Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1984,57,277-293.

Printed in Great Britain

0 1984 The British Psychological Society

The development of an instrument to

measure occupational stress in teachers:
The Teacher Stress Inventory
M I C H A E L J. FIMIAN*
Appalachian State University

The content validity, Factorial validity, and internal consistency reliability of a scale
developed to assess occupational stress in teachers were investigated. The content
validity of the scale was determined from expert opinion and appraisal data collected
from 92 teachers. stress researchers and practitioners. Data collected from two
samples of special education teachers (n=370; n=371) and one sample of regular
education teachers ( n = 433) were then subjected to factor analyses followed by
varimax and oblique rotations. Six factors resulted for each of two measures: stress
strength and stress frequency. Additional analyses indicated that each subscale has
moderate-to-high internal consistency reliabilities for both strength and frequency
dimensions, moderate-to-high correlations between the strength and frequency
measures of each subscale, and a large degree of agreement for the content validity of
each subscale, for each of six subscales: Personal/Professional Stressors; Professional
Distress; Discipline and Motivation; Emotional Manifestations; Biobehavioural
Manifestations; and Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations.

The assessment of occupational stress in teachers is an increasingly important consider-

ation in their maintenance and motivation. Both the data-based phenomenon of teacher
stress (Coates & Thoreson, 1976; Anderson, 1980; Cichon & Koff, 1980; Maslach &
Jackson, 1981; Fimian & Santoro, 1983; and Greer & Wethered, 1984) and non-data
based perspectives (Styles & Cavanagh, 1977; Bloch, 1978; ' Teacher burnout ', 1979;
Fimian, 1980, 1 9 8 2 ~ have
) been amply documented. The majority of these studies, how-
ever, has discussed the problem in only general terms. Also, when valid and reliable
psychometric constructs were employed, they were done so to measure burnout, or the
end-result of long-term stressful experiences.
Because stress and burnout are complex issues, there are numerous factors that can
contribute to teachers' stress lev& Weiskopf (1980) identified a number of sources:
( a )work overload, (6) lack of on-the-job success, ( c )longer amounts of time directly inter-
acting with students, (d)poor student-teacher ratios, (e)poorly defined programme struc-
tures and cf) the constant responsibility for others. In a separate review, Fimian (1982a)
summarized 135 sources and manifestations of stress cited in the literature into one or
more of 13 a priori categories. Additionally, Gallery et al. (1981) noted four contributing
factors: ( a ) role ambiguity, (b) role conflict, ( c ) role overload and ( d ) lack of
administrative support.
T o date, numerous ' special education ' groups have been empirically studied:
group-home staff (Thompson, 1980; Fimian, in press), teachers of the emotionally
disabled (Lawrence & McKinnon, 1980), professionals working with the deaf (Meadow,
198 I), teachers of the mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed and learning disabled

*Requests for reprints should be addressed to M. J. Fimian, Department of Special Education,

Appalachian State University, Boone, N C 28608, USA.

277
278 MICHAEL J . FIMIAN

(Johnson et al., 1981; Zabel & Zabel, 1981; Fimian, 1983), and general ‘ special education ’
teacher populations (McIntyre, 1981; Fimian & Santoro, 1983). A number of regular
education samples have been studied as well. Schwab (1980) identified the empirical
relationship among burnout and role conflict and ambiguity levels in teachers. Anderson
(1980) found similar results relating burnout to needs deficiency levels. Zabel & Zabel
(198 1) found few significant differences of perceived burnout levels between and among
groups of teachers, while Anderson (1980), Schwab (1980) and Presley & Morgan (1981)
each determined that background personal (e.g. sex; age) and professional (e.g. number of
years taught; size of caseload) variables act as particularly poor predictors of burnout. As
in the non-data-based literature, the majority of these investigations have focused on
burnout and not the stressful precursors of burnout.
It is clear in the literature that stress is not a ‘single source’ issue, and that it
can be and often is defined in various empirical and non-empirical ways that would
account for a number of ‘ factors ’ o r ‘ problems ’ at any given time. Maslach & Jackson
(1981), for example, operationalized three factors related to burnout: emotional exhaus-
tion, depersonalization, and a lack of personal accomplishment related to one’s job. Pines
et a f . (1981) determined that the construct ‘ occupational tedium ’ was significantly
related to both stress and burnout. Finally, others have attempted to define occupational
stress in terms of operationalized job satisfaction, role strain, role conflict and/or
ambiguity, teacher attitudes, teacher opinions, and/or teacher burnout.
The intent of this article is to describe the development of an instrument that would
validly and reliably assess stress levels in teachers. An earlier report described the factorial
and content validity and alpha reliability work conducted on the pilot short form of the
Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI: Fimian, in press). This work established and operation-
alized six factors related to stress in special education teachers: Personal/Professional
Stressors; Professional Distress; Discipline and Motivation; Emotional Manifestations;
Biobehavioural Manifestations; and Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations. Each factor
was measured in two ways; the perceived strength of stressful events, and the frequency
with which they occurred. Also, the six factor scores for each of the two dimensions were
summed to determine total strength and total frequency scores.
Would similar factors be evident in other teacher samples, including both special and
regular education teachers? Also, would these factors, if any, prove reliable and valid? In
order to answer these questions, data were collected from four samples in order to conduct
TSI content validity, factorial validity, and internal consistency reliability analyses.

