Development and Validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED)
Saved in:
| Title: | Development and Validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED) |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Anderson, Lezli Suzanne (ORCID |
| Source: | Psychology in the Schools. Aug 2023 60(8):2692-2716. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Measures (Individuals), Emotional Intelligence, Test Construction, Test Validity, Psychometrics, Test Reliability, Factor Analysis, Correlation, Burnout |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | Maslach Burnout Inventory |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pits.22911 |
| ISSN: | 0033-3085 1520-6807 |
| Abstract: | Data collected from 97 educators provide preliminary support for the psychometric integrity of an experimental self-report instrument designed to operationalize emotional intelligence (EI) specifically for educators, the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators, or SEF:ED. Data analyses relied in part on results from an exploratory factor analysis, which provided evidence for a three-factor solution, and additional correlational analyses (e.g., item-scale correlations). Reliability estimates (i.e., split-half reliability correlations) for the SEF:ED Emotional Awareness, Emotional Management, and Interpersonal Relations subscales are 0.86, 0.80, and 0.71, respectively. Correlation coefficients (i.e., Pearson r) between the SEF:ED composites and the Profile of Emotional Competence composites (PEC) range from 0.35 to 0.72, providing evidence for concurrent validity of the SEF:ED. Finally, correlation coefficients between SEF:ED and the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators (MBI-ES) range from -0.21 to 0.59 and provide limited evidence of its ability to predict an important work site characteristic, that is, burnout. Once the SEF:ED was completed, descriptive statistics were obtained for EI and burnout and show relatively similar means/standard deviations across various demographics (e.g., gender, educator degree, years in service, and classroom setting--general vs. special education). Limitations of the study and implications for application of the SEF:ED are discussed. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1383315 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEf1bylMAGO_j-SeSBpFWBeAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJLIcJFs3OqO9dNkUwIBEICBm1hkPtNFSnXWiOuYJrg3OjXVIGl1TVTv4E11GCbOhEj2NPEbA6Yj0jAWmuvyFpv2RN6pq44T5JhUQhaBk_NOYTGdxLNf_IcO8xM7J-1Ii3BkoJSVGE9sA7gYtiXbMQyqDWZU3tVzO8Hue1JNQZPaFzMOj3sjBDBg3LAgnwl2pjquh6oBHreJcQGb_z1-OLNSDilnZxdca4x1dAHU Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0164723698;pis01aug.23;2023Jul07.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164723698-1">Development and validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED) </title> <p>Data collected from 97 educators provide preliminary support for the psychometric integrity of an experimental self‐report instrument designed to operationalize emotional intelligence (EI) specifically for educators, the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators, or SEF:ED. Data analyses relied in part on results from an exploratory factor analysis, which provided evidence for a three‐factor solution, and additional correlational analyses (e.g., item‐scale correlations). Reliability estimates (i.e., split‐half reliability correlations) for the SEF:ED Emotional Awareness, Emotional Management, and Interpersonal Relations subscales are.86,.80, and.71, respectively. Correlation coefficients (i.e., Pearson r) between the SEF:ED composites and the Profile of Emotional Competence composites (PEC) range from.35 to.72, providing evidence for concurrent validity of the SEF:ED. Finally, correlation coefficients between SEF:ED and the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators (MBI‐ES) range from −.21 to.59 and provide limited evidence of its ability to predict an important work site characteristic, that is, burnout. Once the SEF:ED was completed, descriptive statistics were obtained for EI and burnout and show relatively similar means/standard deviations across various demographics (e.g., gender, educator degree, years in service, and classroom setting—general vs. special education). Limitations of the study and implications for application of the SEF:ED are discussed.</p> <p>Practitioner Points: 1.Data provides preliminary support for the integrity of a self‐report measure for emotional intelligence for educators (Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators [SEF:ED]).2.The SEF:ED subscales had moderate to strong reliability estimates.3.Correlation coefficients between the SEF:ED and both Profile of Emotional Competence and Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators provide evidence for concurrent validity and limited evidence for the ability of the SEF:ED to predict burnout.</p> <p>Keywords: burnout; education; emotional intelligence; Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators; teachers</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Emotional intelligence (EI) has been broadly defined as the ability to understand and manage one's own emotions, as well as the emotions of others (Mayer &amp; Salovey, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref1">61</reflink>]; Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]), though the conceptual framework is evolving (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref3">87</reflink>]). EI is an important predictor of workplace outcomes according to a recent review of the literature (O'connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref4">67</reflink>]), particularly for the helping professions (Lea et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]; Malouff et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref6">48</reflink>]; Pekaar et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref7">70</reflink>]; Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref8">71</reflink>]; Platsidou, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref9">75</reflink>]; Schutte et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref10">83</reflink>]; Vesely et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref11">91</reflink>]; Zysberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref12">98</reflink>]). For example, among educators EI is related to a number of outcomes, including work satisfaction, well‐being, perceived life success, and "teacher‐specific" outcomes, including classroom performance, teacher efficacy, and student engagement in the k‐12 environment (Brackett, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Maguire et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref14">46</reflink>]; Vesely et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref15">91</reflink>]) and in higher education (Malesic, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]). Though EI has been operationalized using various strategies, the self‐report measure is considered to be an efficient trait‐based operationalization for identifying and predicting important outcomes across contexts (Keefer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref17">35</reflink>]; O'connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref18">67</reflink>]). However, there is no <emph>comprehensive</emph> self‐report measure specifically created to reflect the EI of educators within the classroom context. Thus, the primary goals of this study are to: (a) describe development and refinement of a psychometrically sound measure of EI for educators, and (b) to compare educators' EI with burnout level, a risk factor underlying teacher success and well‐being.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-3">EI: How is it defined and operationalized?</hd> <p>The roots of emotional intelligence in the psychological literature can be traced back to E. L. Thorndike's ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref19">90</reflink>]) concept of "social intelligence," which referred to the ability to understand people and to act wisely in human relations. However, EI did not appear in the scholarly literature until the late 20th century (Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref20">56</reflink>]; Payne, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref21">69</reflink>]). For example, Salovey and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref22">80</reflink>]) provided an early conceptualization; they defined EI as the adaptive ability to appraise, express, and regulate emotions, while also utilizing emotions to solve problems. Daniel Goleman ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]) popularized EI by addressing its implications for the work place; specifically, he argued that although cognitive intelligence alone predicts significant life success, EI is a better indicator of career and interpersonal success and concluded from the literature that it is not fixed and can be nurtured/strengthened over the course of a lifetime. Goleman extended Salovey and Mayer's definition by conceptualizing a more inclusive five‐factor model, which included: (a) knowing one's emotions, (b) managing emotions, (c) motivating oneself, (d) recognizing emotions in others, and (e) handling relationships. Mayer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]) updated their original definition of EI in 2000, defining EI as "the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others" (p. 396). In addition, Goleman and others (e.g., Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]) have addressed how related behaviors such as motivation are impacted by EI. Finally, in 2016, Mayer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref26">55</reflink>]; p. 293) conceptualized EI as a broad‐based ability by placing general EI as superordinate within a hierarchical arrangement with four branches of narrow subconstructs: "perceiving emotions..., facilitating thought by using emotions..., understanding emotions..., and managing emotions in oneself and others."</p> <p>Other conceptualization in the literature emphasize social competency as an essential, foundational aspect of EI. For example, Bar‐On developed the "emotional‐social intelligence" (ESI) model, characterized as encompassing interrelated emotional and social competencies and skills that determine understanding and expression of one's own emotion, ability to understand and relate to others, and capacity to cope with daily challenges (Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]). Bar‐On ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]) posits EI as an integral part of the field of positive psychology and describes its specific influence on human performance, happiness, well‐being, and self‐actualization.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-4">Ability versus trait operationalizations of EI</hd> <p>One of the biggest challenges in operationalizing EI is the subjective nature of the construct (Watson, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref29">93</reflink>]). As the EI literature expanded, researchers began to distinguish and operationalize EI as either an ability or a trait. Both models conceptualize the behaviors within the construct similarly; however, the main differences between ability and trait models hinge on assumptions regarding the origin and operationalization of EI (Petrides et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref30">74</reflink>]; Siegling et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref31">86</reflink>]) and the assessment methodology adopted by those who espouse an ability vs a trait model. The ability model assumes that these skills are acquired through the interaction between one's inherited capacity to learn and the environment, which either facilitates or inhibits acquisition of new knowledge, and can be assessed directly. The ability model operationalizes EI as the capability to perceive or perform (Windingstad et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref32">94</reflink>]). The trait model assumes that EI is acquired much like the building blocks of personality and is predominantly a function of inherited gene‐pair characteristics. The trait model operationalizes EI by gathering information directly from informants, typically self or third‐party. Overall, research of EI has produced inconsistent results across the two etiological models, which could be a function of the methodological differences adopted by researchers within the two models (Brackett &amp; Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]; Martins et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref34">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-5">EI and workplace success</hd> <p>As noted above EI is linked to a number of health‐related outcomes that effect workplace success, including physical health and mental well‐being. (Martins et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref35">50</reflink>]; Schutte et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref36">85</reflink>]); in addition, apparently individuals with high EI also have greater social support, resiliency, adaptive coping skills, stress‐management skills, and they report better general life satisfaction (Altaras Dimitrijević et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]; Sánchez‐Álvarez et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref38">82</reflink>]). These positive benefits seem to be related to the ability to build better interpersonal relationships (Klare et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]; Schutte et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref40">83</reflink>]; Zeidner et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref41">97</reflink>]); specifically, participants with higher EI tend to earn higher scores on measures of empathic perspective taking and self‐monitoring in social situations and exhibit higher scores for close and affectionate relationships.</p> <p>High EI as determined by self‐report seems to be a good predictor of both job performance and job satisfaction (Ilyas &amp; Abdullah, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>]; Joseph et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]). This relationship seems to be, consistent across age, gender, and job tenure (Miao et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref44">65</reflink>]). All these characteristics support the conclusion that EI is related to greater job performance and thus, may well reduce job dissatisfaction and related phenomena (e.g., burnout).</p> <p>To study the effects of burnout, Maslach provided an important operationalization of it, noting three dimensions of critical importance: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and (reduced) personal accomplishment (see the Maslach Burnout Inventory; MBI; Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref45">53</reflink>]; Maslach, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref46">51</reflink>]), with exhaustion as the central quality of burnout (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>]), characterized by fatigue and low energy; workers who experience job exhaustion often begin to distance themselves from their work. Depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment often co‐occur as stressors continue to operate within the work environment. According to Chan ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref48">16</reflink>]) and others (e.g., McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref49">63</reflink>]; Mikolajczak et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref50">66</reflink>]), there is a relationship between EI and burnout, which is best characterized as an inverse one, that is, a person who has high EI is less likely to experience burnout and vice‐versa. EI is predictive of burnout and may even protect vulnerable workers against its ill effects (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]; Zysberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref52">98</reflink>]). Assuming both EI and burnout can be adequately assessed for workers considered vulnerable and given they are correlated, it may be possible to improve one or both. For example, recent models offer explanations for how to best address burnout in a work/therapeutic setting, such as judging the fit of the person and the job, enhancing one's sense of accomplishment, and modifying the environment to reduce the likelihood of emotional exhaustion (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]; Maslach, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref54">51</reflink>]). In addition, Beierle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]) proposed that increasing one's awareness of their current EI levels could reduce burnout given the linkage between the two. In Beierle et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]) study, EI among medical residents who attended one EI workshop designed to inform participants of the construct subsequently increased EI, though burnout was not assessed across time.