See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232428271

Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years

of Experience, and Job Stress

Article  in  Journal of Educational Psychology · August 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0019237

CITATIONS READS
576 26,689

2 authors:

Robert Klassen Ming Ming Chiu

The University of York The Education University of Hong Kong
87 PUBLICATIONS   3,731 CITATIONS    142 PUBLICATIONS   3,546 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teach at first sight: Teach at first sight: Expert teacher gaze across two cultural settings (ESRC UK PhD studentship) View project

Parental Involvement and Home school community collaboration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Klassen on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Educational Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 102, No. 3, 741–756 0022-0663/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019237

Effects on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction:

Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress

Robert M. Klassen Ming Ming Chiu

University of Alberta State University of New York at Buffalo

The authors of this study sought to examine the relationships among teachers’ years of experience,
teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), three domains of self-efficacy (instructional strate-
gies, classroom management, and student engagement), two types of job stress (workload and classroom
stress), and job satisfaction with a sample of 1,430 practicing teachers using factor analysis, item
response modeling, systems of equations, and a structural equation model. Teachers’ years of experience
showed nonlinear relationships with all three self-efficacy factors, increasing from early career to
mid-career and then falling afterwards. Female teachers had greater workload stress, greater classroom
stress from student behaviors, and lower classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers with greater
workload stress had greater classroom management self-efficacy, whereas teachers with greater class-
room stress had lower self-efficacy and lower job satisfaction. Those teaching young children (in
elementary grades and kindergarten) had higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and
student engagement. Lastly, teachers with greater classroom management self-efficacy or greater in-
structional strategies self-efficacy had greater job satisfaction.

Keywords: self-efficacy, teachers, job satisfaction, motivation

An emerging body of research shows that teachers’ self-
efficacy—the beliefs teachers hold about their capability to influ-
ence student learning—is associated with student factors, like
achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, &
Malone, 2006), as well as teacher factors, like job commitment and
job satisfaction (e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca,
2003). In spite of the evident association between teachers’ self-
efficacy and student and teacher outcomes, little is known about
how self-efficacy and job stress are related to teachers’ job satis-
faction or how teachers’ self-efficacy is related to years of expe-
rience. Teachers’ self-efficacy is believed to be most malleable in
the challenging early stage of a teacher’s career and then to
increase and become more firmly established as teachers gain
experience (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007). However, middle and late career stages bring
their own challenges that can influence motivation and job satis-
faction (e.g., Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, & Dikkers, 2008; Spickard,
Gabbe, & Christensen, 2002). In this study, we use advanced
modeling techniques (factor analyses, item response models, sys-
tems of equations, and structural equation models) to extend our
understanding of teachers’ motivation beliefs. First, we hypothe-
Robert M. Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Ming Ming Chiu, Department of
Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of Education, State University
of New York at Buffalo.
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support to Robert M.
Klassen from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert
Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada. E-mail: robert.klassen@ualberta.ca
size a model of the relationships among self-efficacy, overall
perceived job stress, stress from classroom and workload factors,
teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), and job satis-
faction. Second, we examine patterns of self-efficacy beliefs of
1,430 teachers with varying years of experience.
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs about their capabili-
ties to carry out a particular course of action successfully (Ban-
dura, 1997). Extensive research supports the claim that self-
efficacy is an important influence on human achievement in a
variety of settings, including education, health, sports, and busi-
ness (Bandura, 1997). In educational research, the self-efficacy
beliefs of students have been shown to play an important role in
influencing achievement and behavior. Furthermore, researchers
are finding that teachers’ self-efficacy influences their teaching
behaviors and their students’ motivation and achievement (Skaal-
vik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Teachers with low self-efficacy experience greater difficulties in
teaching, higher levels of job-related stress (Betoret, 2006), and
lower levels of job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2009).
Self-efficacy researchers agree that teachers’ self-efficacy
should be operationalized to reflect beliefs about capability and
therefore should be phrased “in terms of can do rather than will do.
Can is a judgment of capability; will is a statement of intention”
(Bandura, 2006, p. 308, italics in original; also see Bong, 2006). In
addition, self-efficacy measures should reflect a particular context
or domain of functioning, rather than global functioning (Bandura,
1997). A global measure of teachers’ self-efficacy might ask,
“How confident are you in your teaching ability?” whereas a
domain-focused measure would inquire about teachers’ confidence
to accomplish particular tasks. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)