METHOD
Samples
There were four individual and one total sample in this study. The first, sample A,
provided data for the content validation. The second and third, samples B and C , each
consisted of special education teachers from the state of Vermont, USA. Similarly, one
larger sample of regular education teachers, sample D, was selected from the same state.
Finally the data yielded from samples B, C and D were combined to form one total
sample, or sample E.
Sample A . During the summers of 1980 and 1981, data were collected for the TSI con-
tent validation. During 1980,63 teachers, researchers, and other practitioners in education
contributed data; during 1981, 29 similar individuals were surveyed, for a total of 92
respondents. A modified version of the TSI was sent to 197 professionals, each of whom
was known to have authored one or more stress publications, to have conducted quantita-
tive and/or qualitative stress research, or to have conducted stress workshops. Of these, 37
were returned because of insufficient o r outdated mailing addresses, and four were
returned uncompleted but with appended comments. Of the 156 surveys that were
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 279

received by the respondents, 92 or 59 per cent were returned in usable condition. These
were included in the analysis of the data. Of those who responded, 66 per cent were male,
the majority (68 per cent) were between 25 and 40 years old, only 27 per cent had taught
less than five years while the rest had taught more than that, over three-fourths held
advanced degrees and had given stress workshops at one time or another and three out of
four had authored articles or books on teacher stress. Also, over 63 per cent had conduc-
ted stress research; of those, some conducted qualitative (22 per cent), quantitative (41 per
cent) or combinations of qualitative and quantitative (36 per cent) research.
Sample B. Sample B consisted of 370 of 560, or 66 per cent, of the total sample of
special education teachers randomly selected from the Vermont State Department of
Education teacher rolls. These teachers completed the TSI during Fall 1980.
Sample C. Sample C consisted of 371 of 560, or 66 per cent, of the total sample of
special education teachers similarly selected from the same state rolls. These teachers
completed the TSI during Spring 198I .
Sample D.Sample D consisted of 433 of 750, or 58 per cent, of the total sample of
regular education teachers similarly selected from the same state rolls. These teachers also
completed the TSI during Spring 1981.
Sample E. Sample E consisted of the combined samples of B, C and D, or 1174 of
1870, of special education and regular teachers, or 63 per cent of the total sample
randomly selected from the state rolls.
Return rates, though moderate and varying in size, are typical in comparison to
three dozen voluntary self-report stress studies conducted prior to 1982 (Fimian, 19826).
Sample A, which provided item appraisal data, rated the degree of relevance of the stress
items to their general concept of ‘ teacher stress ’. All teachers in samples B, C and D, who
taught full time in Vermont Public Schools during the 1980-81 school year, rated how
often and how strong these potentially stressful events were experienced in the course of
their teaching.

Instrumentation
Two instruments were developed and used in this study. The first, o r the content
validation form of the TSI, is discussed in greater detail elsewhere (Fimian, in press). For
the content validation, each of 63 items was associated with a four-point Likert-type scale
(1 =not relevant; 2 =somewhat relevant; 3 =quite relevant; 4 =very relevant) that would
allow the sample A experts and practitioners to determine the degree to which each item
was related to their individual concepts of teacher stress. In addition, eight ‘ personal and
professional information ’ items were included in this format.
Previously, and based on a review of a number of then available burnout measures,
the instrument to be used in the factorial validation was developed. Following earlier
burnout work conducted by Maslach & Jackson (1981), two Likert-type measures for 63
items were adopted: one each for strength and frequency. Then, based on prior work, 33
of the 63 items were deleted from the pilot form of the TSI. Twelve additional items were
added to the original form, for a total of 42 items in the long form (Fimian, in press).
Additionally, six blank spaces were included so that individual respondents could add
and rate their own particular sources and manifestations of stress, for a total of 48 items.
This 48-item form was then distributed to the Vermont teachers in samples B, C and D
during the 1980-81 public school year. The items included on this version of the TSI were
the same items rated by sample A. In addition, eight ‘personal information’ and 13
‘ professional information ’ items were included.
Thus, two Likert-type measures per item for 42 items were adopted for the long form
TSI: one each for strength and frequency. The stress strength scale ranges from 1 (‘ no
strength; not noticeable ’) to 5 (‘ major strength; extremely noticeable ’). This subjective
measure allows the teacher to rate the degree of perceived impact individual items have
280 MICHAEL J. FIMIAN

upon their overall stress levels. Based on this scale, items rated 3 , 4 or 5 would prove to be
the most significant contributors to an individual’s overall stress level. Respondents do
not signify the presence or absence of on-the-job stress, therefore, but indicate the degree
of stress strength each experiences. Similarly, and for each of the 42 items, a seven-point
Likert-type scale was developed to assess the frequency with which the stressful events are
experienced in the work place. This objective frequency scale ranges from 1 (‘ never ’) to 7
(‘ every day ’). High ratings on this scale, therefore, would indicate that the stressful event
is experienced by the teacher relatively often.

Design and procedures

The design selected and used with samples A through D, and therefore E, is a ‘ one
shot’ survey design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Huck et al., 1974). Each teacher,
researcher, or practitioner was voluntarily surveyed once between the summers of 1980
and 1981, including the 1980-8 1 public school year, using paper-and-pencil procedures.
One introductory letter, survey, and pre-stamped, pre-addressed return envelope was
distributed to each potential respondent.

Statistical analyses
For sample A, two different analyses were conducted. First, mean scores for the
relevancy of each item to teacher stress were computed. Later, once valid and reliable
factors were derived from the other samples’ data, the sample A item relevancy mean
scores were re-examined on a post hoc basis, summed by subscale, and divided by the
number of items retained per subscale. In this fashion, a relevancy mean score for each
resulting subscale could also be determined. Collectively, this score would indicate the
degree to which the subscales are related to the content raters’ general concepts of teacher
stress. Additionally, the four-point scale was recoded into ‘ disagree ’ (1 = n o t relevant;
2 = somewhat relevant) and ‘ agree ’ (3 =quite relevant; 4 = very relevant) categories. In
this manner, the relative percentage of the number of respondents who agreed that the
items were related to stress could be compared to the percentage of those who disagreed.
In this final analysis, items upon which a 60 per cent majority of respondents agreed were
retained.
For each of samples B, C and D, and the combined sample E, preliminary follow-up
principal components factor analyses were conducted and followed by oblique and
varimax rotations, first using the strength data, then using the frequency data (Child,
1970; Nie et al., 1975). Then, the internal consistency reliability estimates for the TSI
subscales and scales were examined using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Nunnally, 1978),
first based on the strength data, then on the frequency data, provided by each of the three
individual and one collective samples. Once valid and reliable TSI subscales and scores
were identified, the relationships among those were investigated using Pearson product
moment correlational analyses.