</p> <p>In an effort to further elucidate the relationship between EI and the three primary components of burnout as described by Maslach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]; Maslach, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>]) Lee and Ok ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]) characterized the relationship between two components of burnout, specifically depersonalization and emotional exhaustion and EI as a negative one; and the relationship between EI and the third element, personal accomplishment, as positive. And, some professionals are more inclined to experience burnout than others. For example, according to Khan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]) women physicians were more likely to report more emotional exhaustion and lower personal accomplishment than their male peers, a relationship that was also reported among secondary teachers (Lau et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref61">42</reflink>]). In addition, visible ethnic minority physicians were more likely to report feeling lower personal accomplishment that white physicians. And apparently those with better EI are more effective. For example, Grobler et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref62">24</reflink>] noted that principals with greater EI are better prepared to manage the challenges within their roles than those with lower EI, though their level of EI was not compared to non‐administrators.</p> <p>Given that education is reportedly one of the fields most impacted by burnout educators have urged support for research designed to better understand the relationship between EI and burnout (Larrivee, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref63">41</reflink>]; Park &amp; Shin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]). This is particularly urgent given the rate that educators are leaving the profession.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-6">EI and burnout in the field of education</hd> <p>Larrivee ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]) characterizes the stress many educators face as extreme and characteristic of burnout, when "the lack of ability to cope reaches a peak," (p. 4), exacerbated often by (perceptions of) lack of support within existing systems and limited availability of resources. Other related contributing variables include poor working conditions, student misbehavior, poor relationships with parents, inadequate training, and personal concerns. Of these, student misbehavior is among the most powerful contributors and this effect is exacerbated among teachers because they are often secluded to their classroom with minimal peer/colleague interaction and support throughout the day; this sense of isolation is likely linked to burnout and the rapid turnover in the profession (Ju et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]; Manju, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref67">49</reflink>]; Mérida‐López &amp; Extremera, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref68">64</reflink>]; Reyes et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref69">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted above, burnout does not affect all individuals similarly, and teachers are no exception. According to a meta‐analysis conducted by Park and Shin ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref70">68</reflink>]) there is little relationship between reported time in service and burnout. For example, some studies found novice teachers had higher burnout than experienced teachers, while other studies did not. Similarly, Saloviita and Pakarinen ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref71">81</reflink>]) found that burnout was highest among general education teachers with a subject focus and lowest among special education teachers. Lau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref72">42</reflink>]) reported some gender differences in a sample of Hong Kong educators; women secondary education teachers tended to report more emotional exhaustion and lower personal accomplishment than their male peers. However, they concluded that the effect of demographic characteristics on burnout is relative insignificant.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-7">Educators impact on student EI</hd> <p>There is a growing literature base to support the need for social emotional instruction/EI in the school setting, suggesting that developing these skills will help support positive student relationships and potentially, academics (Brackett et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]; Poulou, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref74">76</reflink>]). And, there appears to be a relationship between the ability of teachers to facilitate EI development in their students and the performance of the students. For example, Poulou ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref75">76</reflink>]) found that educators' views of EI, social‐emotional learning, and self‐efficacy were related to student–teacher or student–educator relationships, and their view of these relationships was related to student behavioral difficulties. In addition, emotional intelligence has been linked to <emph>developing</emph> competent educator behaviors and positive classroom outcomes according to Hen and Sharabi‐Nov ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>]), who present a number of conclusions in support, arguing that this training would result in "a very long‐term effect on the teaching profession" (p. 376). According to Bulut Ozsezer and Iflazoglu Saban ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]) educators play a significant role in establishing a positive classroom atmosphere and research suggests that classrooms that are perceived by students to be warm and respectful with emotionally supportive relationships result in greater academic performance and student engagement (Reyes et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref78">77</reflink>]). Additionally, classrooms that incorporate EI instruction for students, such as those methods implored in the RULER interventions (see Bracket &amp; Katulak, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref79">11</reflink>]; Bracket et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]), result in greater warmth and connectedness between teachers and students, a greater focus on student interests, and greater autonomy and leadership displayed by students. Further, students in RULER classrooms reported fewer incidences of bullying, greater enthusiasm for learning, and higher year‐end grades than students not in a RULER classroom. Clearly, the classroom emotional climate directly impacts students' performance.</p> <p>While educators' emotions and behaviors have been shown to impact the climate of the classroom, the overall school atmosphere plays a huge role in how the educators feel as well, with educators reporting feeling "frustrated, overwhelmed, and stressed" for almost 70% of their school days (Brackett, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]; p. 13). Brackett argues that teaching social emotional skills to children alone is not sufficient to address the need, but that all adults in the school would benefit from EI instruction as well. When instruction in emotional awareness and management is widespread throughout the school, home–school interactions improve, achievement increases, health and well‐being increase, and problems including bullying and stress decrease.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-8">Relevant measures of EI in education</hd> <p>One of the biggest challenges associated with measuring EI is the subjective nature of the emotional experience (Watson, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref82">93</reflink>]). Though EI has been the focus of some research within education, there are no instruments that are considered psychometrically and contextually adequate measurements of educators' EI to date. Generally, researchers who have focused on assessing educators' EI have used universal scales, such as the Schutte Self‐Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT; Schutte et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref83">84</reflink>]) or the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong &amp; Law, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref84">95</reflink>]).</p> <p>An abbreviated version of the SSEIT was used to assess teachers' EI and further analyzed to determine the appropriateness of a multi‐factor structure. Chan ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref85">16</reflink>]) proposed a four‐factor structure of secondary school teachers using the SSEIT. The factors were empathic sensitivity, positive regulation, positive utilization, and emotional appraisal, with three items per subscale. Internal consistencies (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph>) ranged from.60 to.71 for this sample. The global scale score of this abbreviated version correlated highly (<emph>r</emph> = .92, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .001) with the total scale score, suggesting that the brief version was a viable alternative to the 33‐item scale (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref86">16</reflink>]). Although this scale has been used to assess EI among educators, items were not created with the educational context in mind. Nonetheless, it was used to investigate the extent to which EI can be improved through effective intervention. Hen and Sharabi‐Nov ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref87">25</reflink>]) conducted an EI training in Israel (<emph>n</emph> = 186) focusing on experiencing, learning, and reflecting upon emotions over 14 weeks. The study used the SSEIT to gather pre‐ and post‐data scores of teachers' EI. The results revealed a significant increase in overall EI (<emph>p</emph> &lt; .001) and across all subscales (<emph>p</emph> &lt; .05) over the course of the training. In a related study, Vesely et al. ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref88">92</reflink>]) implemented a 5‐week intervention with preservice teacher candidates from two Canadian universities (<emph>n</emph> = 49). The intervention utilized a workshop format, group discussion, and workbook exercises with home assignments. Scores on the TEIQue‐SF (Petrides, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref89">73</reflink>]) and WLEIS (Wong &amp; Law, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref90">95</reflink>]) of participants in the control group post training were nonsignificant, though the scores of participants who received the EI intervention increased. Changes over time were more robust on the WLEIS (<emph>p</emph> &lt; .01) than the TEIQue‐SF (<emph>p</emph> &lt; 1.00). Finally, within a third study (Fast, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref91">19</reflink>]), in‐service teachers participated in a virtual EI training (<emph>n</emph> = 48) to determine the effect on burnout. EI was assessed using an early version of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators (SEF:ED) (McCallum &amp; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref92">62</reflink>]), and burnout by the MBI‐ES (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref93">52</reflink>]). The intervention developed included electronic learning modules with options for reflection and application through vignettes. Though quantitative results suggested minimal change in EI or burnout over time, qualitative results suggested that participants found the intervention helpful for managing their classrooms and relating to their students. Overall, the literature provides some evidence that many teachers experience high rates of stress and burnout, which may be reduced by targeting EI training in preservice and in‐service teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-9">RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY</hd> <p>Based on the current literature, EI seems critical not only for teachers' well‐being and life success, but also for "teacher‐specific" domains, including classroom performance, teacher efficacy, bullying, and student engagement (Brackett, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>]; Maguire et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref95">46</reflink>]; Vesely et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref96">91</reflink>]). However, the field lacks a psychometrically sound instrument that examines EI in the educational context. To date, only one scale has been developed specifically for the purpose of measuring teachers' EI (Emotional Intelligence Scale; Wu, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref97">96</reflink>]). The Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wu, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref98">96</reflink>]), is a 25‐item self‐report measure (e.g., I can easily recognize if I am sad) with a 5‐point Likert‐like response scale. However, with one exception (e.g., one item refers to an educator‐specific interaction), the items target nonspecific situations. The measure yields a total score and five subscale scores. The subscales are Self‐awareness, Managing Emotions, Self‐motivation, Empathy, and Handling Relationships and internal consistency reliabilities were 0.66, 0.66, 0.73, 0.70, and 0.80, respectively (Wu, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref99">96</reflink>]). The internal consistency reliability for the total scale was 0.80. The author of the scale reported these findings and suggested a need for further evidence to clarify reliability and examine validity. We were unable to find further evidence supporting the psychometric properties of this measure in the literature and could locate no other education‐specific operationalizations designed to assess EI for educators.</p> <p>The goal of the current study is to address this need by sharing the development of the the SEF:ED, including the theoretical model upon which it is based and preliminary psychometric properties, including indicators of reliability and validity. Specifically, in this study we address the following research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>) Is there evidence to support examinee response validity based on consistent responding to yoked items? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>) Is there evidence to support the anticipated three‐factor structure of the SEF:ED as determined by a series of exploratory factor analyses? Based on item‐selection criteria, is there support for eliminating items?; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>) Is there evidence to support the basic psychometric integrity of the SEF:ED, via item‐scale correlations and internal consistency reliability?; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref103">4</reflink>) Is there evidence to support the concurrent validity of the SEF:ED as determined by the relationship between it and an established measure in the field, the Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC; Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref104">13</reflink>])?; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref105">5</reflink>) Is there evidence to support the predictive validity of the SEF:ED for an important related construct among educators, i.e., burnout as assessed by the MBI‐ES (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]) scales?</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-10">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164723698-11">Participants and setting</hd> <p>Participants included 102 educators currently employed in a public‐school district in the southeastern United States. After data cleaning procedures, the sample included 97 participants. Of the sample, the majority were female (83.5%). Participants ranged in age from their 20s to their 60s, with 91.7% between the ages of 20 and 59 years. Most participants were teachers; however, 27.8% held "other" positions in their schools. These professionals included specialists, administrators, special education case managers, school counselors, response‐to‐intervention coordinators, school psychologists, and teacher assistants. Experience within the field of education ranged from 1 to 55 years, with 64.0% having more than 5 years of experience; see Table 1 for elaboration of educator demographics. Data were collected from the following scales, described below: SEF:ED, the PEC, and the MBI‐ES.</p> <p>1 Table Participant demographic information.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;%&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;%&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Gender&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Years of education experience&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;83.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38.1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Age&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;33.0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;20&amp;#8211;39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38.1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28.9&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;40&amp;#8211;59&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;53.6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;60+&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8.2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Highest degree attained&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;High school diploma/GED&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Type of classroom taught&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&amp;#8211;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelor's degree&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26.8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;56.7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate degree&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;69&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;71.1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;36.1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0164723698-12">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164723698-13">SEF:ED</hd> <p>The SEF:ED was developed by a research Team led by the second author of this article; the Team focused on a number of projects aimed to create, validate, then use EI‐related instruments to investigate the relationship between EI and related constructs and the extent to which EI can be trained (Fast, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref107">19</reflink>]). The SEF:ED is the third EI instrument developed by the Team and was adapted in part from the first EI scale, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Medicine (SEF:MED; see Beierle, et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]; Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref109">45</reflink>]; McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref110">63</reflink>]). The SEF:MED was developed from scrutiny of the EI literature and available EI instruments and three subscales were created: Emotional Awareness (EA), Emotional Management (EM), and Interpersonal Relationships (IR) respectively. For initial development of the SEF:ED a pool of items was developed based on the literature and other instruments including the SEF:MED using language suitable for educators, and the resulting 45‐item scale was administered to 98 participants as part of a pilot study. After item analyses the final version of the SEF:ED scale was reduced to 30 items, as shown in Table 2. Split‐half reliability estimates were derived using the Spearman‐Brown formula, and values of.86,.71, and.80 were obtained for EA, EI, and IR, respectively. Evidence for the concurrent validity of the SEF:ED was established by comparing it to an established measure of Emotional Intelligence, the PEC, and correlation coefficients between the scales of the PEC and SEF:ED ranged from.35 to.72 as described briefly below.</p> <p>2 Table Factor loadings for exploratory factor analysis (Varimax Rotation) of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators (SEF:ED).</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th&gt;Items&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Emotional intelligence scales&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Emotional awareness (&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;.86)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Emotional management (&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;.80)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Interpersonal relations (&lt;italic&gt;r&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;sub&gt;s&lt;/sub&gt;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;.71)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1. Recognize the feelings of others.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.536&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2. Am able to interpret the emotions of students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.565&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3. Misinterpret nonverbal communication of students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.615&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4. Have difficulty recognizing the emotional tone within groups.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.747&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5. Have difficulty recognizing when I offend students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.631&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6. Misinterpret nonverbal communication.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.692&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;7. Am aware of the emotional needs of students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.412&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;8. Recognize the feelings of parents.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.623&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;9. Misinterpret nonverbal communication of parents.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.593&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;10. Am able to interpret the emotions of parents.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.647&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11. Express concern for my students' feelings.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.413&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;12. hHave difficulty remaining effective when upset.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.521&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;13. Am easy&amp;#8208;going.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.516&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;14. Let stress overwhelm me.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.729&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;15. Maintain a healthy attitude about negative evaluations.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.638&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;16. Find it difficult to be resilient.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.627&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;17. Am unable to shake pessimistic moods.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.658&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;18. Am energized by change.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.271&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;19. Handle upsetting situations poorly.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.486&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;20. Am fun to be with.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.483&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21. Lack empathy for my students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.549&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;22. Interact with my students reluctantly.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.431&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;23. Relate to students easily.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.648&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;24. Lack respect for the feelings of students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.490&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;25. Take time to calm students who are upset.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.619&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;26. Exhibit a calming influence in the classroom.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.490&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;27. Find it difficult to get along with coworkers.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.388&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;28. Create positive relationships with students.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.443&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;29. Can easily calm an anxious student.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.558&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;30. Lack empathy for parents.&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;.413&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>To prevent item response set for the SEF:ED, the positive and negative nature of the items were counterbalanced and presented in a 5‐point Likert‐like format using the following options: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, and Always. For the purpose of this study, the scale was delivered electronically through Qualtrics and participants were able to click on the answer that best characterized their behaviors. From these, data were collected to inform reliability (internal consistency) and validity (concurrent and construct).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-14">PEC</hd> <p>The PEC is a 50‐item self‐report measure of EI and yields 10 subscale scores, and 3 composite scores for Intrapersonal EI, Interpersonal EI, and Global EI (Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref111">13</reflink>]). Reliability and validity data of the PEC were examined by Brasseur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref112">13</reflink>]). Internal consistency coefficient <emph>α</emph> of the subscales range from.60 to.83, and for composite scores alphas are.84 or above (Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]). Kirkpatrick ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref114">37</reflink>]) reported Cronbach's coefficient <emph>α</emph> for the Intrapersonal and Interpersonal scales as.87 and.85, respectively. The PEC has strong convergent validity with another measure of EI, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire‐Short Form (TEIQue‐SF; Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref115">13</reflink>]). The PEC Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Global EI scales are correlated with the TEIQue‐SF at.78,.52, and.77, respectively. Furthermore, higher EI scores on the PEC are associated with related constructs such as increased happiness, better social relationships, and positive affect (Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-15">MBI‐ES</hd> <p>The MBI‐ES (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref117">53</reflink>]) is a 22‐item self‐report measure of burnout specifically designed for educators. This tool is a modified version of the original Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey (MBI‐HSS) to include wording more specific to education (e.g., the MBI‐ES uses the term "student" instead of "recipient"). The MBI‐ES yields three subscale scores: Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment.</p> <p>Reliability and validity estimates of the MBI‐ES have been examined in several studies and results suggest the scale has good psychometric properties (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]). Cronbach's coefficient <emph>α</emph> for the Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment subscales are.90,.76, and.76, respectively (Iwanicki &amp; Schwab, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref119">30</reflink>]);.88,.74, and.72, respectively (Gold, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref120">22</reflink>]); and.87,.76, and.84, respectively (Chang, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref121">17</reflink>]). Similarly, Cronbach's coefficient <emph>α</emph> for the Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment subscales on the MBI‐HSS (MP) (.91,.75, and.80, respectively) were consistent with the previously reported alphas for the MBI‐HSS (Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref122">37</reflink>]). Test‐retest reliability estimates were 0.60 for Emotional Exhaustion, 0.54 for Depersonalization, and 0.57 for Personal Accomplishment (Jackson et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref123">31</reflink>]). These lower estimates were hypothesized to be attributed to the changing work situations that teachers often face (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref124">52</reflink>]). Validity of the MBI‐ES has been demonstrated by examining the relationship of the burnout scales with other aspects of the work experience such as role conflict, work overload, classroom climate, (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref125">15</reflink>]) and job settings (Koustelios &amp; Tsigilis, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref126">39</reflink>]); related stressors of working relationships, such as student misbehavior (Chang, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref127">17</reflink>]), students with behavior problems (Lambert et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref128">40</reflink>]), principal leadership (Fernet et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref129">20</reflink>]), and witnessing co‐workers being harassed (Astrauskaitė et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref130">3</reflink>]); and long‐term outcomes such as personal well‐being and literacy skills of students (Hoglund et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref131">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-16">Procedure</hd> <p>After receiving permission from school and district administrators and the University's Institutional Review Board, a district‐wide email list was released to researchers. All educators in the district were asked to participate in the study by completing online versions of the SEF:ED, MBI‐ES and PEC. The instruments were administered in counter‐balanced order via Qualtrics<sups>XM</sups> Online Survey Software. Consent was included in the online administration before presentation of the instruments and scripted directions were provided on the test booklet. All responses were assigned a random identification number to preserve anonymity.