View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Psychometric Properties of the German Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES-G)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Psychometric Properties of the German Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES-G)
Language: English
Authors: Bodo Przibilla (ORCID 0000-0002-9948-5372), Chiara Enderle (ORCID 0000-0003-0427-997X), Gino Casale (ORCID 0000-0003-2780-241X), David Scheer (ORCID 0000-0002-0534-7869), Anett Platte (ORCID 0000-0001-7958-1618), Conny Melzer (ORCID 0000-0003-3768-0356), Tatjana Leidig (ORCID 0000-0002-4598-917X)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2025 60(1).
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: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Psychometrics, German, Foreign Countries, Teacher Effectiveness, Self Efficacy, Self Concept Measures, Factor Structure, Factor Analysis
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12879
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Based on previous research, it can be assumed that teachers' self-efficacy (TSE) varies across situations, domains and individual students' behaviors confronting teachers with particularly challenging tasks. The construct of student-specific TSE is considered informative theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between affective-motivational components of teachers' competencies and individual student behaviour. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate the Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES; Zee and Koomen, 2015) for use in German teacher samples. The items of the original SS-TSES were translated from Dutch to German using a forward-backward translation procedure. A total of 477 teachers completed the SS-TSES-G. After a randomly drawn sample-split an EFA was conducted on half of the sample, while a CFA was performed on the other half. The results of EFA and CFA revealed that a 4-factor bifactor model fitted the data best. Except for item 18, which was assigned to the first factor ("emotional support"), the item-factor assignments were consistent with the original structure. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicated a good model fit. The SS-TSES-G demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties, allowing for reliable measurements of teachers' self-efficacy in relation to individual students in a German teacher population.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461174
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHqK_pP9w7Z9IOzWaQLCICVAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCoE754IRVUwAY-JcQIBEICBm8-jwjD6-P03_brvXDmWrhoxnouZHdvbFRN9aTO1K_jf7LrOZWoQtKklOFLR43j0Sd0JNd1fkAPF2zWvumDTaaHWxCXIGocpQSGBjacliQ8OX61gJQtpqQ4w2TCvFom1GQfIo5hXADtmAE4hStaligzNAT4p8k-VM_e0xWbsW2ykgT73np8Js1OrMIyUcWSS7VUV1qYlslyHzWS1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183654370;eje01mar.25;2025Mar17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183654370-1">Psychometric Properties of the German Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale (SS‐TSES‐G) </title> <p>Based on previous research, it can be assumed that teachers' self‐efficacy (TSE) varies across situations, domains and individual students' behaviors confronting teachers with particularly challenging tasks. The construct of student‐specific TSE is considered informative theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between affective‐motivational components of teachers' competencies and individual student behaviour. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate the Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale (SS‐TSES; Zee and Koomen, 2015) for use in German teacher samples. The items of the original SS‐TSES were translated from Dutch to German using a forward‐backward translation procedure. A total of 477 teachers completed the SS‐TSES‐G. After a randomly drawn sample‐split an EFA was conducted on half of the sample, while a CFA was performed on the other half. The results of EFA and CFA revealed that a 4‐factor bifactor model fitted the data best. Except for item 18, which was assigned to the first factor (emotional support), the item‐factor assignments were consistent with the original structure. The goodness‐of‐fit statistics indicated a good model fit. The SS‐TSES‐G demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties, allowing for reliable measurements of teachers' self‐efficacy in relation to individual students in a German teacher population.</p> <p>Keywords: questionnaire; Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale; Teacher; teacher self‐efficacy; validation</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In educational contexts, teachers' self‐efficacy (TSE) is an important factor associated with beneficial outcomes at teacher and student level (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref1">75</reflink>]). TSE refers to a teacher's belief in their ability to effectively teach and foster student learning (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]). In models to describe teachers' professional competence, these outcomes are considered consequences stemming from personal and context‐related variables. Along with other personal characteristics (e.g., professional knowledge, self‐regulation skills, attitudes, beliefs, Barni, Danioni, and Benevene [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]), TSE beliefs can be assumed as part of the motivational dimension describing professional competence (Kaiser and König [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]; Kunter et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]; Shulman [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref6">58</reflink>]; Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref7">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>A positive sense of self‐efficacy in teachers may serve as a resource to master challenges in class (e.g., coping with students' disciplinary problems, Dicke et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Maslach [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref9">36</reflink>]) and it is associated with teachers' engagement (Love et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]; Wang [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref11">69</reflink>]), classroom quality and students' academic achievement (Holzberger, Philipp, and Kunter [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]; Love et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref13">34</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref14">75</reflink>]). Furthermore, TSE is related to teaching effectiveness (Klassen, Durksen, and Tze [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]) as well as teachers' psychological well‐being including job satisfaction and commitment (Lauermann and König [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]; Park et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref18">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Evidence shows that highly educated, qualified and dedicated teachers are critical in providing education and individual support for all students, for example, by adapting teaching methods and curricula to meet the diverse needs of students with difficulties (Gómez‐Marí et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]; O'Gorman and Drudy [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]). Self‐efficacious teachers are more likely to apply effective behaviour management strategies and successful teaching methods in diverse learning settings (Almog and Shechtman [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; Park et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]; Sarfo et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref23">50</reflink>]). Higher TSE is associated with positive cognitive and behavioral student outcomes (Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref24">65</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref25">73</reflink>]). For practical application (e.g., professional development programs), TSE can be assumed as a critical construct and focus for improving teachers' skills and attitudes in working with students who have complex emotional, behavioural, social and academic needs (Almog and Shechtman [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]; Spilt et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref27">61</reflink>]). Most of the literature refers to TSE as a global‐ or domain‐related construct. However, teachers can experience differing levels of competence and self‐efficacy. These disparities can result from a number of factors, including cultural differences, availability of resources, professional development opportunities (e.g., Fackler, Malmberg, and Sammons [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]) and specific situations with individual and challenging student behaviour in classrooms (Gómez‐Marí et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]). Although the concept of global TSE has been widely discussed, more recent studies emphasised the theoretical and practical importance of TSE as student‐specific construct, varying with the perceived challenges of teaching different types of students, such as those with low motivation or externalising behaviours (Kupers et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref31">75</reflink>]). Understanding and improving perceived TSE towards individual students is particularly important. When teachers believe in their ability to impact each student's learning positively, they are more likely to adopt innovative and inclusive teaching strategies. However, evaluating and constructing new instruments for the measurement of TSE in relation to individual students is still necessary.</p> <p>The article, therefore, introduces the concept of student‐specific TSE (SS‐TSE), presents a cross‐cultural adaptation and analyzes the psychometric properties of a new scale to measure SS‐TSE among German school teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-3">Conceptualising and Measuring Teacher Self‐Efficacy</hd> <p>In the last decade, various conceptualizations and measures of TSE were developed to assess global, subject‐, task‐ or domain‐specific self‐efficacy beliefs. The majority of previous research on teachers' self‐efficacy beliefs builds its theoretical foundation on Bandura's social‐cognitive theory of behavioral change and related research about effective teaching and learning (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Dellinger et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]). Teachers' global beliefs within the classroom context are particularly conceptualized as general TSE (e.g., Koniewski [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]; Schwarzer [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref35">54</reflink>]; Schwarzer and Schmitz [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref36">56</reflink>]). Other studies rely on contextualized TSE focusing on teaching dimensions, such as literacy instruction (Tschannen‐Moran and Johnson [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref37">64</reflink>]), mathematics (Enochs et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]) or situational dimensions, such as handling student misbehaviour (Tsouloupas et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref39">66</reflink>]). Similar studies operationalized domain‐specific TSE, emphasizing beliefs related to classroom management and discipline (e.g., Brouwers and Tomic [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; Friedman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]). As a consequence, a well‐validated model of TSE was suggested based on the studies of Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref42">65</reflink>]) comprising three major dimensions: TSE related to (a) instructional strategies, (b) classroom management, and (c) student engagement. The model reflects a 3‐factorial construct of TSE that comprises unique aspects of teachers' personal beliefs on teaching domains at classroom level (Heneman, Kimball, and Milanowski [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]; Sarfo et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]; Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref45">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-4">Teachers' Student‐Specific Self‐Efficacy</hd> <p>Most studies have measured TSE as a stable domain‐specific state that varies inter‐individually among teachers and teaching domains (e.g., Dellinger et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref46">10</reflink>]; Friedman [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]; Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref48">65</reflink>]). In contrast, a few but robust study results indicate that teachers' reports on self‐efficacy are linked to individual students who show behavioural problems, such as externalising or internalising symptoms (Spilt and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref49">59</reflink>]; Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref51">73</reflink>]). The highest amount of variance in TSE was found on the within‐teacher level showing that students' characteristics (e.g., social behavior) are highly associated with TSE (Zee, Koomen, et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref52">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>In light of these findings, exploring student‐specific self‐efficacy beliefs of teachers may help to gain insights into the nature of the construct of TSE as a personal resource (Schwarzer and Hallum [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref53">55</reflink>]). The assessment of self‐efficacy related to particular students may support the understanding of how TSE is related to effective instruction, behaviour management and student engagement (Rodríguez‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]), especially related to the support for students with special educational needs. However, there is relatively little research investigating differences in student‐specific TSE (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref55">75</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref56">73</reflink>]; Zee and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref57">74</reflink>]). One reason for this could be that there are no reliable instruments to assess student‐specific TSE as outlined previously. To our knowledge, the Dutch research group around Zee and colleagues developed the first scale for valid and reliable assessment of TSE as a student‐specific phenomenon.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-5">The Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale</hd> <p>The Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale (SS‐TSES, Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref58">75</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref59">73</reflink>]; Zee and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref60">74</reflink>]) was adapted from the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES, Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref61">65</reflink>]). The TSES instrument measures global self‐efficacy beliefs across three domains (<emph>Instructional Strategies</emph>, <emph>Behavior Management</emph> and <emph>Student Engagement</emph>). Whereas multiple studies have adapted and evaluated evidence on the TSES in different countries and languages (for reference, see Rodríguez‐Fernández et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref62">46</reflink>]), the instrument does not reflect perceived teaching efficacy towards individual students. To bridge this gap, the SS‐TSES was designed to measure teachers' student‐specific capability beliefs across four major areas of teaching and learning. To address this, Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref63">74</reflink>]) rephrased all items from the original TSES scales so that they are formulated in a student‐specific manner. To include a domain specifically focused on TSE perceptions related to individual students' emotional needs and in addition to the original TSE domains, they added the dimension of <emph>Emotional Support</emph> based on the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), a measurement framework presented by Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref64">41</reflink>]) for analysing teacher–student interactions. This added domain represents TSE perceptions especially related to behavioral adjustments, which are particularly important to support students with special educational needs or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref65">75</reflink>]). This additional scale was modified in a similar way as the three original scales to enable a targeted assessment of TSE in dealing with individual students. Confirmatory factor analyses provided evidence of the factorial validity, supporting the 4‐factor structure in a Dutch sample. Results revealed that the internal consistency of the SS‐TSES can be considered satisfactory across all four domains (alpha coefficients higher than 0.85) and in addition, the moderate convergent validity of SS‐TSES could be demonstrated using a structural equation modelling approach providing empirical evidence for associations between students' school problems and student‐specific TSE among Dutch elementary school teachers (Zee Koomen, et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref66">75</reflink>]; Zee and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref67">74</reflink>]). Based on the existing validation studies in Dutch teacher samples, it is reasonable to assume that the SS‐TSES on the one hand enables the assessment of differentiated self‐beliefs about teachers' capabilities to deal with individual children and their behavior in the classroom and on the other hand can support further empirical work on the characteristics of TSES as a theoretical construct (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref68">75</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref69">73</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, the SS‐TSES captures both state and trait variability in TSE as a multifaceted phenomenon and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of teachers' self‐efficacy beliefs at student level. There are, however, few empirical studies investigating TSE in relation to individual students in German‐speaking samples. For instance, Schwab, Lindner, and Savolainen ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref70">53</reflink>]) referred to the concept of student‐specific TSE to investigate teacher–student dyads using a short and translated 16‐item SS‐TSES version without providing information on item selection criteria or the translation procedure. The study found that teachers' self‐efficacy in relation to specific students was lower when those students had special needs related to learning or behavioral and emotional disorders. The empirical findings suggest that teachers' beliefs in their ability to effectively support and teach specific students may be influenced by the specific needs and challenges of those students (Schwab [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref71">51</reflink>]; Schwab et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-6">Study Objectives and Research Questions</hd> <p>To our knowledge, neither a comprehensive German translation of the SS‐TSES nor another defensible scale to assess SS‐TSE currently exists. To accurately assess TSE as a student‐specific phenomenon among German teachers and broaden its cross‐cultural applicability, a data‐driven intercultural adaptation process using independent samples, aimed at providing empirical information on its psychometric properties, validity and reliability, is essential. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold.</p> <p>Firstly, we aimed to systematically translate the original Dutch version of the SS‐TSES into German. Secondly, we examined the psychometric properties of the German language version of the SS‐TSES (referred to as SS‐TSES‐G) within a sample of German‐speaking teachers. This study addresses the following two research questions:</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-7">RQ1</hd> <p> <emph>Does the SS‐TSES‐G demonstrate factorial validity in comparison to the dimensional structure of the original SS‐TSES?</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0183654370-8">RQ2</hd> <p> <emph>Does the German language version of the instrument reliably measure the dimensions underlying the SS‐TSES?</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0183654370-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654370-10">Translation Procedure</hd> <p>The items of the SS‐TSES were translated from Dutch to German using a forward‐backward translation procedure (Leidig et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]). The forward translation involved two independent professional translators. The translations were reviewed and merged into a preliminary version by a member of the group, who was a native German speaker fluent in both languages. Every item of the provisional translation was compared to the English items of the SS‐TSES (Zee [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref74">75</reflink>]) as well as to the items from the original TSES (Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref75">65</reflink>]) and its German translation. Then, the items were back‐translated to Dutch by two independent professional translators. The authors (Leidig et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref76">32</reflink>]) reviewed the preliminary items for clarity of wording, reference to the underlying constructs of the sub‐dimensions <emph>Behavior Management</emph> (BM), <emph>Instructional Strategies</emph> (IS), <emph>Emotional Support</emph> (ES) and <emph>Student Engagement</emph> (SE) and cultural adaptation of the items in the German school context. Additionally, an independent bilingual Dutch national tested the back‐translated version for ambiguities and inaccuracies. Minor ambiguities and discrepancies were resolved based on discussion, using the 6 Eyes Principle. For instance, item seven (BM) was reworded. The formulation of 'How well can you control disruptive behavior' was changed to 'How well do you manage to stop disruptive behavior' because it reflects the usual German wording in the context of behavior management of individual students. Some items appeared to be unclear in their wording. A similarity between item three ('To what extent can you craft stimulation questions for this student?') and item six ('How well can you provide appropriate challenges for this student?') was recognized and resolved by adding the phrase ('in the classroom') to both items in order relate the items of the IS subdimension to instructional school contexts. In addition, cognitive pretesting was conducted using cognitive interviews with three individuals to assess understanding, interpretation, acceptance and evaluation of the relevance and social validity of the items. After discussion of the feedback in the translation team, no further changes were made. A schematic overview of the translation process and the final items of the German‐language instrument version with corresponding English items can be found in the Supporting Information (see supplementary files S1 and S2)[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-11">Participants and Procedures</hd> <p>From May to August 2022, a total of 79 schools in the German state of North Rhrine‐Westphalia (Nordrhein‐Westfalen) were contacted by 21 undergraduate students who received training and supervision from the first and third authors in research classes to invite teachers to participate in a 25‐min online survey. The information letters provided to schools and teachers were standardized and, in part, sent digitally, containing QR codes and links that directed the recipients to a voluntary online survey. The survey was implemented using Lime Survey (version 5.4.0 + 220,913). Consent to the processing of personal data was obtained after comprehensive information about the study procedure, conditions of participation and data processing (informed consent). All procedures were previously approved by the ethics review board of the University of Wuppertal. After cleaning the data for cases with implausible age information (< 18 years) or missing values for all items of the SS‐TSES‐G, <emph>N</emph> = 477 cases could be included in the data analysis (see Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE Participant characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Characteristic</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic> = 477</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center">38.78 (11.97)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="center">114 (24%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="center">362 (76%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Non‐binary</td><td align="center">1 (< 1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Immigrant background</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No migration background</td><td align="center">394 (83%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Migration background</td><td align="center">83 (17%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Work experience (in years)</td><td align="center">12.04 (10.15)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher training</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Career Changer (Quereinsteiger*in)</td><td align="center">17 (4%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="center">39 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary Education (Grundschule)</td><td align="center">136 (29%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary Education (Gymnasium/Gesamtschule)</td><td align="center">131 (27%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary Education (Haupt‐, Real, Gesamtschule)</td><td align="center">38 (8%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special Education (Sonderpädagogik)</td><td align="center">110 (23%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocational Education (Berufskolleg)</td><td align="center">6 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School type</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other type of school</td><td align="center">6 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary Scool (Grundschule)</td><td align="center">191 (40%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary School (Gesamtschule)</td><td align="center">73 (15%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary School (Gymnasium)</td><td align="center">82 (17%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary School (Hauptschule)</td><td align="center">6 (1%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary School (Realschule)</td><td align="center">13 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Secondary School (Sekundarschule)</td><td align="center">10 (2%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special Educational School (Förderschule)</td><td align="center">88 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocational Collage (Berufskolleg)</td><td align="center">8 (2%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables, absolute (relative) frequencies for categorical variables.