741
742 KLASSEN AND CHIU
created a teachers’ self-efficacy measure with item stems of “How
much can you do . . .?” that explored teachers’ beliefs about their
capabilities in three key classroom domains: implementing instruc-
tional strategies, managing student behaviors, and engaging stu-
dents in the learning process. By including items from these three
critical areas, and by situating the three areas in teachers’ class-
rooms, the authors balanced the demands for specificity (i.e.,
self-efficacy assessments that reflect particular tasks) and practical
usefulness (i.e., multifaceted measurement that is not “microscop-
ically operationalized” [Pajares, 1996, p. 562]) in a meaningful
context (i.e., teachers’ classrooms). Although earlier teachers’
self-efficacy measures were marred by faulty conceptualization,
including a focus on ability, not capability, and a focus on external
influences, not internal beliefs (see Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk
Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), more recent measures such as Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale
adhere more closely to the theoretical guidelines proposed by
Bandura (1997, 2006), specifically in the focus on forward-looking
capabilities (e.g., “I can craft good questions for students”) and not
global ability (e.g., “I am a good teacher”).
Although Bandura (1997) hypothesized that self-efficacy beliefs
remain relatively stable once established, researchers have noted
that “little evidence exists about how (teachers’) efficacy beliefs
change or solidify across stages of a career” (Tschannen-Moran et
al., 1998, p. 238). A few studies have been conducted on the
relationship between teaching experience and teachers’ self-
efficacy, yielding varied results. Ross, Cousins, and Gadalla
(1996) found mixed support for the influence of experience on
teachers’ self-efficacy, and Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) found nega-
tive correlations between years of experience and teacher self-
efficacy, with both studies using modest-sized samples (52 and 25,
respectively). Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) conducted a
longitudinal study in which they collected data from teachers at
two points during their teacher-training program and at the end of
their first year of teaching. Results showed a significant rise in
teachers’ self-efficacy during teacher training, followed by a de-
cline at the end of their first teaching year, but once again, the
research was hampered by a modest sample of 29 teachers.
A recent study by Wolters and Daugherty (2007) used a large
online sample of teachers (N ! 1,024) from the United States to
examine the influence of teaching experience on teachers’ self-
efficacy and goal structures. Teachers were divided into four
experience groups: "1 year, 1–5 years, 6 –10 years, and 11# years
of experience. Then, they completed the three-factor Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale as
well as a measure of goal structures. Results showed modest
effects of experience on self-efficacy for instructional strategies
($2 ! .04) and self-efficacy for classroom management ($2 !
.02), but no effect of experience on self-efficacy for student
engagement. Although the researchers have made an important
contribution by linking experience with teachers’ self-efficacy,
their findings paint an incomplete picture, with two potential
limitations. One problem is that the relationship between teachers’
self-efficacy and experience may not be linear. For example,
Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) found that teachers’ self-
efficacy initially rose and then fell over three data collection points
at the beginning of teachers’ careers. Another problem is that
teachers with more than 10 years of experience were treated as a
single group. The authors acknowledged that the “lack of differ-
entiation among the most-experienced teachers may mask changes
in teachers’ self-efficacy that may occur toward the end of their
careers” (p. 189). In fact, most teachers have more than 10 years
of experience: recent statistics show that American teachers have
an average of about 14 years of experience, and 60% of teachers
have 10 or more years of experience (U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, 2009). Thus, additional research on how experience affects
teachers’ self-efficacy across the career span is needed.
The developmental course of occupational self-efficacy is not
uniform from early to late adulthood, and teachers’ self-efficacy
may ebb and flow over the course of a career as it is influenced by
life and career events and challenges. Bandura (1997) suggested
that some workers at mid-to-late career stages may restructure or
scale down overambitious goals due to waning self-efficacy, al-
though this experience is not universal. Workplace environments
influence self-efficacy beliefs, with supervisors’ verbal persuasion
and modeling serving as important spurs to workers’ self-efficacy
development (Bandura, 1997). Kooij et al. (2008) suggested that
age-related physical and psychological factors can influence work
motivation, but workplace factors can mediate how age-related
concerns are interpreted. For teachers, the combination of success-
ful past experience; verbal support from principals, students, peers,
and parents; and opportunities for observation of successful peers
builds self-efficacy for teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
The influence of the sources of self-efficacy, however, may change
over time, with verbal persuasion and contextual factors playing a
more important role for novice teachers than for veteran teachers
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs
in the workplace are not static and reflect a lifelong process of
development that ebb and flow according to personal attributes and
interpretation of environmental circumstances.
Job Satisfaction and Job Stress
Despite reports of high levels of teachers’ job stress (Chaplain,
2008; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), many teachers find personal
satisfaction in their work. Job satisfaction—perceptions of fulfill-
ment derived from day-to-day work activities—is associated with
higher levels of job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Pat-
ton, 2001). Caprara et al. (2003) considered job satisfaction a
“decisive element” (p. 823) influencing teachers’ attitudes and
performance and found self-efficacy to be an important contributor
to teachers’ job satisfaction. Teachers report that job satisfaction is
gained from the nature of day-to-day classroom activities, such as
working with children, seeing students make progress, working
with supportive colleagues, and overall school climate (Cockburn
& Haydn, 2004). Teachers who are dissatisfied with their work
display lower commitment and are at greater risk for leaving the
profession (Evans, 2001; Ingersoll, 2001). Liu and Ramsey (2008)
found that stress from poor work conditions had the strongest
influence on teachers’ job satisfaction and noted that inadequate
time for planning and preparation and a heavy teaching workload
reduced satisfaction from teaching.
Teaching may bring personal satisfaction, but it also brings
stress, with demands from administrators, colleagues, students,
and parents compounded by work overload, student misbehavior,
and a lack of recognition for accomplishments (Greenglass &
Burke, 2003). Teachers with greater teacher stress— defined as the
experience of negative emotions resulting from a teacher’s work
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY
(Kyriacou, 2001)— have lower self-efficacy (Betoret, 2006;
Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), poorer
teacher–pupil rapport, and lower levels of effectiveness (Abel &
Sewell, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). Teachers with high levels of job
stress may gain satisfaction from work, but the level of satisfaction
may be muted by stress from role ambiguity, low autonomy, or
frequency or level of conflict with students and colleagues (Green-
glass & Burke, 2003). Teaching has been listed among the high-
stress professions, with as many as one-quarter of teachers report-
ing that teaching is a very stressful job (Kyriacou, 2001). Whereas
previous studies have conceptualized teachers’ job stress as a
unidimensional construct (e.g. Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), other
studies have shown that workload and student misbehavior (i.e.,
classroom factors) contribute separately to teachers’ overall stress
(Boyle, Borg, Falzon, & Baglioni, 1995). Teachers with high
levels of stress from these two sources show higher negative health
and vocational outcomes, including burnout (emotional exhaus-
tion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment),
absenteeism, and exit from the teaching profession (Betoret, 2006;
Jepson & Forrest, 2006; Kyriacou, 2001).
Teacher Characteristics
Teaching level and teacher gender are related to teachers’ job-
related beliefs. Elementary school teachers report higher levels of
self-efficacy for student engagement than teachers in middle or
high schools (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Liu and Ramsey
(2008) found that women experience less job satisfaction than
men, especially satisfaction from work conditions, and a number
of researchers have noted that female teachers report higher stress
than male teachers (e.g., Antoniou, Polychroni, & Vlachakis,
2006; Chaplain, 2008), possibly due to higher levels of overall
workload (Greenglass & Burke, 2003). Whereas Klassen et al.
(2009) found similar relationships between self-efficacy and job
satisfaction for teachers from five North American and Asian
countries, results from other studies suggest that teachers’ nation-
ality and associated cultural beliefs can influence the relationships
among job stress, job satisfaction, and teachers’ efficacy (Klassen,
Usher, & Bong, in press; Liu & Ramsey, 2008). Models explaining
teacher motivation must account not only for individual beliefs and
motivation but also for teacher characteristics such as teaching
Demographics
School
Range of grade Teacher Experience in School
levels Years of experience
Years in current school
Teacher Range of grade levels taught
Gender
by the teacher in this school
Country of birth
Nationality
Figure 1. Model of hypothetical relationships.
743
level, teaching experience, gender, and demographic factors like
teachers’ cultural or national background.
Current Study
Although researchers have begun to examine teacher motivation
by studying self-efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction, few have
proposed explanatory models that take into account teacher char-
acteristics such as years of experience, teaching level, and gender.
In the current study, we propose and test a model that accounts for
these contextual factors and also includes control variables for
teachers’ ethnic heritage and grades taught within schools (see
Figure 1). Two research questions are addressed. First, how is
teachers’ self-efficacy related to years of experience? We pre-
dicted that teachers’ self-efficacy would increase in early to mid-
career (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) but show declines in the
late career stage, as has been found in previous research conducted
outside educational settings (Kooij et al., 2008). Second, what are
the relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy, job stress (overall
stress and sources of stress), job satisfaction, and contextual fac-
tors (teacher characteristics and school level)? We hypothesized
that teachers’ self-efficacy would be influenced by teachers’ stress
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and that teachers’ job satisfaction
would be influenced by teacher characteristics, teacher stress and
its two sources, and three domains of teachers’ self-efficacy (e.g.,
Caprara et al., 2003; Liu & Ramsey, 2008).
Method
Participants
The participants were part of a convenience sample of 1,430
practicing teachers (69% women, 31% men) from western Canada.
Teachers reported working in elementary schools (20%; usually
Grades K– 6), junior high schools (6%; usually Grades 7–9), high
schools (9%; usually Grades 10 –12), elementary–junior high schools
(13%; usually Grades K–9), and junior high–senior high schools
(12%; usually Grades 7–12), as well as other combinations in a mix
of urban (38%), suburban (11%), rural (28%), and “other” or not
reported (23%) settings. Teachers reported their ethnic heritage as
Anglo–European Canadian (92%), Asian Canadian (2%), First
Teacher
Job
Teacher Self-efficacy Satisfaction
Classroom management
Instructional Strategies
Student Engagement
Teacher Stress
Classroom stress
Workload stress
Overall stress
744 KLASSEN AND CHIU
Nations or Aboriginal Canadians ("1%), African ("1%), or South
American ("1%). Teachers had a mean age of 40.00 years (SD !
10.79) and an average of 13.21 years of teaching experience (SD !
13.97). The age and experience of teachers in this sample are