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-17">Data analyses</hd> <p>Data analyses include descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, ranges, skewness, and kurtosis of the SEF:ED and the MBI. In addition, correlation‐based analyses were conducted yielding factor analytic solutions, item‐scale correlation coefficients, reliability estimates, and coefficients showing the relationships between the SEF:ED and the PEC and MBI.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-18">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164723698-19">Evidence of respondent validity</hd> <p>The SEF:ED includes six consistency pairs (12 items total) that were used to address consistency of responding, <emph>Research Question 1</emph>. These pairs were identified based on content and modeled after the SEF:MED (McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref132">63</reflink>]). The consistency pairs were yoked items that were identified as having similar content; therefore, respondents were expected to provide the same rating on both items. To measure consistent responding, the absolute difference was calculated for each consistency pair then summed to yield an overall measure of inconsistency. An Inconsistency score two standard deviations above the mean was determined to be a significant outlier, indicative of an inconsistent response style (Ilyas &amp; Chu, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref133">28</reflink>]). Thus, participants with an Inconsistency score at or above two standard deviations above the mean were removed from the sample.</p> <p>Inconsistency scores ranged from 0 to 8 (<emph>M</emph> = 2.70, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.63, mode = 3). Of the participants, 8.8% (<emph>n</emph> = 9) had an inconsistency score of 0 (indicating that they responded consistently across all item pairs), 13.7% (<emph>n</emph> = 14) had an inconsistency score of 1, 24.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 25) had an inconsistency score of 2, 25.5% (<emph>n</emph> = 26) had an inconsistency score of 3, 14.7% (<emph>n</emph> = 15) had an inconsistency score of 4, 7.8% (<emph>n</emph> = 8) had an inconsistency score of 5, 2.9% (<emph>n</emph> = 3) had an inconsistency score of 6, 1.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) had an inconsistency score of 7, and 1.0% (<emph>n</emph> = 1) had an inconsistency score of 8. Participants with an inconsistency score of 6 or greater were identified as having an inconsistent response style. Consequently, their results (<emph>n</emph> = 5) were removed from the participant pool. After this data cleaning process, a total of 97 participants remained in the sample.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-20">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Following data cleaning procedures and removal of inconsistent respondents, scores for the SEF:ED, PEC, and MBI‐ES were obtained from the sample (<emph>n</emph> = 97). For the SEF:ED, Total EI scores and subscale scores were calculated. For the PEC, the Global EI score, composite scores, and subscale scores were obtained. For the MBI‐ES, the authors of the instrument discourage use of global scores, so only subscale scores were obtained. Minimum and maximum scores, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis are presented below for all variables. Normality of data was evaluated based on Abbott's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref134">1</reflink>]) recommendations, which suggests that distributions are considered to be "normal" and balanced if they do not exceed a skewness or kurtosis greater than the absolute value of three. Scores across all three measures are normally distributed, with skewness and kurtosis typically falling between −1.0 and +1.0.</p> <p>SEF:ED Total raw scores ranged from 89.00 to 141.00 with a mean of 114.91 (<emph>SD</emph> = 8.80, <emph>n</emph> = 97); item means ranged from 2.97 to 4.70 with a mean of 3.83 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.29, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Total scores on the EA subscale ranged from 27.00 to 47.00 with a mean of 38.34 (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.65, <emph>n</emph> = 97); item means ranged from 2.70 to 4.70 with a mean of 3.83 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.36, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Total scores on the EM subscale ranged from 27.00 to 47.00 with a mean of 35.44 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.16, <emph>n</emph> = 97); item means ranged from 2.70 to 4.70 with a mean of 3.54 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.42, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Finally, total scores on the IR subscale ranged from 33.00 to 49.00 with a mean of 41.14 (<emph>SD</emph> = 3.31, <emph>n</emph> = 97); item means ranged from 3.30 to 4.90 with a mean of 4.11 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.33, <emph>n</emph> = 97). The SEF:ED scores are considered to be normally distributed, with skewness ranging from −0.40 to 0.09 and kurtosis ranging from −0.30 to 0.55.</p> <p>The PEC Global EI scores ranged from 2.50 to 4.56 with a mean of 3.68 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.42, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Scores on the Intrapersonal EC ranged from 2.56 to 4.76 with a mean of 3.74 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.50, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Mean scores on the Intrapersonal EC subscales (Identification, Understanding, Expression, Regulation, and Utilization) ranged from 3.45 to 3.98 and standard deviations ranged from 0.63 to 0.75. Scores on the Interpersonal EC ranged from 2.32 to 4.60 with a mean of 3.61 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.47, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Mean scores on the Interpersonal (Identification, Understanding, Expression, Regulation, and Utilization) ranged from 2.93 to 4.00 and standard deviations ranged from 0.54 to 0.81. Across all PEC measures, skewness ranged from −0.82 to 0.03 and kurtosis ranged from −0.87 to 0.79. Thus, the scores are considered to be normally distributed.</p> <p>On the MBI‐ES, total scores for Emotional Exhaustion ranged from 0.00 to 47.00 with a mean of 25.5 (<emph>SD</emph> = 11.18, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Total scores for Depersonalization ranged from 0.00 to 20.00 with a mean of 6.29 (<emph>SD</emph> = 4.79, <emph>n</emph> = 97). Total scores for Personal Accomplishment ranged from 16.00 to 45.00 with a mean of 32.82 (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.10, <emph>n</emph> = 97). The MBI‐ES scores are normally distributed, with skewness ranging from −0.51 to 0.57 and kurtosis −0.67 and 0.51.</p> <p>Once development of the SEF:ED was completed, additional descriptive statistics were obtained and are shown in Tables 4–11. These tables show the relationships between EI and demographic variables (i.e., gender, educator degree, years in service, and classroom setting—general vs special education), as well as between burnout and these same variables.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-21">Evidence of best‐fit factor structure and item selection</hd> <p>A series of exploratory factor solutions were considered to determine the best factor structure for the SEF:ED, <emph>Research Question 2</emph>. After examining 2, 3 and 4‐factor solutions, a three‐factor scale was determined to be most defensible based on a principal components solution and varimax rotation, examination of Eigenvalues, and related statistics (item‐scale correlations); based on these analyses, 15 items were removed. Results revealed acceptable loadings for items across the three SEF:ED scales (EA, EM, and IR), each with 10 items, for a total of 30 items (e.g., all but one item loaded at 0.35 or higher within their assigned scales). The item loading of one item is negative (Item 11), which was likely due to a methodological flaw. That is, before final data collection, the items were written to prevent response set by including both positive and negative language in an alternating pattern; however, the language of Item 11 inadvertently did not fit the pattern. Consequently, the polarity was negative but should have been positive (see Table 2).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-22">Evidence of psychometric integrity of the SEF:ED</hd> <p>To address <emph>Research Question 3</emph>, split‐half reliability and item‐scale correlations were calculated for the EA, EM, and IR scales; reliability indices are.86,.80, and.71, respectively. These split‐half correlations are considered acceptable estimates of internal consistency (Salkind, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref135">79</reflink>]). Item‐scale correlations were analyzed when considering the removal of items, and these results helped define the final three‐factor scale. Corrected item‐total correlations ranged from.06 to.61, but most were in the.40 to.50 range. As expected, the SEF:ED scales show statistically significant inter‐scale correlation coefficients (<emph>p</emph> &lt; .01), ranging from.41 to.48; the scales correlated significantly with the SEF:ED total also (<emph>p</emph> &lt; .01), ranging from.77. to.83. Means, and standard deviations of SEF:ED raw scores and items, and acceptable kurtosis, and skewness statistics are shown in Table 3.</p> <p>3 Table Correlation coefficients between the SEF:ED and MBI‐ES.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SEF:ED emotional awareness (EA)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SEF:ED emotional management (EM)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SEF:ED interpersonal relations (IR)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SEF:ED total EI&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES emotional exhaustion (EE)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;.210002&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.480003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.210002&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.390003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES depersonalization (DP)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.300003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.400003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.550003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;.520003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES personal accomplishment (PA)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;.370003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;.550003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;.450003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;.590003&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: MBI‐ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators; SEF:ED, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * Correlation is significant at.05 level (two‐tailed).</item> <item>3 ** Correlation is significant at the.01 level (two‐tailed).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0164723698-23">Evidence of concurrent validity</hd> <p> <emph>Research Question 4</emph> was addressed by examining SEF:ED concurrent validity, determined by evaluating the relationship between the SEF:ED and PEC composite and subscale scores via Pearson <emph>r</emph> correlation coefficients. Effect sizes were estimated from coefficients of determination (<emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups>). The SEF:ED total EI composite score is significantly positively correlated with Global EI on the PEC (<emph>r</emph> = .72, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .52). SEF:ED Total EI is also significantly positively correlated with the PEC Intrapersonal and Interpersonal composites (<emph>r</emph> = .66, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .44; <emph>r</emph> = .59, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .35, respectively). The SEF:ED subscales and PEC composites are also positively related. The SEF:ED EA subscale is significantly positively correlated with the Global EI, Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal composites on the PEC (<emph>r</emph> = .60, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .36; <emph>r</emph> = .48, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .23; <emph>r</emph> = .56, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .31, respectively). The SEF:ED EM subscale is significantly positively correlated with the PEC Global EI, Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal composites (<emph>r</emph> = .58, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .34; <emph>r</emph> = .65, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .42; <emph>r</emph> = .35, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .12, respectively). Lastly, the SEF:ED IR subscale is significantly positively correlated with the Global EI, Intrapersonal, and Interpersonal composites on the PEC (<emph>r</emph> = .53, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .28; <emph>r</emph> = .40, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .16; <emph>r</emph> = .52, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> = .27, respectively).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-24">Evidence of predictive validity</hd> <p>Finally, to address <emph>Research Question 5</emph>, the predictive validity of the SEF:ED was examined via consideration of Pearson r and <emph>r</emph><sups>2</sups> values operationalizing the relationship between scores on the SEF:ED and the MBI‐ES. Results reveal statistically significant correlations between all comparison scores from the SEF:ED and MBI‐ES, and as is obvious from the pattern depicted in Table 3, the relationship are as expected, i.e., the SEF:ED scales are negatively related to the MBI‐ES EE and DP and positively related to PA. Specifically, the Total EI score on the SEF:ED is significantly negatively correlated with the EE and DP subscales on the MBI‐ES (<emph>r</emph> = −.39, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .15; <emph>r</emph> = −.52, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .27, respectively) and significantly positively correlated with the PA subscale on the MBI‐ES (<emph>r</emph> = .59, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .34). The EA subscale is also significantly negatively correlated with the EE and DP subscales (<emph>r</emph> = −.21, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .05, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .04; <emph>r</emph> = −0.30, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .09, respectively) and significantly positively correlated with the PA subscale (<emph>r</emph> = .37, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .14). The EM subscale is significantly negatively correlated with the EE and DP subscales (<emph>r</emph> = −.48, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .24; <emph>r</emph> = −.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .16, respectively) and significantly positively correlated with the PA subscale (<emph>r</emph> = .55, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .31). Finally, the IR subscale is significantly negatively correlated with the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization subscales (<emph>r</emph> = −.21, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .05, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .04; <emph>r</emph> = −.55, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .30, respectively) and significantly positively correlated with the Personal Accomplishment subscale (<emph>r</emph> = .45, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, <emph>r</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = .21). The shared variance between the SEF:ED and the MBI‐ES ranges from 4% to 31%, and indicates some overlap between EI and burnout for most comparisons.