Content validity. For most instruments, validity depends primarily, but not solely, upon the
adequacy with which a specified domain of content is sampled. Nunnally (1978) noted
that, rather than testing the validity of measures after they are constructed, one should
ensure validity by the plan and procedures of instrument construction. This entails the
use of two major content validity standards: ( a ) collecting a representative sample of
items and (b) using sensible methods of test construction. To this extent the item stems
used in this and the previous work were gathered based on an exhaustive review of the
quantitative, qualitative, and general teacher stress literature conducted and written prior
to the summer of 1980. The list of 135 item stems was first reduced to 63 via editing and
preliminary content validity analyses, and then reduced to 30 via content and factorial
validity and internal consistency reliability analyses (Fimian, in press). T o this shortened
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 28 1

list, 12 conceptually similar items were added, to develop the 42-item TSI that was later
distributed to samples B, C and D. Each of the 42 items was rated by sample A in terms
of the degree to which each was relevant to teacher stress. First, means were derived from
the four-point relevancy scale. A mid-range criterion of 2.5 was selected for initial item
inclusion in, or deletion from, the balance of the analyses. Since one item (‘ exercise more
often ’) did not meet or exceed the 2.5 cut-off, it was omitted from the balance of the
analyses. The remaining 41 items which fell within the 2.5 (‘ moderately relevant ’), 3.0
(‘ quite relevant ’), and 4 (‘ very relevant ’) range were retained and used in subsequent
analyses. Later, and upon completion of sample B’s, C’s and D’s factorial validity and
internal consistency reliability analyses, the item relevance mean scores were re-examined.

Factorial validity. The factorial validity of the revised TSI was examined using the 41 items
retained after initial examination of the content validity data provided by sample A.
Therefore, the item scores for only those 41 items were used in the balance of the analyses,
first for sample B, then for C, D and E. Preliminary principal components analyses were
conducted followed by oblique and varimax rotations, first using the strength data, then
using the frequency data. Based on the 41 x41 item intercorrelation matrix and the
principal components analyses conducted for each of samples B, C, D and E, eight factors
for the frequency dimension emerged which accounted for 59.9 per cent (sample E) to 68.3
per cent (sample C) of the frequency variance, and eight factors for the strength dimension
emerged which accounted for 62.1 per cent (sample E) to 68.0 per cent (sample C) of the
strength variance. Samples’ B and D frequency and strength variance percentages fell
mid-range between those of samples E and C.
The initial inspection of each sample’s factor patterns and component loadings
indicated some slight cross-samples variability in terms of item inclusion in factors. An
inspection of each sample’s factor intercorrelation matrix, however, indicated low-
moderate correlations among a number of the strength factors, and among a number of
the frequency factors. It was apparent that these could be combined to: ( a )form a smaller
number of conceptually meaningful subscales; (b)improve the interpretability and use of
the subscales; and ( c ) improve those subscales’ internal consistency reliability estimates.
In most respects, these factors were similar or identical to six stress factors that were
previously found (Fimian, in press). In view of these considerations, a second follow-up
analysis was conducted forcing an oblique six-factor solution, first for the frequency and
then for the strength dimensions, for each of the three individual and one collective
teacher samples.
Then, two selection criteria were applied to the 41 items. Items were retained that:
( a ) had factor loadings of 0.30 or above, on both the strength and frequency dimensions,
for at least two of the three individual samples B, C and D; and ( b ) had factor loadings of
0.30 or above, on both the strength and frequency dimensions, for the collective sample E.
Thus, frequency and strength item pairs were deleted whose loadings did not equal or
exceed 0.30 for both the individual (i.e. B, C and D) and collective (i.e. E) samples. Based
on these three criteria, three items were deleted (i.e. ‘ students not progressing as rapidly as
they could ’, ‘ procrastinating ’, ‘ heart racing or pounding ’). Thus, the overall number of
items was reduced from 41 to 38 for each sample.

Internal consistency reliability. The alpha reliability estimates for the TSI were then
examined. One reliability estimate was generated for each of six strength and six frequency
subscales, for each of the four samples. Also, one estimate was generated for the total
group of retained frequency items, the total group of retained strength items, and the total
group of retained strength and frequency items, for each of the samples. Items were
retained which did not reduce the internal consistency reliability of the particular subscale
in which they were nested, for two or more of the samples. Based on this criterion, none of
282 M I C H A E L J. F I M I A N

the remaining 38 items was deleted. An exploratory alpha range of 0.70 to 0.90 for the TSI
subscales, and 0.85 to 0.95 for the TSI scales, was targeted.
Final acceptance or deletion of the TSI items, therefore, was based on a combination
of findings of each of the analyses, individually for samples B, C and D, and collectively
for sample E. Items were retained that were: (a) valid in terms of item and subscale content
validity, and (b)valid in terms of the subscale and scale factorial validity, and (c) reliable in
terms of subscale and scale internal consistency reliability. Based on these three criteria,
item numbers were reduced from 42 to 41 via the content validation, reduced from 41 to
38 via the factorial validation, and maintained at 38 via the internal consistency reliability
analyses.

RESULTS
Item means and standard deviations
Based on the aforementioned analyses, 38 of the original TSI items were retained.
Inspection of the special education teachers (samples B and C), the regular education
teachers (sample D), and the combined sample (sample E), indicated a range of strength
item means from 1.3 to 3.9, and a range of frequency item means from 1.4 to 4.8. Overall,
extremely large or small means and standard deviations were not associated with
responses on either the strength or frequency scales.