consistent with provincial government data showing the median
age of teachers at 40 – 44 years and median years of experience of
10 –14 years (Alberta Education, 2009).
Procedure
Participants were attendees at one of several annual, compul-
sory, multidistrict teacher conferences, the total attendance of
which was approximately 8,000 teachers from about 350 schools.
Teachers were approached by one of a team of researchers in an
exhibit hall and asked to complete a brief questionnaire titled What
Motivates Teachers? Approximately 2,000 teachers were ap-
proached, and approximately 75% of the teachers completed the
survey. Participants were asked to read the instructions and par-
ticipate only if they were currently teaching in schools (i.e., not
serving as administrators or counselors). Conference organizers
did not permit researchers to request school identities from partic-
ipants. (See previous studies for details regarding the procedure
and measures [e.g., Klassen et al., 2009]).
Variables
The survey included (a) a front sheet describing the project and
contact information for the lead researcher and the university
ethics board, (b) a demographics section, and (c) four measures: a
12–item teachers’ self-efficacy scale, a two-item job satisfaction
scale, one item measuring overall job stress, and seven items
measuring sources of job stress (see Appendix Table A8 for the
survey items).
Teachers’ self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy (2001) created and validated the Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Scale (TSES). Because it closely aligns with self-efficacy theory,
TSES is “superior to previous measures of teacher efficacy”
(Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005, p. 354). Researchers have
investigated the TSES short- and long-form measures in a variety
of settings and have found adequate reliability and validity for the
whole scales and their three subscales: self-efficacy for classroom
management, instructional strategies, and student engagement. For
example, Klassen et al. (2009) found reliabilities ranged from .71
to .94 for TSES short-form subscales in five countries and signif-
icant relationships between the TSES subscales and job satisfac-
tion in all settings. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) reported Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficients above .80 for the TSES. The TSES long
and short forms are hypothesized to consist of three factors that
measure a teacher’s confidence to manage student behavior in the
classroom (e.g., “How much can you do to control disruptive
behavior in the classroom?”), to use effective instructional strate-
gies (e.g., “How much can you do to craft good questions for
students?”), and to engage all students in learning (e.g., “How
much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in
school work?”). These items show fidelity with self-efficacy the-
ory because they measure teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to
carry out particular tasks (e.g., “provide an alternative explanation
when students are confused”) in a particular context (i.e., the
classroom). Participants in our study responded to the 12-item
TSES short form with a 9-point response scale, anchored by 1
(nothing) and 9 (a great deal).
Job satisfaction and job stress. Job satisfaction was mea-
sured with two items from Caprara et al. (2003) on a 9-point scale.
Items consisted of (a) “I am satisfied with what I achieve at work,”
and (b) “I feel good at work.” The measure showed adequate
reliability and validity in Caparara et al.’s 2003 study and has been
shown to be related to self-efficacy in previous studies (e.g.,
Klassen et al., 2009). Job stress was measured in two ways. First,
following the approach used in recent studies of teacher stress
(e.g., Boyle et al., 1995; Chaplain, 2008; Manthei, Gilmore, Tuck,
& Adair, 1996), we measured overall job stress with a single item
(“I find teaching to be very stressful”). Next, we used six items
from Boyle et al.’s (1995) Teacher Stress Inventory plus an addi-
tional item, class size, suggested from recent teacher stress re-
search (Gates, 2007), to assess two major contributors of teaching
stress—workload stress and classroom stress from student behav-
ior. Boyle et al. found acceptable levels of reliability and validity
in their 1995 study of teachers in the United Kingdom, and Klassen
(in press) found the that workload stress and stress from student
behavior were inversely related to job satisfaction. The job stress
items were presented with the stem, “As a teacher, how great a
source of stress are these factors to you?” with responses ranging
from 1 (no stress) to 9 (extreme stress). Items representing sources
of workload stress included “too much work to do,” “having extra
duties/responsibilities because of absent teachers,” “large class
size,” and “responsibility for student achievement.” Items repre-
senting classroom stress from student behavior included “main-
taining class discipline,” impolite behavior and rudeness,” and
“noisy students.”
Analysis
We tested the internal validity of the questionnaire items for
each teacher characteristic with factor analyses and minimized
their measurement errors with item response models. To account
for heteroskedasticity and contemporaneous correlation in the er-
rors across equations with multiple outcome variables, we modeled
teachers’ self-efficacy with a system of equations. Then, we esti-
mated the association of job satisfaction with teacher self-efficacy
and other variables with an ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-
sion. Lastly, we captured all these relationships simultaneously
with a structural equation model (SEM).
Factor analyses and item response models. We used factor
analysis with varimax rotation to test the internal structure of
participant responses to sets of questions regarding teachers’ self-
efficacy, specifically whether they reflected (a) a single factor, (b)
separate factors, (c) hierarchical factors, (d) nested factors, or (e)
no factors–no valid construct(s) (Chow, Chiu, & Wong, in press;
Gustafsson & Balke, 1993). Using Monte Carlo simulation studies,
Hu and Bentler (1999) showed that a combination of the standard-
ized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and one of the following
indices tends to minimize Type I and Type II errors under many
conditions for both factor analyses and SEMs: Tucker–Lewis
Index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root-mean-square
error of approximation (RMSEA). We used the following thresh-
old values to separate good, moderate, and poor fits for each
measure: for SRMR, between ".08 and ".10 (good fit if less than
.08; moderate fit if between .08 and .10; poor fit if greater than
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY
.10); for RMSEA, between ".06 and ".10; for TLI, between %.96
and %.90; and for IFI, between %.96 and %.90.
For each construct, we reduced measurement error by modeling
each questionnaire item’s characteristics by using item response
(IR) models (Baker & Kim, 2004). Some questionnaire items
capture higher levels of teacher self-efficacy more precisely,
whereas others capture lower levels of teacher self-efficacy more
precisely (item difficulty). Likewise, there is variation in the
precision of each question for distinguishing among teachers with
higher versus lower self-efficacy (discrimination). Each teacher
response ranged from 1 to 9. Hence, we modeled all of these
characteristics with a generalized partial credit response test model
(GPCM-IR, Baker & Kim, 2004).
"
r
ai&')bij(
e j!1
Pi&r!' ( !
""
k
mi)1
ai&')bij(
1#
k!1 e j!1
Pi(r!') is the probability that a teacher with underlying value ' for
a specific characteristic will give a rating r for question i, account-
ing for the discrimination strength (ai) and difficulty (bij) of the
questionnaire item. A simpler partial credit model (PCM-IR) might
fit the data better if discrimination (ai) is identical across items.
Thus, we tested GPCM-IR and PCM-IR models and identified the
best-fitting model with Bayesian expected a posteriori (EAP)
estimation and log-likelihood difference chi-square tests (Bock &
Mislevy, 1982; Kennedy, 2004; Mislevy & Bock, 1990). We
computed each teacher’s self-efficacy using the best model’s EAP
estimation, which is more precise than classical statistics methods
(Baker & Kim, 2004).
We repeated this procedure for teachers’ sources of stress and
job satisfaction. These analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy
indices (classroom management, instructional strategies, and stu-
dent engagement), two sources of stress indices (workload stress
and classroom stress), and one job satisfaction index.
Explanatory model. After computing the index values for
each teacher, we estimated their relationships with systems of
equations, specifically sequential sets of seemingly unrelated re-
gressions (SUR; Kennedy, 2004) to account for heteroskedasticity
and contemporaneous correlation in the errors across equations via
Eviews software (Lilien, Startz, Ellsworth, Noh, & Engle, 1995).
We entered the variables according to time constraints, expected
causal relationships, and likely importance.
Y iy ! * 0y " e iy
*0y are the grand mean intercepts of Yiy, a vector of y outcome
variables (classroom management self-efficacy, instructional strat-
egies self-efficacy, and student engagement self-efficacy) for each
teacher i. The residuals are eiy. First, we entered a vector of x
teacher and school background variables: gender, country of birth,
nationality, years of experience, the squared term of years of
experience, range of grade levels in current school, years in current
school, and range of grade levels taught by the teacher in the
current school (X).
Yiy ! * 0y " e iy " * xyXiy
745
A nested hypothesis test (log likelihood chi-square) indicated
whether each set of explanatory variables was significant
(Kennedy, 2004). Nonsignificant variables were removed.
Then, we entered a vector of z teacher stress variables: class-
room stress, workload stress, and overall teaching stress (Z).
Yiy ! * 0y " e iy " * xyXiy " * zyZiy (4)
Next, all of these explanatory variables were entered into an
OLS regression with teacher job satisfaction as the outcome vari-
able. The teacher self-efficacy variables were added last.
We used the Sobel (1982) test to identify mediation effects by
testing the hypotheses that the explanatory variables’ direct and
total effects on the outcome variable do not differ in the presence
of potential mediators. We found that a 10% increase in each
continuous variable above its mean was linked to the outcome
variable (result ! b ! 10%; for simple dummy variables: result !
(1) b ! 34%, 1 SD + 34%; for contrast-coded dummy variables:
result ! b ! 2 ! 34%). As percentage of increase is not linearly
related to standard deviation, scaling is not warranted.
An alpha level of .05 was used. Testing many hypotheses
increases the likelihood that at least one test will incorrectly reject
a null hypothesis (a false positive result). To control for the false
discovery rate, we used the two-stage linear step-up procedure,
which outperformed 13 other methods in computer simulations
(Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006).
We used an SEM to test these results simultaneously (Jöreskog
& Sörbom, 2004). As the linear and quadratic terms of years of
experience were highly correlated (r % .99), the two variables
were combined into one variable ()0.02133 ! years of experi-
ence2 # years of experience) in the SEM to prevent a near-singular
matrix error. Nonsignificant variables were removed to yield the
final SEM.
Results
Test and Summary Statistics
The factor analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy indices
(classroom management, instructional strategies, and student en-
gagement), two sources of stress indices (classroom stress and
workload stress), and one job satisfaction index. Table 1 presents
means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for the
study variables. Factor analysis results generally confirmed the
expected three-factor pattern of the TSES although one item—
“How much can you do to assist families in helping their children
do well in school?”— did not load as expected with the efficacy for
(2) student engagement factor and was deleted. The content of this
item stands alone in the TSES as a measure of teachers’ efficacy
to influence events outside the classroom and does not appear to
measure the same content as other items in the student engagement
factor. Appendix Tables A1 and A2 present results for eigenvalues
and factor analysis results. The large, dominant first eigenvalue
and explained variance indicate single factors for each set of test
questions. The GPCM-IR model fit the data for each of these
teacher characteristics better than did the PCM-IR model, showing
that the discrimination strength of the questionnaire items differed
(see Appendix Tables A3 and A4 for summary statistics of vari-
(3) ables from item response models; see Appendix Table A4 for
746 KLASSEN AND CHIU