</p> <p>Because the literature is mixed regarding the relationship among EI, burnout, and demographics and there is considerable EI and burn out response variability across and within individuals/demographic categories additional analyses were conducted based on reviewers' recommendations using the completed SEF:ED scales, available MBI‐ES data, and demographics (e.g., teacher gender, role, and time in service); data are shown in Tables 4–11. However, <bold>t</bold>hese data were not the primary focus of the current study and sample sizes for contrasts are typically small; consequently, results should be interpreted with caution. Of note, with few exceptions these data are normally distributed, as reflected by skewness and kurtosis values. The exceptions tend to occur within distributions created from small samples, &lt;30, and primarily characterize males.</p> <p>Like most previous studies the data are mixed. For interpretation, the most important scores within the tables are those in the "item mean" and "effect size" columns, as they reflect the indicators most sensitive to EI and burnout. Consideration of EI operationalized by the SEF:ED are shown in Tables 4–7; Table 4 shows that males report mean EI item scores that are a bit higher than those from females, although the differences are relatively small and may reflect error; as shown in Table 5 the mean items for those with a bachelor's degrees are virtually the same as those with graduate degree, and the differences are not be meaningful. Time in service effects are shown in Table 6 and no pattern is evident; any differences that appear are small. When considering classroom setting special education teachers earn slightly higher scores, but again the differences are small, as is apparent in Table 7. The burnout scores, operationalized by the MBI‐ES item means, reflect few differences for gender (see Table 8), although males tend to report slightly higher Personal Accomplishment scores. As is apparent from the scores reported in Table 9, the differences based on educator degree are very small and there is no systematic pattern. As is apparent from Table 10 scores of those with 11–20 years in service report slightly higher EE and DP scores and lower PA, all consistent with higher burnout. Those with the most years in service report the highest PA. In general, mean item scores were similar across the comparisons based on demographics.</p> <p>4 Table SEF:ED scores based on gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Cohen's &lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED total EI&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.91&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;2.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional awareness&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.41&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.51&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional management&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.66&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.41&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.66&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED interpersonal relations&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.46&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Abbreviations: EI, emotional intelligence; SEF:ED, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators.</item> <item>5 Table SEF:ED scores based on educator degree.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Cohen's &lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED total EI&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.313&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.519&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.299&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.237&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.002&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional awareness&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.86&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.409&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;1.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.82&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.360&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.069&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.166&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional management&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.51&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.435&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.115&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.789&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.421&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.243&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.059&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED interpersonal relations&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.366&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.266&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.335&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.333&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.208&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.111&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 Abbreviations: EI, emotional intelligence; SEF:ED, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators.</item> <item>6 Table SEF:ED scores based on years in service.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Eta&amp;#8208;squared&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED total EI&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.249&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.039&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.939&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.018&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.77&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.346&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.221&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.199&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.86&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.283&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.817&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional awareness&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.87&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.286&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.378&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.465&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.006&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.459&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.385&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.268&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.345&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.212&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.243&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional management&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.56&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.393&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.012&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.408&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.062&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.41&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.458&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.161&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.990&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.68&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.361&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.605&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED interpersonal relations&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.281&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.048&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.132&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.004&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.351&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.161&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.225&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.376&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.166&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.239&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 Abbreviations: EI, emotional intelligence; SEF:ED, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators.</item> <item>7 Table SEF:ED scores based on classroom setting.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item M&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Cohen's &lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED total EI&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.309&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.017&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.777&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.284&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.164&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.680&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional awareness&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.79&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.382&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.527&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.845&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.87&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.361&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.041&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.590&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED emotional management&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.51&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.438&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.314&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.199&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.096&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.70&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.396&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.324&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.299&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;SEF:ED interpersonal relations&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.30&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.344&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.034&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.044&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.089&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.337&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.155&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.062&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 Abbreviations: EI, emotional intelligence; SEF:ED, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators.</item> <item>8 Table MBI‐ES scores based on gender.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Cohen's d&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES emotional exhaustion&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.74&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.053&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES depersonalization&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.45&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES personal accomplishment&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Male&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.68&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Female&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.71&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 Abbreviation: MBI‐ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators.</item> <item>9 Table MBI‐ES scores based on educator degree.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Cohen's &lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES emotional exhaustion&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.87&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.117&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.267&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.024&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.303&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.706&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES depersonalization&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.848&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.336&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.971&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.372&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.596&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES personal accomplishment&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bachelors&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.528&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.095&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.293&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.065&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Graduate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.699&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.571&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.451&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 Abbreviation: MBI‐ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators.</item> <item>10 Table MBI‐ES scores based on years in education.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item &lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Item SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Kurtosis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Eta&amp;#8208;squared&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES emotional exhaustion&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.56&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.99&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.072&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.570&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.093&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.56&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.402&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.072&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.192&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;1.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES depersonalization&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.887&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.894&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.021&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.250&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.895&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.888&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.562&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.270&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES personal accomplishment&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&amp;#8211;10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.673&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.883&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;1.