Factorial validity
Table 1 contains the 38 retained and abbreviated item stems with their component
loadings derived from the oblique rotations for both strength and frequency measures, for
each of the six frequency and six strength factors, reported by samples B, C, D and E.
Employing a root criterion of unity for each of the four samples, the six-component
solution derived from the strength item scores accounted for at least 54 per cent of
the total strength variance associated with the item interrelationships, while the six-
component solution derived from the frequency measures accounted for at least 50 per
cent of the total frequency variance. A total of 12 factors (six identical factors for each of
the strength and frequency dimensions) resulted based on the two ratings for each of the
38 retained items.
It was evident from Table 1 that: (a)similar or identical underlying factors that could
‘ explain ’ the construct of teacher stress existed for each of the three teacher groups;
(b) little variability existed among samples for the three stress source factor patterns (e.g.
Personal/Professional Stressors; Professional Distress; and Discipline and Motivation),
while some variability was evident with respect to the three stress manifestation factor
patterns (e.g. Emotional, Biobehavioural and Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations); (c)
three items that did not meet the aforementioned inclusion criteria were deleted from the
stress manifestations factors, yielding consistent factor patterns between and among
samples; and ( d ) little if any difference was noted in terms of factor patterns among the
regular and special education teacher samples, or between the individual and collective
samples.
Since two separate dimensions (e.g. strength and frequency) are under investigation
in this study, one total score for each dimension was developed using the item score data
provided by samples B, C and D. Also, since each dimension is collectively defined in
terms of six factors, those items loading at or beyond 0.30 on each factor were used to
develop six conceptually similar subscales. Subscale scores were derived by summing the
item scores for the stems nested within the subscale, and dividing this by the number of
items in that subscale. Strength ratings were used to generate each subscale’s strength
scores; frequency ratings were used to compute each subscale’s frequency scores. In this
fashion, each subscale’s score falls either within the 1-5 point strength range, or within the
 O C C U P A T I O N A L STRESS 283

1-7 point frequency range. Thus, the relative strength or frequency of each collective body
of stressful events, or subscale, can be easily interpreted. Insofar as the overall stress
experienced by teachers is operationally defined as the relative strength or frequency with
which all 38 events occur or are experienced, the six strength subscale scores were summed
for a total strength score (possible range = 6 [I] to 6 [5], or 6 to 30), while the six frequency
subscale scores were summed for a total frequency score (possible range = 6 [ 11 to 6 [7]
or 6 to 42). Overall, extremely large or small means and standard deviations were not
associated with subscale scores on either the strength or frequency scales.
It is also possible to interpret occupational stress not only in terms of the strength or
frequency with which stressful events are experienced, but in terms of a strengthx
frequency interaction. Those events rated as frequently occurring and as being very weak,
or those strongly but rarely occurring, may have little impact on teachers’ perceptions of
stress. Those moderate to strong events which occur fairly to very regularly, however,
are those that appear to affect teachers the most. Accordingly, a total composite
(e.g. strength x frequency) score is derived by multiplying each subscale’s strength rating
by its corresponding frequency rating, and then adding each of the six measures. The
resulting 1-210 point range can be used to interpret the interaction between the frequency
and strength dimensions. Overall, extremely large or small means and standard deviations
were not associated with the total composite score.
The percentage of explained variance per factor was calculated by summing each of
the squares of the correlation coefficients listed on sample E’s varimax factor correlation
matrix, and dividing this sum by the number of entries. To facilitate the hand calculation
of these entries, only the factor correlations reported by the combined sample were
analysed. Strength ratings were used to calculate the explained strength variance and
frequency ratings were used to calculate the explained frequency variance.
Subscale I* (9.0 per cent of the total frequency variance; 8.0 per cent of the total
strength variance) was called PersonallProfessional Stressors. The item content defining
this subscale suggests that teachers scoring highly on this factor feel that they lack
preparation time, that their personal priorities are being shortchanged, that there is too
much work to do and that their caseload is too big, that there is too much paperwork
associated with their roles, and that the pace of the school day is too fast.
Subscale I1 (10.3 per cent of the total frequency variance; 9.8 per cent of the total
strength variance) was labelled Professional Distress, as it reflects the degree of distress the
respondent has experienced for certain aspects of his or her job. Teachers scoring highly
on this dimension frequently and strongly feel that they lack promotion opportunities,
on-the-job progress, professional status, respect and recognition, control over
school-related matters, on-the-job emotional stimulation, and professional improvement
opportunities. Additionally, they often and strongly feel that they are inadequately paid
and that their attitudes and opinions are of little concern in the work place.
Subscale 111 (9.5 per cent of total frequency variance; 9.4 per cent of the total
strength variance) was called Discipline and Morivation insofar as the items in this category
reflect the extent to which the respondent perceives having continually to monitor pupil
behaviour, discipline problems in the classroom, having to teach poorly motivated
students or students who would do better if they applied themselves more to their studies,
a lack of adequate discipline policies, and having one’s authority rejected by either
students or other staff, as being both frequent and strong sources of stress.
Subscale IV (8.8 per cent of the total frequency variance; 8.3 per cent of the total
strength variance) was termed Emotional Manifestations. Respondents scoring highly on
this factor frequently and strongly feel anxious, insecure, depressed, unable to cope, and
vulnerable.
*Subscales are reported in the order of their inclusion in the final version of the short form TSI, and not in
terms of proportion of total variance.
Table 1. Scale numbers, abbreviated item stems and component loadingsfor the six-factor solutionafor two special education, one regular education
and one total samples

Special education Special education Regular education Total

sample 6 sample C sample D sample
(n=371) ( n = 370) (n= 433) ( n = 1174)

Scale no. Item stem Loadings Loadings Loadings Loadings

Str. Freq. Str. Freq. Str. Freq. Str. Freq.