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Variables Item mean Scale range Scale mean Scale SD ,

Classroom management self-efficacy (four items) 7.56 10–36 30.25 3.94 .85
Instructional strategies self-efficacy (four items) 7.55 11–36 30.21 4.32 .76
Student engagement self-efficacy (three items) 6.87 7–27 20.61 3.44 .82
Job satisfaction (two items) 7.30 2–18 14.60 2.68 .84
Workload stress (four items) 5.82 4–36 23.26 6.50 .68
Classroom stress (three items) 5.40 3–27 15.12 5.46 .84
Overall stress (one item) 6.81 1–9 6.81 2.05 —

Note. N ! 1,430. Student engagement self-efficacy was three items.

standard errors of the GPCM-IR teacher characteristics and Ap-
pendix Table A5 for the correlation–variance– covariance matrix).
Explanatory Model
Preliminary analysis using SUR, OLS, and mediation tests
yielded a candidate model that was fit successfully via an SEM
(see Figure 2; for SEM details, see Appendix Tables A6 –A10,
which show a good fit between the SEM and the data). Detailed
results of the factor analyses, IR models, SUR, and OLS are
available from the authors.
Classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers’ gender,
years of experience, school type, teaching grade, and sources of
stress were linked to their classroom management self-efficacy
(Figure 2). Compared with female teachers, male teachers aver-
aged 5% better classroom management self-efficacy, )5% !
)0.16 ! 34% (see previous analysis section on percentage in-
crease). As shown in Figure 3, years of experience has nonmono-
tonic relationships with all teacher self-efficacies; on average,
classroom management self-efficacy increases from 0 years of
experience to about 23 years of experience and falls afterwards. At
the peak, teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 76%
greater classroom management self-efficacy than that of new
teachers, 76% ! 0.19 ! ()0.02133 ! 232 # 23) ! 34% (see
Appendix Table A6 and the discussion of SEM in the previous
analysis section).
Teachers working in elementary schools averaged 7% better
classroom management self-efficacy than those in schools in
which one or more sets of grade levels (elementary, junior high
school, and senior high school) were combined, )7% ! )0.10 !
2 ! 34%. Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students

Years of + (non-monotonic)
experience
School –0.10
combinations
(vs. Elementary) Teaching Classroom
1st or 2nd grade –0.05 management
(vs. Kindergarten) Self-Efficacy
–0.16 +0.26
Female
Teacher
+0.16
+0.37 Workload
stress

+0.56

Overall Job
–0.21 Satisfaction
Teaching
stress

–0.52
+0.29
+0.24 –0.25 Instructional
Classroom Strategies
stress Self-Efficacy

–0.24
Teaching
other grades
(vs. –0.25
Other Schools +0.16 –0.09 Student
Kindergarten)
(vs. Elementary) –0.12 Engagement
+ (non-monotonic) Self-Efficacy
+ (non-monotonic)