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.152&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.88&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.579&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.207&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.368&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&amp;#8211;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.50&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.46&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.485&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.218&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.022&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>10 Abbreviation: MBI‐ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-25">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Experts and decision‐makers from many professions who study workplace success have embraced EI as a consideration for employment; thus, the literature has expanded significantly in recent years. Most relevant to this study, educational researchers have begun to focus on the relationship between teaching effectiveness, teacher well‐being, and EI, in part because of the significant stress and high rates of burnout within the profession (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref136">16</reflink>]; Gallup, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref137">21</reflink>]; Jennings &amp; Greenberg, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref138">32</reflink>]; Mérida‐López &amp; Extremera, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref139">64</reflink>]). According to the research, almost half of all teachers leave the profession within the first 5 years of their career, which is salient considering the need for experienced educators and data showing teacher shortages in many areas (Gallup, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref140">21</reflink>]; Sutcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref141">88</reflink>]). In spite of the increasing interest, research is limited in this area. For example, there is not a contextually adequate and valid self‐report operationalization of EI designed <emph>expressly</emph> for teachers. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a measure of EI specific to the field of education and then examine the relationship of EI and burnout, which are related constructs according to the literature (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref142">16</reflink>]; Mikolajczak et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref143">66</reflink>]; Zysberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref144">98</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous studies exploring the relationship between EI and workplace well‐being, including EI and burnout have used generic EI scales to measure the EI of educators. The scale of focus for this study, the SEF:ED, was created using education‐specific language (e.g., "students" and "classroom") and includes references to relevant parties (e.g., coworkers, parents, students). Results provide preliminary support for the psychometric integrity of the SEF:ED and its relationship to one important workplace factor: burnout. These results, limitations, and implications for the EI literature and in school contexts are described below.</p> <p> <emph>Research Question 1</emph> addressed consistency of scoring by examining responses to compare answers on yoked consistency items. The majority of participants' responses (95%) were consistent and were assumed to provide evidence of one type of response validity; therefore, they were retained. This method of creating a validity scale for identifying valid responses aligns with consistency scales within other behavioral reporting measures, such as the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC‐3; Reynolds &amp; Kamphaus, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref145">78</reflink>]) and the SEF:MED (Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref146">37</reflink>]). Elimination of inconsistent respondents increases the integrity of the scale by reducing error in the scores, and consequently enhances confidence in score interpretation.</p> <p>Results from <emph>Research Question 2</emph> focused on determination of best‐fit structure and item selection for the SEF:ED. After a series of exploratory factor analyses, a three factor‐structure was determined to be the most defensible. After item analyses, the retained items loaded on three subscales, each with 10 items, and almost all items have acceptable loadings on their respective scale (i.e., ≥ 0.35), with one exception. One retained item loaded at 0.27, but strengthened the reliability estimate of the subscale. The structure of the SEF:ED is similar to that of the SEF:MED (McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref147">63</reflink>]) in that each contains three subscales assessing similar subconstructs of EI. This structure is consistent with various definitions of EI, which emphasizes the awareness of one's EI, the ability to use this awareness to help manage work place stressors, and the ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships (Beierle et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref148">7</reflink>]). Importantly, this three‐factor structure is similar to the three‐factor structure of the MBI‐ES, and data shows the subscales of the SEF:MED and the SEF:ED are related to MBI scales (McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref149">63</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Research Question 3</emph> focused on examination of the psychometric integrity of the SEF:ED; results of various statistical analyses were interpreted as providing preliminary evidence for its psychometric integrity. For example, internal consistency reliability estimates range from moderately high to strong (split‐half reliability estimates are 0.86, 0.80, and 0.71 for the EA, EM, and IR subscales, respectively) and the factor loadings are acceptable. The reliability estimates are similar to the PEC, the measure being used to evaluate concurrent validity of the SEF:ED. That is, according to the PEC Manual, the PEC yielded Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of.84 or above (Brasseur et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref150">13</reflink>]). Additionally, the test that provided an initial model for the SEF:ED, that is, the SEF:MED, produced Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> of.82,.84, and.81 for EA EM, and IR, respectively (Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref151">37</reflink>]). These internal reliability coefficients are considered to be strong and are similar to those of previously validated EI scales, for example, the Mayer‐Salovey‐Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (split‐half reliability coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.93), Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> ranged from.83 to.90), Emotional Quotient Inventory (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> ranged from.69 to.86), the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> ranged from.75 to.84) (Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref152">5</reflink>]; Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref153">57</reflink>]; Petrides, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref154">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref155">73</reflink>]; Wong &amp; Law, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref156">95</reflink>]). Also, the SEF:ED internal reliabilities are similar to the only self‐report EI measure developed purportedly for use with educators, the Emotional Intelligence Scale, with Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> ranging from.66 to.80 (Wu, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref157">96</reflink>]). These data inform (and support) the psychometric integrity of the SEF:ED based on criteria from Salkind ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref158">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Results addressing <emph>Research Question 4</emph> examined the concurrent validity of the SEF:ED by examining the relationship between it and the PEC, an established measure of EI created to address EI generically. The SEF:ED Total EI composite score is significantly correlated with the PEC Global score and both of the PEC composite scores. In addition, the SEF:ED subscales are significantly correlated with the PEC Global score and the PEC composite scores. The strength of the correlations generally aligns as expected. Specifically, the SEF:ED EM subscale is more strongly related to the PEC Intrapersonal composite than the PEC Interpersonal composite. This relationship is expected, as EM is more focused on managing one's own emotions than regulating a relationship. Another expected trend is reflected by the theoretically‐based stronger relationship of the SEF:ED IR to the PEC Interpersonal composite rather than to the PEC Intrapersonal composite, i.e., both focus on managing relations with other persons.</p> <p>Results addressing <emph>Research Question 5</emph> operationalized the relationship of EI and burnout by exploring the predictive validity of the SEF:ED with the MBI‐ES. Across all comparisons between the SEF:ED and the MBI‐ES, the SEF:ED scores were significantly correlated with the MBI‐ES scores. These correlations were positively/negatively charged in the directions expected. Specifically, emotional strengths on the SEF:ED (e.g., Emotional Awareness, Emotional Management, and Interpersonal Relations) were positively correlated with emotional strengths on the MBI‐ES (e.g., Personal Accomplishment). Similarly, emotional strengths on the SEF:ED were negatively correlated with emotional weaknesses on the MBI‐ES (e.g., Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization). All correlations were modest to moderate in magnitude (correlation coefficients ranged from | .21| to | .59 | ). The strongest correlation was found between the total score on the SEF:ED and the Personal Accomplishment subscale on the MBI‐ES. Overall, these scores suggest that the relationship of emotional intelligence and burnout is modest to moderate and are generally consistent with the previous literature exploring the relationship between EI and burnout for teachers (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref159">16</reflink>]; Mikolajczak et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref160">66</reflink>]). The results suggest that targeting and attempting to strengthen the EI of educators <emph>may</emph> result in decreasing burnout.</p> <p>Because the MBI‐ES Manual contains some validity data from teachers, it is possible to compare in a gross manner the mean scores for participants in the current study to those from the MBI‐ES standardization sample, though a direct statistical comparison is not possible. Means from the participants in this study for the EE, DP, and PA scales are 2.84, 1.25, and 4.10, respectively and are similar to the reported means in the MBI Manual (i.e., 2.36, 2.20, and 4.19 for EE, DP, and PA scales, respectively, for a sample of primary and secondary teachers) (Maslach et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref161">52</reflink>]). In general, scores suggest that the participants within the current sample reported levels of burnout similar to those within the MBI‐ES Manual.</p> <p>Finally, relationships between EI, burnout, and educator demographics are not straightforward and generalizability is limited as much of the literature reflect data from foreign samples (see Park &amp; Shin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref162">68</reflink>]; Saoviita &amp; Pakarinen, 2021; and Lau et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref163">42</reflink>]). To extend the relevant literature for the US additional post hoc analyses were conducted. As is apparent from the means and effect sizes in Tables 4–11 educators in our sample varied little as a function of EI or burnout, with a few exceptions. For example, males reported higher mean EI item scores than females, although the difference is relatively small, and means across degree earned are virtually the same, as are the means across time in service. When considering classroom setting special education teachers earn slightly higher EI scores, but again the mean difference is relatively small. The Patterns are similar for burnout as reported on the MBI‐ES, that is, males tend to report slightly higher PA scores than females, those with 11–20 years in service report higher EE and DP scores and lower PA, all consistent with higher burnout, although those with the most years in service report the highest PA. These time in service data can be considered in light of Park and Shin's ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref164">68</reflink>]) conclusions from their meta‐analysis, who found little relationship between reported time in service and burnout across studies. More specifically, some studies reported novice teachers as having higher burnout than experienced teachers, while others did not, though any differences may be due to methodological variations across the studies. Finally, data in Table 11 show mean item scores of general education teachers to be more indicative of burnout than those of special educators, consistent with the pattern reported by Saloviita and Pakarinen ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref165">81</reflink>]). In summary, the data addressing the relationships between demographic variables and EI and these same demographic variables and burnout from this study are provided as gross estimates, are tentative, and no firm conclusions should be drawn from them.</p> <p>11 Table MBI‐ES scores based on classroom setting.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Min&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Max&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;M&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;SD&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Skewness&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;Cohen's &lt;italic&gt;d&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES emotional exhaustion&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.98&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.521&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.041&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.56&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.021&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;1.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES depersonalization&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.36&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.643&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.037&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.921&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.289&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;1.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;MBI&amp;#8208;ES personal accomplishment&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;General education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.720&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.457&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;0.285&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.88&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.519&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.209&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="char" char="."&gt;&amp;#8722;0.365&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>11 Abbreviation: MBI‐ES, Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-26">Limitations of the study</hd> <p>Though the results provide some support for the utility of the SEF:ED, there are a number of limitations of this study that suggest the need for cautious interpretation of the findings, several of which relate to the sample and generalizability. Though the sample included a diverse grouping of ages (ranging from 20 to 69 years of age), experience (from 1 to 55 years), and diverse grade levels and content (from pre‐k to college), it was limited in other ways. For example, the sample was relatively small (<emph>n</emph> = 97) from one particular area of the country (e.g., the southeast), and included mostly female participants. Of note, the gender breakdown of participants <emph>is</emph> similar to national demographics (Taie &amp; Goldring, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref166">89</reflink>]). To obtain a respectable <emph>N</emph>, the sample of this study included participants defined by various professional educator roles (teachers, counselors, administrators, etc.). For more definitive results researchers should focus on examining relationships within specific subgroups of educators in the future.