Factor I: Personal/ProfessionaIStressors
2 Lack of preparation time 79eC 45 81 73 74 72 75 74
1 Personal priorities shortchanged 57 30 67 74 69 73 66 65
7 Too much work 55 46 62 75 62 69 63 67
4 Caseload too big 55 51 51 50 46 50 54 60
3 Pace of school day too fast 72 60 38 32 39 61 52 66
5 Too much paperwork 66 67 30 61 36 41 51 60
Factor II: Professional Distress
10 Lack of promotion opportunities 86 84 78 64 65 78 82 84
12 Lack of on-the-job progress 75 63 73 69 58 73 72 76
11 Need for enhanced status and
respect 73 70 59 65 67 66 71 71
9 Lack of recognition 74 71 42 48 66 60 67 66
17 Attitudes and opinions remain
unheard 39 30 35 45 54 52 52 48
13 Lack of adequate salary 40 41 66 65 56 47 48 47
15 Lack of control over school-related
.* .f
matters 35 40 51 36 44 37
6 Lack of on-the-job emotional
stimulation 54 53 66 71 30 30 42 47
14 Lack of professional improvement
*. *.
opportunities 36 40 48 37 35 37
Factor 111: Discipline and Motivation
19 Having to continually monitor
behaviour 77 78 62 74 76 78 80 80
22 Discipline problems in the classroom 81 76 65 69 84 83 79 81
21 Teaching poorly motivated students 69 77 72 65 59 78 71 74
24 Teaching students who would do
better if they would try harder 76 69 76 71 63 77 70 76
20 Lack of adequate discipline policies 58 64 30 64 57 48 68 59
23 Authority rejected by students or staff 68 58 42 68 66 68 61 66
Factor IV: Emotional Manifestations
27 Feeling insecure 53 75 48 65 68 71 70 64
29 Feeling unable to cope 30 66 56 76 68 53 65 52
30 Feeling vulnerable 46 56 42 59 73 51 64 54
28 Feeling depressed 40 52 71 46 56 33 63 55
26 Feeling anxious 49 60 39 33 51 36 53 49
Factor V: Biobehavioural Manifestations
32 Calling in sick 32 79 71 61 78 46 83 42
34 Using prescription drugs 58 78 80 74 76 36 82 62
33 Using over-the-counter drugs 41 72 86 87 78 36 80 45
45 Rapid breath 82 62 35 62 38 79 62 79
f. **
35 Using alcohol 58 52 53 60 60 30
44 Increased blood pressure 73 45 45 60 33 62 51 69
Factor VI: Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations
42 Stomach pain of extended duration 86 68 73 49 90 81 91 85
41 Stomach cramps 81 69 67 57 86 78 89 82
47 Physically exhausted 45 70 **
62 43 76 78 40
46 Physical weakness 32 54 56 70 47 33 67 36
48 Rapidly physically fatigued 53 78 49 36 39 34 56 50
++
40 Stomach acid 81 68 35 34 74 35 79

'Factors have been ordered in terms of final placement on the revised TSI Scale (long form), and not in terms of explained variance.
bDecimals have been omitted-loadings of 0.30or above are reported. The '* signature indicates loadings that did not exceed the 0.30criterion.
'Component loadings ordered highest to lowest within factors based on the strength dimension loadings of combined sample E.
286 MICHAEL J . FIMIAN

Subscale V (6.5 per cent of the total frequency variance; 9.5 per cent of the total
strength variance) was called Biobehagoural Manifestations. Respondents scoring highly
on this subscale not only experience strong and frequent cardiovascular problems (e.g.
rapid breath and feelings of increased blood pressure), but respond to these particular
problems in one or more inappropriate ways (e.g. calling in sick, or using prescription,
over-the-counter, or alcoholic drugs) in order to ameliorate their overall stress levels.
Finally, subscale VI (6.1 per cent of the total frequency variance; 8.7 per cent of the
total strength variance) was labelled Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations. High scorers
on this dimension frequently and strongly feel physically weak and exhausted, become
fatigued rapidly, and frequently and strongly feel the effects of stomach acid, stomach
cramps, and stomach pain of extended duration.

Internal consistency reliability

One key measure of the interrelatedness or ‘ cohesion ’ among items nested in any
subscale or scale is to estimate that subscale’s or scale’s internal consistency or alpha
reliability. Table 2 contains the names, number of items, and alpha reliability estimates for
each derived TSI subscale and scale, for each of the three individual and one combined
teacher samples. Subscale reliability estimates ranged from 0.62 to 0.84 for sample B, 0.65
to 0.86 for sample C, 0.53 to 0.87 for a sample D, and 0.60 to 0.85 for the combined sample
E. Total scale alphas ranged from 0.92 to 0.95 for sample B, 0.90 to 0.94 for sample C, 0.91
to 0.95 for sample D, and 0.91 to 0.95 for the combined sample E.
Based on these data, the pre-established target range of 0.70 to 0.90 for all TSI
subscales was not reached in every instance: three of the 36 subscale reliabilities for
samples B, C and D fell within the 0.50 to 0.69 range; nine of the remaining 34 estimates
fell within the 0.70 to 0.79 range, while the remaining 24 estimates exceeded 0.80. For the
combined sample E, almost 70 per cent of the estimates fell within the 0.80 to 0.89 range,
while four proved lower than this. It is evident that each sample responded to the TSI in a
consistently reliable fashion, with the estimates for none of the three teacher samples
(i.e. B, C and D) proving larger than those reported by the others.
Whole scale alpha reliabilities for each of the samples proved consistently large across
each of the samples. All 12 estimates fell within the pre-established target range of 0.85 to
0.95 by exceeding 0.90. Sample C proved somewhat less reliable than did samples B and
D. For the most part, the frequency and strength alpha estimates were very similar or
identical. Each reliability estimate equalled or exceeded 0.90, indicating a high degree of
overall internal consistency for each of the samples across both strength and frequency
dimensions.
Thus, each of the 38 frequency and 38 strength items was retained, and all
reliabilities were judged adequate for present subscale inclusion in the TSI. For future
use of the Inventory, though, it is clear that additional work will need to be conducted
involving the Biobehavioural subscale, particularly with respect to the frequency dimen-
sion. Since these estimates only approximated the a priori target range, the Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula should be used to determine the minimum number of items that
would need to be added to each subscale in order to raise each alpha estimate to an
acceptable level of at least 0.80.