Figure 2. Structural equation model for teachers’ self-efficacies and job satisfaction with their explanatory
variables. Teacher demographics and school characteristics are all exogenous variables, and other variables are
endogenous variables. Ovals indicate latent variables, and rectangles indicate single variables. Questionnaire
items for each latent variable are not shown. For the quadratic relationship between years of experience and the
three teacher self-efficacy variables, see Figure 3.
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY
Figure 3. Relationship of years of experience with three teacher self-efficacy variables (teaching strategies,
classroom management, and student engagement) based on the structural equation model results.
averaged 3% better classroom management self-efficacy than
those who taught Grade 1 or 2 students, 3% ! )0.05 ! 2 ! 34%.
The links of workload stress and classroom stress to classroom
management self-efficacy differed substantially. Teachers whose
workload stress exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% better
classroom management self-efficacy, 2% ! 0.16 ! 10%. In con-
trast, teachers whose classroom stress exceeded the mean by 10%
averaged 5% worse classroom management self-efficacy, 5% !
0.52 ! 10%. These variables accounted for 25% of the variance in
teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy (see Appendix Ta-
ble A6, squared multiple correlations).
Instructional strategies self-efficacy. Teachers’ years of ex-
perience and classroom stress were linked to their instructional
strategies self-efficacy, showing a nonmonotonic relationship with
an increase in instructional strategies self-efficacy up to about 23
years of experience and then falling. The instructional strategies
self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 88%
greater than that of new teachers, 88% ! 0.22 ! ()0.02133 !
232 # 23) ! 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the
preceding analysis section). When their classroom stress exceeded
the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less instructional strate-
gies self-efficacy, 3% ! 0.25 ! 10%. These variables accounted
for 11% of the variance in teachers’ instructional strategies self-
efficacy.
Student engagement self-efficacy. Teachers’ years of expe-
rience, school type, teaching grade, and classroom stress were
linked to student engagement self-efficacy, which again showed a
nonmonotonic relationship with increasing self-efficacy up to mid-
career and then falling in late career. The student engagement
self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 68%
greater than that of new teachers, 68% ! 0.17 ! ()0.02133 !
232 # 23) ! 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the
preceding analysis section). Teachers working in elementary
schools averaged 8% more student engagement self-efficacy than
those working in other types of schools, 8% ! 0.12 ! 34%.
Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students averaged
6% more student engagement self-efficacy than those who taught
students in higher grades, 6% ! 0.09 ! 34%. When their classroom
stress exceeded the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less
student engagement self-efficacy, 3% ! 0.25 ! 10%. These vari-
ables accounted for 12% of the variance in teachers’ student
engagement self-efficacy.
747
Job satisfaction. Teachers’ overall teaching stress and self-
efficacies were linked to job satisfaction. Teachers with 10%
greater overall teaching stress averaged 2% less job satisfaction,
2% ! 0.21 ! 10%. Meanwhile, teachers with 10% more classroom
management self-efficacy or 10% more instructional strategies
self-efficacy averaged 3% more job satisfaction, 3% ! 0.26 !
10%; 3% ! 0.29 ! 10%. These variables accounted for 31% of the
variance in teachers’ job satisfaction.
Stress and gender. Teachers with 10% more workload stress
had 6% more overall teaching stress, 6% ! 0.56 ! 10%. Workload
stress accounted for 31% of the variance in teachers’ overall
teaching stress. Teachers’ gender was linked to sources of stress.
Female teachers averaged 13% more workload stress and 8% more
classroom stress than male teachers, 13% ! 0.37 ! .34; 8% !
0.24 ! .34. Gender accounted for 3% and 1% of the variances in
workload stress and classroom stress, respectively.
Discussion
In this study, we modeled the relationships among teacher
characteristics, years of experience, three forms of teachers’ self-
efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction. The factor analysis con-
firmed the expected factor pattern, and the SEM yielded by the
SUR, OLS, and mediation tests fit the data well, with teachers’
self-efficacy for instructional strategies and classroom manage-
ment positively influencing job satisfaction, whereas overall job
stress lowered job satisfaction.
The results show how self-efficacy varies with years of
teachers’ experience. Furthermore, the results show how teach-
ers’ self-efficacies mediate the links between two types of stress
on job satisfaction. Female teachers had higher levels of both
classroom and workload stress. Similar to previous findings,
our results show that years of experience and job-related stress
were related to teachers’ self-efficacy, which in turn influenced
job satisfaction. The key new finding in the study was that
teachers’ self-efficacy was influenced by years of experience
in a nonlinear relationship, with the three factors of teacher
efficacy increasing with experience for early and mid-career
stage teachers and declining for teachers in the late career
stages.
748 KLASSEN AND CHIU
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
Teachers’ self-efficacy showed a nonlinear relationship with
years of teaching experience; self-efficacy increased from 0 to
about 23 years of experience and then declined as years of expe-
rience increased. Our results show that this relationship held true
for each of the three factors of teachers’ self-efficacy, reflecting a
relationship that has not been noted in previous research on teach-
ers’ self-efficacy. Teachers’ confidence in engaging students, man-
aging student behavior, and using effective instructional strategies
showed the same pattern of growth and gradual decline. Whereas
previous researchers have noted that self-efficacy increases with
teachers’ experience (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), the rela-
tionship between teachers’ experience and self-efficacy may be
more complex than previously believed. Bandura (1997) proposed
that self-efficacy beliefs remain relatively stable once established,
and although this stability may be true within a specific career
stage, the results from our study suggest that teachers gain confi-
dence in their teaching skills through their early years and into the
mid-career years but that these levels of confidence may decline as
teachers enter the later stages of their careers.
The career stages outlined by Huberman (1989) in his study of
the professional life cycle of teachers map well on to the patterns
of teachers’ self-efficacy found in the current study. According to
Huberman, teachers undergo a process of survival and discovery in
the early career years, during which the gulf between professional
ideals and daily classroom life is exposed, and self-doubts and
initial enthusiasm are entwined. About 4 – 6 years into their ca-
reers, teachers enter a period of stabilization, marked by a defin-
itive commitment to the profession (or the choice to leave the
profession). The mid-career years (7–18) are marked by periods of
experimentation and activism or by a period of reassessment,
during which teachers take stock of their careers and question their
career choices. Huberman suggested two phases during the later-
career years. During Years 19 –30, teachers experience a period of
serenity, during which a “gradual loss in energy and enthusiasm is
compensated for by a greater sense of confidence and self-
acceptance” (p. 35, italics ours). Finally, teachers in the late-career
stage (Years 31– 40) move into a period of disengagement, marked
either by serenity or disappointment and bitterness. Our finding of
teachers’ self-efficacy peaking at about 23 years of experience and
then declining in the later-career years corresponds with the mo-
tivation pattern suggested by Huberman. More recent studies have
built on Huberman’s work, with Day and Gu (2007) finding that
most teachers in mid-career (i.e., Years 8 –23) experience increases
in motivation and commitment, whereas increased proportions of
teachers in the later stage of their career stage (24# years of
experience) report declining motivation.
Authors of previous studies outside education have noted this
decline in work motivation in the late-career stages. A recent study
by Kooij et al. (2008) examined research on work motivation and
aging and found that many age-related factors (i.e., chronological
age, physical health, self-perception, social perception, skill obso-
lescence, and life stage) had a negative impact on the motivation
beliefs of older workers. In addition, Kooij et al. found that work
motivation was influenced by an interaction of age-related factors.
For instance, declining health may be related to a deterioration of
self-concept or changes in weighting of work- and leisure-related
values, but stereotyped perceptions of peers also influence work-
ers’ motivation and result in reduced skills, motivation, and op-
portunities for promotion. The lower levels of older teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs may be influenced not only by biological and
psychological changes related to chronological age but also by
student and peer perceptions of declining competence influenced
by stereotyped beliefs about aging. In sum, age-related changes in
motivation beliefs, like self-efficacy, are influenced not only by
chronological age but by the psychosocial context of the work
environment.
The contexts in which the teachers worked were also linked with
their self-efficacy. Teaching in elementary schools and teaching kin-
dergarten were linked with higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom
management and student engagement. There has been surprisingly
little research on how teaching context influences teachers’ self-
efficacy. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found that teachers in higher
grade levels reported lower self-efficacy than teachers in lower grade
levels and that the inverse relationship between teaching level and
self-efficacy was especially marked for teachers of elementary-
school-aged students in comparison to teachers of middle- and high-
school-aged students. Our study also found that teachers in higher
grade levels had lower self-efficacy, but the pattern of grade-level-
dependent self-efficacy was also found within teaching levels, at
least in the early elementary school grades. Teachers of the young-
est students had higher levels of self-efficacy than teachers of older
students within elementary schools, and this result was observed
for teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom management and student
engagement, although not for instructional strategies. Together,
these combined results suggest that variation of teachers’ self-
efficacy associated with teaching level can also occur within a
school.
Teachers’ Stress and Job Satisfaction
Teachers with higher overall teaching stress had lower job
satisfaction, whereas classroom stress was indirectly linked to job
satisfaction through self-efficacy for classroom management and
instructional strategies. We predicted workload and classroom
stress to be negatively linked with self-efficacy. As expected,
teachers with greater classroom stress had less self-efficacy in all
three factors, especially classroom management self-efficacy.
Teachers who perceived higher levels of classroom stress from
student misbehavior reported lower levels of self-efficacy for
classroom management. Likewise, teachers reporting greater
workload stress had greater overall stress. However, teachers re-
porting more workload stress had greater classroom management
self-efficacy (with no significant differences in the other two
self-efficacy factors). It may be that teachers who experience
higher levels of classroom stress from student misbehavior (i.e.,
from noisy and impolite behavior) have lower confidence to man-
age that behavior due to a history of unsuccessful experiences. In
contrast, it may be that teachers who perceive greater stress from
responsibility for student achievement and heavy workloads exert
more effort during lesson planning and are better prepared to
manage student behaviors during class.
Female teachers had higher levels of workload and classroom
stress. A growing number of researchers have noted the link
between gender and work-related stress. For example, Antoniou et
al. (2006) found that female teachers experienced higher levels of
work-related stress compared with male teachers, particularly for
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY
classroom and workload factors. Our results are consistent with
those of previous studies showing modest but persistent gender
differences in job stress among teachers (e.g., Antoniou et al.,
2006; Chaplain, 2008). Greenglass and Burke (2003) proposed that