</p> <p>Another limitation relates to the method for operationalizing EI, that is, the SEF:ED is a self‐report instrument and is subject to the limitations of that methodology (e.g., subjective responding). In addition, the SEF:ED only includes one validity scale, specifically, the Consistency Index. It lacks a mechanism sensitive to examinees' tendency to "Fake Good." Socially desirable responses are subject to participants' ideas of socially acceptable behavior, and these responses may lead to less valid results (Bouffard &amp; Narciss, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref167">8</reflink>]; Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref168">27</reflink>]). In the future, the extent to which faking is problematic could be addressed by examining the relationship between SEF:ED scores and scores on an instrument designed to assess social desirability (e.g., the Crowne &amp; Marlowe, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref169">18</reflink>]). Of note, the authors of the SEF:ED designed a yoked third‐party version which might help address this problem. That is, use of this scale allows a comparison of perspectives from both supervisees and supervisors. However, data addressing the utility of this yoked supervisor version are needed but not yet available; currently the SEF:ED authors are collecting data needed to investigate the relationship between the two versions given that the literature supports the value of obtaining multiple perspectives (Kirkpatrick, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref170">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another limitation is related to the language within the goals (and related questions) of the study, and specifically use of the word "predictive." Traditionally, the term predictive implies that there is a temporal relationship between two variables, and that one variable may predict another after some time has elapsed. That is not the case in this study—all the variables were collected concurrently, typically during one to three sessions within the same day. So, the term as used in this study does not imply a temporal relationship between the variables, but only a statistical one.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-27">SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>In summary, results support a three‐factor solution for the SEF:ED and provide tentative psychometric support for it as a measure of EI specific to education Additionally, support for concurrent validity of the SEF:ED was obtained by comparing its scores to those from the PEC aw and its predictive validity when the criterion variable is a real‐world outcome, i.e., teacher burnout. Results from this study are similar to those from other fields (e.g., see McCallum et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref171">63</reflink>]) and provide support for generalizability of the EI‐burnout relationship across settings, populations. The SEF:ED fills a gap in the literature and field of practice, is brief, can be administered to groups, and is easy to score, thought more evidence regarding its psychometric integrity is needed Finally, because the SEF:ED and MBI scores are significantly related, knowledge of an examinee's pattern of scores has the potential to help determine at risk status for those who may benefit from targeted interventions (Fast, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref172">19</reflink>]; Hen &amp; Sharabi‐Nov, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref173">25</reflink>]; Vesely et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref174">92</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-28">CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0164723698-29">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0164723698-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref100" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbott, M. L. (2016). Using statistics in the social and health sciences with Spss® And Excel®. John Wiley &amp; Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Altaras Dimitrijević, A., Jolić Marjanović, Z., &amp; Dimitrijević, A. (2018). Whichever intelligence makes you happy: The role of academic, emotional, and practical abilities in predicting psychological well‐being. Personality and Individual Differences, 132 (May), 6 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref102" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Astrauskaitė, M., Perminas, A., &amp; Kern, R. (2010). Sickness, colleagues' harassment in teachers' work and emotional exhaustion. Medicina, 46 (9), 628 – 634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bar‐On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ‐i): A test of emotional intelligence. Technical manual. Multi‐Health Systems, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref105" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bar‐On, R. (2002). Bar‐On emotional quotient inventory: Short. Technical manual. Multi‐Health Systems, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bar‐On, R. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integral part of positive psychology. South African Journal of Psychology, 40 (1), 54 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref55" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beierle, S. P., Kirkpatrick, B. A., Heidel, R. E., Russ, A., Ramshaw, B., McCallum, R. S., &amp; Lewis, J. M. (2019). Evaluating and exploring variations in surgical resident emotional intelligence and burnout. Journal of Surgical Education, 76 (3), 628 – 636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref167" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bouffard, T., &amp; Narciss, S. (2011). Benefits and risks of positive biases in self‐evaluation of academic competence: Introduction. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 205 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brackett, M. A. (2018). The emotional intelligence we owe students and educators. Educational Leadership, 76 (2), 12 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brackett, M. A., Bertoli, M., Elbertson, N., Bausseron, E., Castillo, R., &amp; Salovey, P. (2013). Emotional intelligence: Reconceptualizing the cognition‐emotion link. In M. D. Robinson, E. Watkins, &amp; E. Harmon‐Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 365 – 379). Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brackett, M. A., &amp; Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill‐based training for teachers and students, Improving emotional intelligence: A practitioner's guide (pp. 1 – 27). APA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brackett, M. A., &amp; Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (9), 1147 – 1158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., &amp; Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The profile of emotional competence (PEC): Development and validation of a self‐reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. PLoS One, 8 (5), e62635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bulut ozsezer, M. S., &amp; Iflazoglu saban, A. (2016). An investigation on teacher candidates' perspectives about behaviors positively affecting classroom atmosphere. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16 (66), 1 – 30. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.66.8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, B. M. (1994). Burnout: Testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American educational research journal, 31 (3), 645 – 673. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, D. W. (2006). Emotional intelligence and components of burnout among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22 (8), 1042 – 1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, M. L. (2013). Toward a theoretical model to understand teacher emotions and teacher burnout in the context of student misbehavior: Appraisal, regulation and coping. Motivation and emotion, 37 (4), 799 – 817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9335-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crowne, D. P., &amp; Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (4), 349 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fast, M. L. (2021). Evaluating the impact of brief electronic professional development on emotional intelligence and burnout among in‐service educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., &amp; Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (4), 514 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallup. (2014). State of America's schools: A path to winning again in education. <ulink href="http://www.gallup.com/services/178709/state-america-schools-report.aspx">http://www.gallup.com/services/178709/state-america-schools-report.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gold, Y. (1984). The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory in a sample of California elementary and junior high school classroom teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44 (4), 1009 – 1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164484444024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. Bantam Books, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grobler, B., Moloi, C., &amp; Thakhordas, S. (2016). Teachers perceptions of the utilisation of emotional intelligence by their school principals to manage mandated curriculum change processes. Educational Management Administration &amp; Leadership, 45 (2), 336 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hen, M., &amp; Sharabi‐Nov, A. (2014). Teaching the teachers: Emotional intelligence training for teachers. Teaching Education, 25 (4), 375 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.908838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoglund, W. L. G., Klingle, K. E., &amp; Hosan, N. E. (2015). Classroom risks and resources: Teacher burnout, classroom quality and children's adjustment in high needs elementary schools. Journal of School Psychology, 53 (5), 337 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.06.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, C., Liao, H., &amp; Chang, S. H. (1998). Social desirability and the clinical self‐report inventory: Methodological reconsideration. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54 (4), 517 – 528.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ilyas, I. F., &amp; Chu, X. (2019). Data cleaning. Morgan &amp; Claypool.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ilyas, M., &amp; Abdullah, T. (2016). The effect of leadership, organizational culture, emotional intellegence, and job satisfaction on performance. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 5 (2), 158 – 164. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v5i2.4534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iwanicki, E. F., &amp; Schwab, R. L. (1981). A cross validation study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41 (4), 1167 – 1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., &amp; Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (4), 630 – 640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, P. A., &amp; Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79 (1), 491 – 525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., &amp; O'Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self‐reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta‐analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (2), 298 – 342. <ulink href="http://ezproxy.usm.my:3755/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ce8ab606-8451-45c3-bb72-042ee0217d70@sessionmgr4001&amp;vid=0&amp;hid=4204">http://ezproxy.usm.my:3755/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ce8ab606-8451-45c3-bb72-042ee0217d70@sessionmgr4001&amp;vid=0&amp;hid=4204</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ju, C., Lan, J., Li, Y., Feng, W., &amp; You, X. (2015). The mediating role of workplace social support on the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and teacher burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 58 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keefer, K. V. (2015). Self‐report assessments of emotional competencies: A critical look at methods and meanings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33 (1), 3 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914550381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan, N., Palepu, A., Dodek, P., Salmon, A., Leitch, H., Ruzycki, S., Townson, A., &amp; Lacaille, D. (2021). Cross‐sectional survey on physician burnout during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Vancouver, Canada: The role of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. BMJ Open, 11, e050380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick, B. A. (2019). Construction and validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Medicine (SEF:MED) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klare, D., Behney, M., &amp; Kenney, B. F. (2014). Emotional intelligence in a stupid world. Library Hi Tech News, 31 (6), 21 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn-06-2014-0042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koustelios, A., &amp; Tsigilis, N. (2005). The relationship between burnout and job satisfaction among physical education teachers: A multivariate approach. European Physical Education Review, 11 (2), 189 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05052896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert, R. G., McCarthy, C., O'Donnell, M., &amp; Wang, C. (2009). Measuring elementary teacher stress and coping in the classroom: Validity evidence for the classroom appraisal of resources and demands. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (10), 973 – 988. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larrivee, B. (2012). Cultivating teacher renewal: Guarding against stress and burnout. Rowman &amp; Littlefield Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lau, P. S. Y., Yuen, M. T., &amp; Chan, R. M. C. (2005). Do demographic characteristics make a difference to burnout among Hong Kong secondary school teachers. Social Indicators Research, 71 (1), 491 – 516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8033-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lea, R. G., Davis, S. K., Mahoney, B., &amp; Qualter, P. (2019). Does emotional intelligence buffer the effects of acute stress? A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (810), 810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J., &amp; Ok, C. (2012). Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: Critical role of hotel employees' emotional intelligence and emotional labor. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31 (4), 1101 – 1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, J. M., Yared, K., Heidel, R. E., Kirkp[atrick, B., Freeman, M. B., Daley, B. J., Shatner, J., &amp; McCallum, R. S. (2021). Emotional intelligence and burnout related to resident‐assessed faculty teaching scores. Journal of Surgical Education, 78 (6), e100 – e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.09.