Content validity
Prior to the use of the factor analyses, one item was deleted from subsequent analyses
that did not receive a minimum mean relevancy rating of 2.5, based on sample A’s data.
The 41 remaining items were then subjected to sample B’s, C’s, D’s and E’s factor and
reliability analyses. The 38 items that were retained after this round of analyses were then
again inspected in terms of content validity, using sample A’s relevancy data. To this
extent, the content analysis was conducted concurrently with the factorial validity and
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 287

Table 2 . Subscale names, number of items and alpha reliabilities for two special education,
one regular education and one total samples

Alpha reliability estimates

Special Special Regular

education education education Total
No. of sample B sample C sample D sample E
Su bscales items (n=371) (n=370) (n=433) (n=1174)

Sources of stress
I. Personal/ProfessionaI Stressors
Strength 6 76a 75a 74a 75a
Frequency 6 81 77 74 77
11. Professional Distress
Strength 9 83 85 87 85
Frequency 9 84 86 86 85
111. Discipline and Motivation
Strength 6 83 81 84 83
Frequency 6 84 84 85 84

Manifestations of stress
IV. Emotional Manifestations
Strength 5 83 81 86 84
Frequency 5 82 82 83 83
V. Biobehavioural Manifestations
Strength 6 83 76 82 81
Frequency 6 62 65 53 60
VI. Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations
Strength 6 84 79 82 82
Frequency 6 80 79 75 78

Total scores
Total strength score 38' 92 90 93 92
Total frequency score 38' 92 90 91 91
Total composite score 76d 95 94 95 95

aDecimals have been omitted.

'This number includes one strength score per variable, for 38 variables.
'This number includes one frequency score per variable, for 38 variables.
dThis number includes one frequency score and one strength score per variable, for 38 variables, for a
total of 76 variables.

alpha reliability analyses. First, based on the sample A data for the 38 retained items, the
lowest and highest item means within subscales were identified. Then, all relevancy means
within subscales were summed and divided by the number of entries per subscale, in order
to derive a collective index of relevancy per subscale. These means, noted in Table 3,
indicate a moderate to strong relationship of each retained TSI item to the experts'
concepts of teacher stress. Collectively, each subscale's items were also considered to be
' moderately to quite relevant ' to teacher stress. Overall, the raters determined that the 30
items were collectively quite relevant (x=
3.1) to teacher stress.
The relative percentage of raters who disagreed (1 =not relevant; 2 =somewhat
relevant) to those who agreed ( 3 =quite relevant; 4 =very relevant) was then investigated.
Item-stress agreement percentages ranged from 69.8 to 82.2 per cent. The largest per-
centages of item-stress agreement were reported for the Emotional Manifestations (82.2
per cent) and Personal/Professional Stressors (75.5 per cent) subscales; the smallest
288 MICHAEL J . FIMIAN

Table 3. Expert appraisal of content. Relevancy means and agreementldisagreernent

percentages per subcale and for total scale (n = 92)

Relevancy meansa Percentagebof:

Subscale No. of Lowest Highest Subscale Agree- Disagree-

items iternX iternX X ments ments

Sources of stress
Personal/ Professional Stressors 6 2.8 3.3 3.1 75.5 24.5
Professional Distress 9 2.6 3.3 3.0 71.2 28.8
Discipline and Motivation 6 2.6 3.1 2.9 69.8 30.2
Manifestations of stress
Emotional Manifestations 5 3.0 3.5 3.3 82.2 17.8
Biobehavioural Manifestations 6 2.8 3.2 3.0 73.7 26.3
Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations 6 2.8 3.4 3.0 73.5 26.5

aRelevancy means have been adjusted for missing cases, then rounded to the nearest tenth. Means are
based on the following rating scale: 1 =not relevant; 2=sornewhat relevant; 3=quite relevant;
4 =very relevant.
bPercentages have been adjusted for missing cases, then rounded to the nearest tenth.

percentages of item-stress agreement were those reported for the Professional Distress
(71.2 per cent) and Discipline and Motivation (69.8 per cent) subscales. These percentages
indicate that seven to eight out of 10 raters felt that the items were quite or very relevant
to teacher stress. It was apparent that there was more agreement about items that are
included in the stress manifestation factors (73.5-82.2 per cent for the item-stress
agreements) than there was for those items included in the stress source factors (69.8-75.5
per cent for the item-stress agreements). Overall, three in four raters strongly agreed with
the relevancy of any given stress item. Since these exceeded the predetermined criteria for
agreement percentages, all 38 items and six subscales were retained for inclusion in the
TSI.

Scalelsubscale intercorrelations
Table 4 presents the correlations among the derived subscale and total scale scores
for both the frequency and strength dimensions. These data indicate that moderate to
high moderate positive correlations exist between the frequency subscale and total
frequency scores (r range = 0.5U.76). The frequency subscale intercorrelations ranged
from 0.23 to 0.52, with seven of 15 indices exceeding 0.40. The majority of the inter-
correlations, therefore, fell within the low moderate to moderate positive range. The least
related of the frequency subscales were Biobehavioural Manifestations with Personal/
Professional Stressors (r = 0.23); the most related were the Emotional Manifestations
and Physiological-Fatigue subscales (r = 0.52). In reviewing relationships between the
frequency subscales and total composite scores, it was evident that Biobehavioural Mani-
festations was the subscale least related to the composite score ( r = 0.49) while Emotional
Manifestations was the most (r = 0.72). All correlations were significant at or beyond the
0.001 level of probability.
Table 4 also presents the intercorrelation among the strength subscales, total strength
score, and total composite score. These data indicate that, in each case, high moderate
correlations exist between the strength subscale and total strength scores (r range =
0.64-0.75). Overall, the subscale intercorrelations proved somewhat higher or lower for
the strength dimension than they did for their frequency analogues. Nine low moderate
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 289

Table 4. Intercorrelations among the derived subscales

Frequency subscales
Total
Frequency subscales I II Ill IV V VI compositescore

I. Personal/ProfessionaI Stressors 66
I I . Professional Distress 48arb 71
Ill. Discipline and Motivation 28 43 66
IV. Emotional Manifestations 40 40 39 72
V. Biobehavioural Manifestations 23 29 25 43 49
VI. Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations 33 35 29 52 48 63
Total frequency score 68 74 69 76 56 68 95

Strength subscales
Total
Strength subscales I II Ill IV V VI compositescore

I. Personal/ProfessionaI Stressors 67
II. Professional Distress 48 68
111. Discipline and Motivation 31 48 65
IV. Emotional Manifestations 41 34 39 65
V. Biobehavioural Manifestations 28 30 26 43 42
VI. Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations 36 31 30 54 58 58
Total strength score 68 71 68 75 64 72 89