the elevated work stress of females might stem from gender
differences in nonwork domains, with higher total workload
(school tasks plus domestic tasks) and higher role conflict between
work and family roles. These previous findings do not explain
female teachers’ higher levels of stress from student behavior.
Hopf and Hatzichristou (1999) found female teachers to be more
sensitive to externalizing behavior problems, especially from ad-
olescent male students, and also found male teachers assessed
children’s interpersonal behaviors as less problematic than did
female teachers. Findings of gender differences in teacher stress
bear further research.
Results from the current study reinforce previous findings that
teacher self-efficacy is linked with job satisfaction. Teachers with
high levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and instruc-
tional strategies reported higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas
teachers with high levels of overall stress reported lowered job
satisfaction. Caprara et al. (2006) found that Italian teachers’
self-efficacy was linked to their job satisfaction, although their
conceptualization of self-efficacy was less specific than the
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) measure used in this
study. In particular, Bandura (1997) and others (e.g., Pajares,
1996) have argued that more specific judgments of self-efficacy
provide more information about how the construct influences
beliefs and related behaviors. In the current study, we found
teachers’ self-efficacies for classroom management and instruc-
tional strategies were directly related to job satisfaction, whereas
self-efficacy for student engagement did not play a direct role. It
appears that not all facets of teachers’ self-efficacy are linked to
job satisfaction in the same way.
Limitations and Future Research
Future researchers can replicate the model of teacher motivation
presented in this article, with the addition of factors such as
students’ socioeconomic status and teachers’ collective efficacy to
help account for more job satisfaction variance. The effect of
whole-school motivation, or collective efficacy, has been shown to
influence the individual job satisfaction experienced by teachers
(e.g., Caprara et al., 2003; Klassen et al., in press). The role of
teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to job stress and job satisfaction
may vary as a function of cultural context, and additional research
examining the relationships among the study variables should be
conducted in contrasting cultural settings.
Our research provides new insight into the pattern of change in
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, but stronger claims about the de-
velopment of teachers’ self-efficacy could be made through lon-
gitudinal studies. As noted earlier, some studies of teachers’ self-
efficacy during the early career years (e.g., Woolfolk Hoy & Burke
Spero, 2005) have been performed, but to our knowledge, no one
has conducted a longitudinal study using the most recent, concep-
tually sound measures of teachers’ self-efficacy. Conducting lon-
gitudinal research of teachers’ motivation beliefs presents a host of
practical challenges not found in cross-sectional research, but
findings from longitudinal studies can inform our understanding of
how motivation beliefs develop over the career. In related fashion,
749
our findings about the apparent changes in teachers’ self-efficacy
in the late-career stages lead us to propose that future studies
should be focused on middle and late-career stage teachers’ mo-
tivation beliefs, an area that has been neglected despite the large
number of teachers who are past the first decade of their teaching
careers.
Several data limitations hamper the generalizability of our re-
sults. Additional indicators of teachers’ success and functioning
not included in our model may influence job satisfaction. Also, the
measure of overall job stress consisted of only a single item, and
job satisfaction was measured by two items. However, results of
recent studies have supported the inclusion of single-item mea-
sures of job-related beliefs (e.g., Dolbier, Webster, McCalister,
Mallon, & Steinhardt, 2005; Nagy, 2002) because of high levels of
face validity and convenience for data collection in busy work-
place settings, and investigators in many previous studies have
measured job stress using one item (e.g., Boyle et al., 1995;
Chaplain, 2008; Manthei et al., 1996). We did not measure the
longitudinal development of teachers’ self-efficacy, and readers
should not infer from our results that the pattern of rise and fall of
self-efficacy holds true for individual teachers over the career
span. The results from the current research are prone to the
limitations emerging from our reliance on a common method to
assess each variable. Lastly, the sample was restricted to Canadian
teachers in one province, and although teachers came from a wide
variety of schools, the sample was not randomized, and partici-
pants in this study may not be representative of other groups of
teachers in different settings.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
Considerable research has examined the development of teacher
motivation beliefs at the beginning stages of teachers’ careers, but
the teaching workforce in many settings is decidedly graying, with
more teachers at the mid- or late-career stages than at the
beginning-career stage (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Building an understanding of the motivation profiles of teachers
across the career span makes sense because of the number of mid-
and late-career teachers and because teachers’ motivation profiles
and willingness to engage in new practices varies according to
career stage (Drake, 2002). A teacher’s skills, knowledge, and
effectiveness may change over time without a continuous and
focused effort to build those skills and knowledge on the part of
the teacher, school district officials, and school administrators
(Drake, 2002). One-size-fits-all professional development that
aims to build the skills and knowledge of new, mid-career, and the
most experienced teachers may not be optimally effective. For
example, Greller (2006) suggested that older workers’ professional
development needs shift from learning general skills to learning
specific skills. Older workers seek professional development op-
portunities that offer greater autonomy in content, learning pace,
and learning environment (Greller, 2006). Professional develop-
ment programs that are tailored to teachers’ career stages may
enhance skills and knowledge but also boost the confidence that
teachers at a later career stage have in their capabilities to teach
effectively. Using professional development opportunities to boost
skills and teachers’ self-efficacy may lower job stress and enhance
satisfaction from teaching.
750 KLASSEN AND CHIU
Our study extends teacher motivation research by showing how
teachers’ years of experience, gender, and three domains of self-
efficacy (student engagement, instructional strategies, and class-
room management) were related to their job stress (workload and
classroom stress) and job satisfaction. Building on previous re-
search showing that teacher self-efficacy often increases in the
early stages of teachers’ careers, we found that early- to mid-career
teachers reported progressively greater self-efficacies in these
three areas, while late-career teachers reported less self-efficacy in
each area. Female teachers had greater stress (from both workload
and student behaviors during class) and lower self-efficacy for
classroom management. Teaching younger children (in elementary
grades and kindergarten) was linked with higher levels of self-
efficacy for classroom management and student engagement. Fi-
nally, the impact of classroom and workload stress on job satis-
faction was mediated by teachers’ self-efficacy.
References
Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban
secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92,
287–293.
Alberta Education. (2009). Alberta teaching certification standards. Re-
trieved February 14, 2009, from http://education.alberta.ca/department/
stats/certification.aspx
Antoniou, A.-S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A.-N. (2006). Gender and
age differences in occupational stress and professional burnout between
primary and high-school teachers in Greece. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 682– 690.
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self-
efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear
step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93,
491–507.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burn-
out among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology,
26, 519 –539.
Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability
in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement,
6, 431– 444.
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you could
successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305). Greenwich, CT: In-
formation Age.
Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1995). A
structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 65, 49 – 67.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy
beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 95, 821– 832.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006).
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and
students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of
School Psychology, 44, 473– 490.
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee
secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195–209.
Chow, B. W.-Y., Chiu, M. M., & Wong, S. (in press). Emotional intelli-
gence, social problem solving skills, and psychological distress: A study
of Chinese undergraduate students. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy.
Cockburn, A. D., & Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and retaining teachers:
Understanding why teachers teach. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’
professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and
effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 423– 443.
Dolbier, C. L., Webster, J. A., McCalister, K. T., Mallon, M. W., &
Steinhardt, M. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of a single-item mea-
sure of job satisfaction. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19,
194 –198.
Drake, C. (2002). Experience counts: Career stage and teachers’ responses
to mathematics education reform. Educational Policy, 16, 311–337.
Evans, L. (2001). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction, and moti-
vation among education professionals. Educational Management and
Administration, 29, 291–306.
Gates, G. S. (2007). Emerging thought and research on student, teacher,
and administrative stress and coping. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher
efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional inno-
vation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451– 458.
Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Teacher stress. In M. F. Dollard,
A. H. Winefield, & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the
service professions (pp. 213–236). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Greller, M. M. (2006). Hours invested in professional development during
late career as a function of career motivation and satisfaction. Career
Development International, 6, 544 –559.
Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as
predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28,
407– 434.
Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related influences in
Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1–18.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6,
1–55.
Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers
College Record, 91, 31–57.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortage. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 499 –534.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer
software]. New York, NY: Scientific Software International.
Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher
stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 183–197.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Kennedy, P. (2004). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klassen, R. M. (in press). Teachers’ stress: The mediating role of collective
efficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Research.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong,
I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of the Teachers’
Self-Efficacy Scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psy-
chology, 34, 67–76.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (in press). Teachers’ collective
efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal
of Experimental Education.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality, and burnout in primary
school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229 –
243.
Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers’
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY 751

motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 364 –394.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Edu-
cational Review, 53, 27–35.
Lilien, D. M., Startz, R., Ellsworth, S., Noh, J., & Engle, R. (1995). Eview
[Computer software]. Irvine, CA: Quantitative Micro Software.
Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the
Teacher Follow-Up Survey in the United States for 2000 –2001. Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 24, 1173–1184.
Manthei, R., Gilmore, A., Tuck, B., & Adair, V. (1996). Teacher stress in
intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 3–19.
Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3 (2nd ed.) [Computer
software]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job
satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
75, 77– 86.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors
of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385– 400.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a
predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied Psy-
chology: An International Review, 57, 152–171.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy
and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy,
and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611– 625.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural
equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982
(pp. 290 –312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Spickard, A., Gabbe, S. G., & Christensen, J. F. (2002). Mid-career burnout
in generalist and specialist physicians. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 288, 1447–1450.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
783– 805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential an-
tecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944 –956.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher
efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,
202–248.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Special analysis 2005: Mobility in
the teacher workforce. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://
nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/analysis/sa01.asp
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach-
ers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching
experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 181–193.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy
during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.

Appendix

Ancillary Tables and Results

Table A1
Eigenvalues Showing Single Dominant Factors in Each Set of Test Questions

Eigenvalues % of variance explained by

Factor 1st 2nd 3rd 1st/2nd 2nd/3rd 1st eigenvalue 2nd eigenvalue

Classroom management self-efficacy 2.76 0.45 0.41 6.13 1.10 69 11

Instructional strategies self-efficacy 2.39 0.62 0.54 3.85 1.14 60 16
Student engagement self-efficacy 2.22 0.46 0.33 4.86 1.39 74 15
Workload stress 2.24 0.45 0.31 4.93 1.46 75 15
Classroom stress 2.06 0.75 0.67 2.74 1.13 52 19

Note. The factor of job satisfaction ! only two variables; polychoric correlation ! 0.729.

(Appendix continues)
752 KLASSEN AND CHIU

Table A2
Three-Factor and Two-Factor Structures Best Fit Responses to Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Stress
Questions as Shown by Goodness-of-Fit Measures (Varimax Rotation)

Factor structure

Goodness-of-fit measure Three Two Hierarchical Nested Single

Teacher self-efficacy
Standardized root mean residual 0.041 0.066 0.114 0.137
Comparative fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.540
Incremental fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.541
Tucker–Lewis index 0.933 0.871 0.901 0.438
Root-mean-squared error of
approximation 0.053 0.074 0.091 0.175
Chi-square test 208 409 674 1,334
Degrees of freedom 41 41 33 44
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.946 0.903 0.639 0.626
Relative fit index 0.924 0.863 0.892 0.433
Teacher stress
Standardized root mean residual 0.015 0.068 0.075 0.068
Comparative fit index 0.990 0.881 0.814 0.749
Incremental fit index 0.992 0.882 0.815 0.751
Tucker–Lewis index 0.976 0.825 0.740 0.610
Root-mean-squared error of
approximation 0.046 0.138 0.163 0.053
Chi-square test 41 322 405 961
Degrees of freedom 13 12 7 14
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.971 0.808 0.745 0.797
Relative fit index 0.971 0.821 0.736 0.607

Table A3a
Summary Statistics of Variables and of Item Response Models

GPCM vs. PCM

IRT

Variable Mean SD Min Median Max df -LL .2

Classroom management self-efficacy 0.08 0.93 )3.39 0.13 1.75 4 57.06!!!

Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.03 0.88 )2.99 0.03 1.69 4 460.08!!!
Student engagement self-efficacy 0.00 0.93 )3.03 0.00 1.90 3 121.12!!!
Job satisfaction 0.03 0.91 )2.87 0.08 1.50 3 61.61!!!
Female 0.70 0 1 1
Years of experience 13.21 9.97 0 10 43
School grade range
School combinations
(vs. elementary) )1 1 1
Other (vs. elementary) )1 1 1
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) )1 0 1
Teaching other grades (vs. K) )1 1 1
Workload stress 0.01 0.82 )2.31 0.02 1.93 9 1865.20!!!
Classroom stress 0.00 0.92 )2.22 0.01 2.25 3 233.77!!!
Overall stress 6.81 2.06 1 7 9

Note. Values created from responses to sets of questions with item response model comparison tests, showing that the
generalized partial credit models (GPCM) fit the data better than the partial credit models (PCM). IRT ! item response
tests; -LL .2 ! log-likelihood difference chi-square test; K ! kindergarten.
!!!
p " .001.

(Appendix continues)
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY 753

Table A3b
Percentage of Teachers by School Level

High Junior Elementary/junior Junior high/high Elementary/junior

Variable Elementary school high high school high/high school

School grade range 20 20 10 26 15 9

Table A3c
Percentage of Teachers by Grade Level

Head Multiple
Variable K 1–2 3–4 5–6 7–9 10–12 Start grades

Teaching grade 3 7 7 13 19 20 0.3 29

Table A3d
Percentage of Responses for Job Stress Scale

Teaching grade

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Overall teaching stress 2 2 5 6 8 11 23 17 26

Note. Scale ranges from 1 (no stress) to 9 (extreme stress).