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maguire, R., Egan, A., Hyland, P., &amp; Maguire, P. (2017). Engaging students emotionally: The role of emotional intelligence in predicting cognitive and affective engagement in higher education. Higher Education Research &amp; Development, 36 (2), 343 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1185396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malesic, J. (2022). Are we all really burning out. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 68 (9), 12 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malouff, J. M., Schutte, N. S., &amp; Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and romantic relationship satisfaction: A meta‐analysis. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 53 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.748549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manju, M. (2017). Relationship of emotional intelligence with secondary school teachers' burnout. Indian Journal of Health &amp; Wellbeing, 8 (8), 819 – 821. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=<ulink href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=a9h&amp;AN=125143064&amp;site=eds-live&amp;scope=site">http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;db=a9h&amp;AN=125143064&amp;site=eds-live&amp;scope=site</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martins, A., Ramalho, N., &amp; Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta‐analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 554 – 564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C. (2017). Finding solutions to the problem of burnout. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69 (2), 143 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., Leiter, M. P., Schaufeli, W. B., &amp; Schwab, R. L. (2016). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (4th ed.). Mind Garden, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., &amp; Schwab, R. L. (1986). The Maslach Burnout Inventory–Educators Survey. Mind Garden, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., &amp; Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., &amp; Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8 (4), 290 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916639667</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., &amp; Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54 (3–4), 772 – 781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., &amp; Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer‐Salovey‐Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User's Manual. MHS Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., &amp; Caruso, D. R. (2004). Target articles: "emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications". Psychological Inquiry, 15 (3), 197 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1503_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., &amp; Cherkasskiy, L. (2011). Emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg &amp; S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 528 – 549). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., &amp; Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396 – 420). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, J. D., &amp; Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence. In P. Salovey &amp; D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3 – 31). Harper Collins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCallum, R. S., &amp; Anderson, L. S. (2019). Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED). Unpublished measure.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCallum, R. S., Kirkpatrick, B. A., Heidel, R. E., Rocconi, L., Price, C. N., Gee, K. N., &amp; Lewis, J. M. (2022). Validating a novel emotional intelligence instrument for resident physicians. Evaluation &amp; the Health Professions, 45, 277 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787211061420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mérida‐López, S., &amp; Extremera, N. (2017). Emotional intelligence and teacher burnout: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 121 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., &amp; Qian, S. (2017). A meta‐analysis of emotional intelligence effects on job satisfaction mediated by job resources, and a test of moderators. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 281 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., &amp; Luminet, O. (2007). Explaining the protective effect of trait emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress: Exploration of emotional labour processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1107 – 1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'connor, P. J., Hill, A., Kaya, M., &amp; Martin, B. (2019). The measurement of emotional intelligence: A critical review of the literature and recommendations for researchers and practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (1116), 1116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, E. Y., &amp; Shin, M. (2020). A meta‐analysis of special education teachers' burnout (Vol. 10). SAGE Open.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Payne, W. L. (1985). A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence, self‐integration, relating to fear, pain, and desire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., van der Linden, D., &amp; Born, M. P. (2018). Self‐and other‐focused emotional intelligence: Development and validation of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS). Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 222 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, B. L., Pescosolido, B. A., &amp; Krendl, A. C. (2020). The unique nature of public stigma toward non‐medical prescription opioid use and dependence: A national study. Addiction, 115, 2317 – 2326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrides, K. V. (2001). A psychometric investigation into the construct of emotional intelligence. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue). London Psychometric Laboratory.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrides, K. V., Mikolajczak, M., Mavroveli, S., Sanchez‐Ruiz, M. J., Furnham, A., &amp; Pérez‐González, J. C. (2016). Developments in trait emotional intelligence research. Emotion Review, 8 (4), 335 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916650493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Platsidou, M. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence of Greek special education teachers in relation to burnout and job satisfaction. School Psychology International, 31 (1), 60 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034309360436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulou, M. S. (2017). An examination of the relationship among teachers' perceptions of social‐emotional learning, teaching efficacy, teacher‐student interactions, and students' behavioral difficulties. International Journal of School &amp; Educational Psychology, 5 (2), 126 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1203851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., &amp; Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 700 – 712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, C. R., &amp; Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Behavior assessment system for children, manual (3rd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salkind, N. (2010). Encyclopedia of Research Design. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salovey, P., &amp; Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185 – 211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saloviita, T., &amp; Pakarinen, E. (2021). Teacher burnout explained: Teacher‐, student‐, and organisation‐level variables. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sánchez‐Álvarez, N., Extremera, N., &amp; Fernández‐Berrocal, P. (2016). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well‐being: A meta‐analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11 (3), 276 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., Rhodes, E., &amp; Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141 (4), 523 – 536. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., &amp; Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00001-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., &amp; Rooke, S. E. (2007). A meta‐analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (6), 921 – 933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegling, A. B., Petrides, D. H., &amp; Saklofske, K. V. (2015). Measures of ability and trait emotional intelligence. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, &amp; G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 381 – 414). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00014-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, R., Killgore, W. D. S., Alkozei, A., &amp; Lane, R. D. (2018). A neuro‐cognitive process model of emotional intelligence. Biological Psychology, 139, 131 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.10.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutcher, L., Darling‐Hammond, L., &amp; Carver‐Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27 (35), https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taie, S., &amp; Goldring, R. (2020). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey. First Look. (NCES 2020‐142). National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020142rev.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227 – 235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vesely, A., Vangelis, E., Saklofske, D. H., &amp; Leschied, A. W. (2018). Qualities of teacher effectiveness in delivering school‐based mental health programs: The relevance of emotional intelligence. In A. W. Leschied, D. H. Saklofske, &amp; G. L. Flett (Eds.), Handbook of school‐based mental health promotion: An evidence‐informed framework for implementation (pp. 167 – 184). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vesely, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., &amp; Nordstokke, D. W. (2014). EI training and pre‐service teacher wellbeing. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 81 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Windingstad, S., McCallum, R. S., Mee Bell, S., &amp; Dunn, P. (2011). Measures of emotional intelligence and social acceptability in children: A concurrent validity study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26 (2), 107 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573511406510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, C. S., &amp; Law, K. S. (2002). Development of an emotional intelligence instrument and an investigation of its relationship with leader and follower performance and attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (1), 1 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APJM.0000048717.31261.d0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, S. M. (2004). Development and application of a brief measure of emotional intelligence for vocational high school teachers. Psychological Reports, 95, 1207 – 1218. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.95.3f.1207-1218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., &amp; Roberts, R. D. (2009). What we know about emotional intelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zysberg, L., Orenshtein, C., Gimmon, E., &amp; Robinson, R. (2017). Emotional intelligence, personality, stress, and burnout among educators. International Journal of Stress Management, 24 (S1), 122 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000028</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lezli Suzanne Anderson; R. Steve McCallum; David M. Castleman and Michelle Fast</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref169"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1383315 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Development and Validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED) – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anderson%2C+Lezli+Suzanne%22">Anderson, Lezli Suzanne</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2252-3166">0000-0002-2252-3166</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McCallum%2C+R%2E+Steve%22">McCallum, R. Steve</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0548-9701">0000-0002-0548-9701</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Castleman%2C+David+M%2E%22">Castleman, David M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fast%2C+Michelle%22">Fast, Michelle</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Aug 2023 60(8):2692-2716. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 25 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Intelligence%22">Emotional Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Burnout%22">Burnout</searchLink> – Name: SubjectThesaurus Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Maslach+Burnout+Inventory%22">Maslach Burnout Inventory</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/pits.22911 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Data collected from 97 educators provide preliminary support for the psychometric integrity of an experimental self-report instrument designed to operationalize emotional intelligence (EI) specifically for educators, the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Educators, or SEF:ED. Data analyses relied in part on results from an exploratory factor analysis, which provided evidence for a three-factor solution, and additional correlational analyses (e.g., item-scale correlations). Reliability estimates (i.e., split-half reliability correlations) for the SEF:ED Emotional Awareness, Emotional Management, and Interpersonal Relations subscales are 0.86, 0.80, and 0.71, respectively. Correlation coefficients (i.e., Pearson r) between the SEF:ED composites and the Profile of Emotional Competence composites (PEC) range from 0.35 to 0.72, providing evidence for concurrent validity of the SEF:ED. Finally, correlation coefficients between SEF:ED and the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators (MBI-ES) range from -0.21 to 0.59 and provide limited evidence of its ability to predict an important work site characteristic, that is, burnout. Once the SEF:ED was completed, descriptive statistics were obtained for EI and burnout and show relatively similar means/standard deviations across various demographics (e.g., gender, educator degree, years in service, and classroom setting--general vs. special education). Limitations of the study and implications for application of the SEF:ED are discussed. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1383315 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1383315 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/pits.22911 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 25 StartPage: 2692 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals) Type: general – SubjectFull: Emotional Intelligence Type: general – SubjectFull: Test Construction Type: general – SubjectFull: Test Validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Psychometrics Type: general – SubjectFull: Test Reliability Type: general – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Correlation Type: general – SubjectFull: Burnout Type: general – SubjectFull: Maslach Burnout Inventory Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Development and Validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED) Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Anderson, Lezli Suzanne – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: McCallum, R. Steve – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Castleman, David M. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Fast, Michelle IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 08 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0033-3085 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1520-6807 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 60 – Type: issue Value: 8 Titles: – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