'Decimals have been omitted.

bAll correlations are significant at or beyond the 0.001 level.

and six moderate positive correlations were evident among the strength subscale inter-
relationships. Biobehavioural Manifestations was the least related to the total strength
score ( r = 0.64), while Emotional Manifestations ( r = 0.75) and Physiological-Fatigue
Manifestations ( r = 0.72) were the most related. In reviewing relationships between
the strength subscales and total composite scores, it was evident that Biobehavioural
Manifestations was the least related to the total composite score ( r = 0.42) while
Professional Distress was the most ( r =0.68).
Finally, the total strength and total frequency scores were highly related to the total
composite score: Pearson rs were 0.89 and 0.95, respectively. All correlations reported in
Table 4 were significant at or beyond the 0,001 level of probability.
Table 5 contains the intercorrelations for the strength and frequency subscale and
total score measures. When the frequency and strength subscale scales were correlated,
one moderate, two high moderate, and three high positive indices resulted ( r range =
0.55-0.85). The least related subscale in terms of the two dimensions was the Bio-
behavioural Manifestations ( r = 0.55); the strongest relationship between dimensions was
noted for the Professional Distress ( r = 0.84) and Discipline and Motivation ( r = 0.85)
subscales. Additionally, with a correlation of 0.79 between the total strength and total
frequency scores, the shared variation between the strength and frequency dimensions was
62 per cent. Other strength/frequency wbscale correlations ranged from 0.1 2 (the fre-
quency of Discipline and Motivation with the strength of Biobehavioural Manifestations)
to 0.45 (the frequency strength of Emotional Manifestations with the strength/frequency
of Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations). While some of these indices fell in the low range
(particularly with respect to the Biobehavioural Manifestations strength subscale), the
290 MICHAEL J. FIMIAN

Table 5. Strength and frequency subscalelscale score correlations

Frequency subscales
Total
Strength subscales I II Ill IV V VI frequencyscore

I. Personal/ Professional Stressors 82a. b.c 44 25 36 25 32 60

II. Professional Distress 37 84 38 32 24 28 61
111. Discipline and Motivation 20 37 85 33 22 26 58
IV. Emotional Manifestations 31 28 29 76 36 45 59
V. Biobehavioural Manifestations 17 23 12 28 55 29 35
VI. Physiological-Fatigue Manifestations 28 27 21 45 37 76 54
Total strength score 52 59 53 61 46 56 7gd

aDecimals have been omitted.

bAll correlations are significant at or beyong the 0,001 level, based on the total sample.
‘Italicized items indicate the relationship between the strength and frequency dimensions on a per
subscale basis.
dlndicates the relationship between the overall strength and frequency measures for the stress
dimensions.

majority of these feil in the low moderate to moderate range. The total frequency score
was moderately correlated with the strength subscales ( r range = 0.354.61) as was the
total strength score with the frequency subscales (0.4U.61).

DISCUSSION

The development and validation of an instrument that measures the frequency and
strength of occupational stress in teachers was described. Based on previous work, a
30-item short form of the TSI was developed, to which 12 conceptually similar items were
added. Concurrently, a 63-item instrument, with each item rated on a four-point relevancy
scale, was rated by sample A, or 92 stress workshop presenters, stress researchers and
stress article and book authors. Relevancy means for each item were developed, and then
used to delete one item that was rated less than moderately relevant to teacher stress. The
remaining 41 items were then used in subsequent factor analyses of sample B’s, C’s, D’s
and E’s data. Factor analyses with varimax and oblique rotations conducted on these data
resulted in six strength and six frequency subscales of job-related stress, for a total of
12 subscales across two dimensions: stress strength and frequency. Each was found to
be meaningful and reliable in terms of subscale internal consistency reliability. Then,
based on sample A’s content validity data, subscale relevancy means and percentages of
agreement and disagreement were used to determine the relevancy of each item to the
raters’ general concepts of teacher stress. These indices indicated that each TSI item was
at least moderately related to stress, each TSI subscale was at least quite relevant to stress,
and that over seven of every 10 raters agreed that the items were relevant to very relevant.
It was suggested that the stress strength item ratings could be computed for a total
strength score, that stress frequency item ratings could be computed for a total frequency
score, and that a total composite score could be computed from an interaction of the
strength and frequency subscales. Because of the strong relationship between the fre-
quency and the strength dimensions, serious consideration should be given to whether the
two-dimension format is necessary when using the TSI. For example, administration time
could be reduced 50 per cent by asking teachers to respond to the TSI in terms of either
the frequency or strength with which they experience stressful events. Based on this and
 O C C U P A T I O N A L STRESS 29 1

other preliminary work, the scale is currently being piloted on a number of other special
education and mainstream teacher samples (McHardy, 1982; Zacherman, 1983).
In reviewing this and previous work, it was evident that a number of underlying
factors exist that, collectively, could ' explain ' teacher stress, and d o so not only for
special education teachers but for regular teachers. Though some variability across
samples was evident with respect to the Biobehavioural and Physiological-Fatigue
Manifestations subscales, the rest of the subscales were clearly interpretable. Thus, the
need remains to improve upon the item content of these manifestations subscales. Doing
so will not only ease interpretation, but should improve subscale alpha reliabilities as well.
Improving the item content may also result in an increase in the proportion of
explained variance for the strength and frequency dimensions. In previous work, 60-62
per cent of the stress strength and frequency constructs was explained; in this work,
minimally 50-54 per cent was. Though very similar results have been found in the burnout
research (Iwanicki & Schwab, 1981), this nonetheless can be improved upon. One means
of doing so, which is currently being researched, is to include one or more additional,
yet different, factors to those presently included in the TSI-Time Management, for
example. Doing so may not only maximize the proportion of explained variation, but also
improve subscale and scale reliability, and more clearly define the psychometric definition
of the ' teacher stress ' construct.
Finally, though it is now clear that very similar factors underlie the construct of
teacher stress and d o so with samples from different states, much work still needs to be
done with the TSI before these findings can be generalized to other groups of teachers
from other states, geographical locations, or cultures. The development of the TSI was
based on the need for an instrument to assess stress levels in teachers. Given the increasing
instability of teacher job security, growing caseload and classroom sizes, increased
accountability, and limitations in the availability of instructional resources, schools will
be faced with a set of problems that have not heretofore been encountered. Among these
may be any number of stress-related problems. By anticipating, identifying, and isolating
these, and then implementing appropriate stress management strategies at an early stage,
such problems can be countered, managed, and alleviated. In addition to these practical
benefits, the inclusion of the TSI in future research studies will allow investigators to
achieve a better understanding of work-related teacher stress and the variables that
promote and/or mediate the occurrence of stress in the classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This investigator extends his appreciation to: Jacqueline Dunaway, then-Director of
the Bureau of Research and Evaluation, of the Vermont State Department of Education,
Montpelier, Vermont, for her assistance in the identification of teacher samples and the
collection of TSI data; and to Jeanie Fimian and Libby Winkler of Appalachian State
University, for their assistance in data analysis and manuscript preparation. This research
was supported by: The University of Connecticut Research Foundation, Storrs,
Connecticut, through the Office of the Vice President for Graduate Education and
Research, under grant award no. 5171-000-22-0401-35-8 17; and the Bureau of
Education of the Handicapped, under grant award no. GO08 100046.