Table A4
Standard Errors of Each Teacher Property at 2nd, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 98th Percentiles, Showing
Greater Standard Errors at Higher Percentiles

Standard errors at each percentile

Teacher property 2nd 16th 50th 84th 98th

Job satisfaction 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.45 1.16

Classroom management 0.12 0.15 0.25 0.56 0.93
Instructional strategies 0.19 0.26 0.41 0.77 1.11
Student engagement 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.96
Workload stress 0.21 0.23 0.42 0.72 1.00
Classroom stress 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.44 0.98

(Appendix continues)
754 KLASSEN AND CHIU

Table A5
Correlations (Lower Left Triangle), Variances (Diagonal), and Covariances (Upper Right Triangle)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.86 0.41 0.44 )0.03 1.47 36.66 )0.07 )0.05 )0.02 )0.01 )0.07 )0.32 )0.25 0.41
2. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.50 0.78 0.44 )0.01 1.82 54.85 )0.02 )0.02 )0.02 0.00 )0.05 )0.18 )0.07 0.32
3. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.51 0.36 0.87 0.02 1.39 37.50 )0.07 )0.10 )0.02 )0.04 )0.08 )0.17 )0.23 0.40
4. Female gender )0.07 0.21 0.05 0.21 )0.27 )10.24 )0.06 )0.06 0.01 )0.02 0.05 0.04 0.12 )0.05
5. Years of experience 0.16 0.19 0.15 )0.06 99.43 3206 )0.42 )0.65 )0.09 0.00 0.13 )0.08 0.65 0.14
6. Years of experience squared 0.12 )0.03 0.12 )0.07 0.96 112,464 )12.76 )17.19 )2.66 )0.08 )1.81 )1.67 13.37 0.14
7. School grade range: School
combinations (vs. elementary) )00.10 )0.03 )0.10 )0.18 )0.05 )0.05 0.61 0.52 )0.01 0.04 )0.05 0.00 0.08 )0.08
8. School grade range: Other (vs.
elementary) )00.07 )0.05 )0.13 )0.15 )0.08 )0.06 0.83 0.64 )0.01 0.05 )0.02 )0.02 0.10 )0.07
9. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) )00.06 0.01 )0.05 0.06 )0.03 )0.02 )0.05 )0.04 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00
10. Teaching other grades (vs. K) )00.02 )0.07 )0.11 )0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01 )0.01
11. Workload stress )00.10 )0.21 )0.10 0.13 0.02 )0.01 )0.08 )0.03 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.34 0.73 )0.21
12. Classroom stress )00.38 )0.04 )0.20 0.10 )0.01 )0.01 0.00 )0.02 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.85 0.58 )0.26
13. Overall stress )00.13 0.25 )0.12 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.43 0.31 4.22 )0.26
14. Job satisfaction 0.34 0.34 )0.02 1.24 42.01 )0.06 )0.05 0.00 0.00 )0.16 )0.22 )0.48 0.82

Note. K ! kindergarten.

Table A6
Total Effect and Indirect Effect of Each Independent Variable on Each Dependent Variable

Dependent variable

Stress Self-efficacy

Teaching other Classroom Instructional Student Job

Independent variable grades (vs. K) Workload Classroom Overall management strategies engagement satisfaction

Female gender
Total effect )0.24 0.37 0.24 0.21 )0.10 )0.06 0.02 )0.10
Indirect effect 0.21 0.06 )0.06 0.02 )0.10
Years of experience quadratic term
Total effect 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.11
Indirect effect 0.11
School grade range
School combinations vs. elementary
Total effect )0.1 )0.03
Indirect effect )0.03
Other vs. elementary
Total effect )0.16 )0.11
Indirect effect 0.01
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 vs. K
Total effect )0.05 )0.01
Indirect effect )0.01
Teaching other grades vs. K (total effect) )0.09
Workload stress
Total effect 0.56 0.16 )0.08
Indirect effect )0.08
Classroom stress
Total effect )0.52 )0.25 )0.25 )0.21
Indirect effect )0.21
Overall stress (total effect) )0.21
Classroom management self-efficacy 0.26
Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.29

Squared multiple correlations 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.31 0.25 0.11 0.12 0.31

Note. Blanks indicate no total or no indirect effects. K ! kindergarten.

(Appendix continues)
 EFFECTS ON TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY 755

Table A7
Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Psi Matrix

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Job satisfaction 0.69 !!!

2. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.75!!!

3. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.48!!! 0.89!!! 0.45!!!
4. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.46!!! 0.88!!!
5. School grade range: School combinations (vs. elementary) 1.00!!!
6. School grade range: Other (vs. elementary) 0.83!!! 1.00!!!
7. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) 1.00!!!
8. Teaching other grades (vs. K) 0.61!!! 0.96!!!
9. Workload stress 0.97!!!
10. Classroom stress 0.59!!! 0.99!!!
11. Overall stress 0.69!!!

Note. K ! kindergarten.
!!!
p " .001.

Table A8
Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Lambda-Y Matrix

Factor

Self-efficacy Stress

Job Classroom Student Instructional

Survey item satisfaction management engagement strategies Workload Classroom
a
I am satisfied with what I achieve at work. 0.85
I feel good at work. 0.85!!!
How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the
classroom? 0.75a
How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 0.78!!!
How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 0.75!!!
How much can you do to establish a classroom management system
with each group of students? 0.80!!!
How much can you do to craft good questions for students? 0.60a
How much can you do to implement a variety of assessment
strategies? 0.70!!!
How much can you do to provide an alternative explanation when
students are confused? 0.66!!!
How much can you do to implement alternative strategies in your
classroom? 0.73!!!
How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest
in school work? .78a
How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in
school work? .84!!!
How much can you do to help students to value learning? .74!!!
How great a source of stress is having too much work to do? 0.66a
How great a source of stress is having extra duties/responsibilities
because of absent teachers? 0.55!!!
How great a source of stress is having a large class size? 0.54!!!
How great a source of stress is being responsible for students’
achievement? 0.60!!!
How great a source of stress is having noisy students? 0.70a
How great a source of stress is maintaining class discipline? 0.90!!!
How great a source of stress is dealing with students’ impolite
behavior or rudeness? 0.80!!!
a
The first lambda-Y estimates of each latent variable is fixed by default.
!!!
p " .001.

(Appendix continues)
756 KLASSEN AND CHIU

Table A9
Structural Equation Model Showing a Good Fit With the Data

Measure Result

Standardized root mean residual (SRMR) .039

Root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) .041
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) .967
Incremental fit index (IFI) .971
Comparative fit index (CFI) .971
.2(305), p ! .000 1068.00
Adjusted goodness of fit index .937
Relative fit index .954

Note. Threshold values separate good, moderate, and poor fits for each measure: for SRMR, good fit " .08 " moderate fit "
.10 " poor fit; for RMSEA, between ".06 and ".10; for TLI, between %.96 and %.90; for IFI, between %.96 and %.90. Other
measures are also included for reader interest.

Table A10
Sobel Mediation Tests for the Outcome Variable Job Satisfaction

Initial variable3Mediator % change z

Years of experience quadratic term3Class management self-efficacy 20 2.039!

School combinations (vs. elementary)3Class management self-efficacy 19 )2.638!!
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K)3Class management self-efficacy 13 )2.225!
Workload stress3Class management self-efficacy 20 )3.285!!
Classroom stress3Class management self-efficacy 13 )4.212!!!
Workload stress3Overall stress 10 2.678!!
Years of experience quadratic term3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 13 1.986!
Classroom stress3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 21 )3.795!!!
!
p " .05. !!
p " .01. !!!
p " .001.

Received March 11, 2009

Revision received January 26, 2010
Accepted January 27, 2010 !

View publication stats