
Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.com/Education.html
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student and school attributes as predictors
of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497.
doi:10.1177/002246699803100405
Stevens, J. (1996) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper
Collins.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom management:
Awareness into action. Theory into Action, 42(4), 269-276. doi:10.1353/tip.2003.0053
Weinstein, C., Tomlinson-Clark, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive
classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38. doi:10.1177/0022487103259812
Wentzel, K. R. (2006). A social motivation perspective for classroom management. In C. M. Evertson and
C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary
issues (pp. 619-643). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137-148. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A
comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007

S. Michael Putman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Reading and Elementary Education at
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has taught courses in pedagogy, action research, and
classroom management in both face-to-face and online formats. His research interests include digital
literacy, teacher efficacy, and motivation. He has published works in each of these interests in various
outlets, including the International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education and Action in
Teacher Education. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to S. Michael Putman,
Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201
University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223. Email: [email protected]. Phone number: +1 (704)
687-8893, Fax: +1 (704) 687-3749.

440
 Measuring Practicing and Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs: Development and Validation of the Efficacy
for Classroom Management Scale

Appendix

Efficacy for Classroom Management Scale

Directions: Listed below are statements that reflect your beliefs regarding classroom
management. On each line please indicate the degree that you agree or disagree with each
statement on a scale from 1 (Strong Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).

1. Parents appreciate my ability to maintain an orderly classroom.

2. My peers would say I manage my classroom/students very well.
3. My peers believe I am capable of managing the behavior of challenging students.
4. I feel comfortable managing the classroom/students.
5. Students trust my ability to keep the classroom safe and free from disruptions.
6. I successfully use a variety of management strategies to maintain control of my
classroom/students.
7. I can successfully teach students to be responsible for their own behavior.
8. If a student exhibits defiant behavior, I can successfully alter the behavior and diffuse the
situation.
9. I am confident in my ability to handle situations where students are defiant.
10. I am confident in my ability to recognize potential misbehaviors or problems and take care
of them before a disruption occurs.
11. Determining the management-related needs of a class is one of my strengths.
12. In comparison to other areas of teaching, classroom management is my strongest area.
13. I feel calm when I am in control of the classroom/students.
14. Keeping students consistently on task is not difficult for me.
15. The principal uses my classroom as an example of what a well-managed classroom looks
like.
16. The rules used in my classroom are more effective than those of my peers.
17. I can successfully intervene in difficult situations more effectively than my peers.
18. I have to put forth less effort than my peers when it comes to managing students' behavior.
19. My knowledge of classroom management means that I need to discipline my students less
than most teachers.
20. I know more about the management and organization of a classroom than many of my
peers.
21. I believe I manage the classroom/students better than many teachers.
22. Maintaining order in the classroom is easier than it used to be.

441