REFERENCES
ANDERSON, M. B. (1980). A study of differences among perceived need deficiencies, perceived burnout, and
select background variables for classroom teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
292 MICHAEL J . FIMIAN

BLOCH, A. M. (1978). Combat neurosis in inner-city schools. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135 (lo),
1189-1 192.
CAMPBELL, D. T. & STANLEY, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
CHILD,D. (1970). The Essentials of Factor Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
CICHON, D. J. & KOFF,R. H. (1980). Stress and teaching. NASSP Bulletin, 64 (434), 91-104.
COATES, T. J. & THORESON, C. E. (1976). Teacher anxiety: A review with recommendations. Review of
Educational Research, 46 (2), 159-184.
FIMIAN, M. J. (1980). Stress reduction techniques for teachers. The Pointer, 1 (2), 64-70.
FIMIAN, M. J. (1982~).What is teacher stress? The Clearing House, 56 (3), 101-105.
FIMIAN, M. J. (1982b). An analysis of the relationship among background personal/professional variables
and perceived stress levels of mainstream and special education teachers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Department of Special Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
FIMIAN, M. J. (1983). A comparison of occupational stress correlates as reported by teachers of mentally
retarded and non-mentally retarded handicapped students. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 18 (I), 52-68.
FIMIAN, M. J. (in press). Organizational variables related to stress and burnout in community-based
programs. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded.
FIMIAN, M. J. (in press). The development of an instrument to measure occupational stress in teachers of
exceptional students. Techniques: Journal for Counseling and Remedial Education.
FIMIAN, M. J. & SANTORO, T. M. (1983). Sources and manifestations of occupational stress as reported by
full-time special education teachers. Exceptional Children, 49 (6), 540-543.
GALLERY, M. E., EISENBACH, J. J. & HOLMAN, J. (1981). Burnout: A critical appraisal of proposed inter-
vention strategies. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Special Education, Western Michigan
University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
GREER, J. G. & WETHERED, C. E. (1984). Learned helplessness: A piece of the burnout puzzle. Exceptional
Children, 50 (6), 524530.
HUCK,S. W., CORMIER, W. H. & BOUNDS, H. G. (1974). Reading Sfatistics and Research. New York: Harper
& Row.
IWANICKI, E. F. & SCHWAB, R. L. (1981). A cross validation study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 41, 1167-1 174.
JOHNSON, A. B., GOLD,V., WILLIAMS, E. & Fiscus, E. D. (1981). Special education teacher burnout: A
three-part investigation. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional
Children, New York, April.
LAWRENCE, G. M. & MCKINNON, A. J. (1980). Attrition, burnout, and job satisfaction of teachers of
the emotionally disabled. Unpublished manuscript, Grant Wood Area Education Agency and the
University of Iowa.
MASLACH, C. & JACKSON, S. E. (1981). The measure of experienced burnout. Journal qf Occupational
Behavior, 2,99- I 13.
MCHARDY, R. J. (1982). Stress among teachers of the gifted, teachers of the handicapped, and regular
classroom teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia
University, NY.
MCINTYRE, T. (1981). An investigation of the relationship among teacher burnout, locus of control, and
select personal/professional factors in special education teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
MEADOW, K. P. (1981). Burnout in professionals working with deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf,
126,13-22.
NIE,N. H., HULL,C. H., JENKINS, J. G., STEINBRENNER, K. & BENT,D. H. (1975). Statistical PackageJor fhe
Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
NUNNALLY, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
PINES,A. M., ARONSON, E. & KAFRY, D. (1981). Burnout: From Tedium to Personal Growth. New York:
Free Press.
PRESLEY, P. H. & MORGAN, H. G. (1981). Teacher burnout in special education-myth or reality?
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Special Education, Southern Illinois State University,
Carbondale, Illinois.
SCHWAB, R. L. (1980). The relationship of role conflict, role ambiguity, teacher background variables and
perceived burnout among teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (9), 3823-A. (University
Microfilms International No. 8106751).
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 293

STYLES, K. & CAVANAGH, G . (1977). Stress in teaching and how to handle it. English Journal, January,
7c79.
Teacher burnout: How to cope when the world goes black. (1979). Instructor, 88, (6). 56-62,
THOMPSON, J. W. (1980). ' Burnout ' in group home house parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137 (6),
7 10-7 14.
WEISKOPF, P. E. (1980). Burnout among teachers of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 47 (I),
18-23.
ZABEL, R. H. & ZABEL,M. K . (1981). Factors involved in burnout among teachers of emotionally disturbed
and other types of exceptional children. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Convention of the Council
for Exceptional Children, New York, April.
ZACHERMAN, J. (1983). Relationship between stress, job involvement, and teaching the handicapped.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Ferhauf School of Humanities, Yeshiva
University, New York.

Received 7 December 1982; revised version received 28 May 1984