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-12">Measures</hd> <p>Data collection was part of a project to validate the German‐language Attitudes Related to Trauma‐Informed Care Scale (ARTIC). Within this project, the items of the SS‐TSES‐G were used as one of several measures for validation by the first and third authors.</p> <p>Demographic information (age, gender, migration background, professional qualification, current type of school, professional experience, experience at current institution and contact with students) were assessed by eight items. The 25‐item SS‐TSES, originally developed by Zee in 2016 and 2015, and translated by Leidig et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]), was employed to assess domain‐specific self‐efficacy in managing students with social and emotional difficulties. This instrument comprises a higher‐order factor, the overall SS‐TSES score, as well as the second‐level factors, <emph>Instructional Strategies</emph> (e.g., 'How proficient are you in responding to difficult questions from your students?'), <emph>Behavior Management</emph> (e.g., 'How effectively can you calm disruptive or noisy students?'), <emph>Student Engagement</emph> (e.g., 'To what extent are you able to foster a sense of value for learning in this student?') and <emph>Emotional Support</emph> (e.g., 'How promptly can you discern when this student is not feeling well?'). Respondents indicated their agreement on a 7‐point Likert scale, with higher scores reflecting higher perceived self‐efficacy. The scales demonstrate acceptable to good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.84.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>For data analysis, the software R (Version 4.1.2; R Core Team [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref79">44</reflink>]) and the R‐packages <emph>lavaan</emph> (Version 0.6.11; Rosseel [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref80">47</reflink>]), <emph>mice</emph> (Version 3.14.0; van Buuren and Groothuis‐Oudshoorn [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref81">67</reflink>]), <emph>naniar</emph> (Version 0.6.1; Tierney et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref82">63</reflink>]), <emph>papaja</emph> (Version 0.1.1.9001; Aust and Barth [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>]), <emph>psych</emph> (Version 2.2.5; Revelle [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref84">45</reflink>]), <emph>readxl</emph> (Version 1.4.0; Wickham and Bryan [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref85">70</reflink>]), <emph>scaledic</emph> (Version 0.1.26; Wilbert [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref86">71</reflink>]) and <emph>tinylabels</emph> (Version 0.2.3; Barth [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]) were used.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-14">Missing Data and Outlier Analysis</hd> <p>The descriptive analysis to examine missing values in the data set revealed that the percentage of non‐responding participants per item did not exceed 1.47% (<emph>N</emph> = 7). The percentage of missing data reached a percentage of over 1% (<emph>N</emph> > 4) for 4 items only (see supplementary file S3). Participants who had missing values exceeding 20% across all 25 items (<emph>N</emph> = 4) were excluded from further analyses (see supplementary file S4). This resulted in a final data set consisting of 473 cases.</p> <p>To address missing values, predictive mean matching (PMM) was employed, as proposed by Landermann, Land, and Pieper ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]). PMM is a regression‐based technique for imputing missing values in ordinal data. In accordance with the recommendations of Graham, Olchowski, and Gilreath ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref89">17</reflink>]) and Volpe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref90">68</reflink>]), 20 imputations in 20 iterations were performed. The imputation matrix used was the one that yielded the mean value closest to the original data for the item with the highest proportion of missing values (item 16).</p> <p>To identify multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis distance was calculated across all 25 items. Cases with a distance falling below a threshold of 8.52 (χ<sups>2</sups> < 0.001), as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref91">62</reflink>]), were considered as multivariate outliers. A total of 17 cases were identified as outliers and subsequently excluded from the data set, resulting in a final sample size of 456 cases for further analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-15">Item Analyses</hd> <p>Descriptive item analysis encompassed an investigation of distributional assumptions and the intercorrelations among items. There were no items exhibiting both ceiling or floor effects and clear indications of non‐normal distribution (see Table 2). Inter‐correlations exceeding the threshold of 0.6 and considered as strong (Evans [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref92">13</reflink>]) accrued in 26 cases (> 0.6 in 26 cases and > 0.7 in 3 cases, see supplementary file S5). For subsequent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the sample (<emph>N</emph> = 456) was randomly split into two equally sized subsamples (each <emph>N</emph> = 228).</p> <p>2 TABLE Item characteristics (SS‐TSES‐G).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Item</th><th align="center">M</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">Diff.</th><th align="center">Disc.</th><th align="center">Skew.</th><th align="center">Kurt.</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">01</td><td align="center">5.11</td><td align="center">1.06</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">−0.55</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">4.17</td><td align="center">18.64</td><td align="center">38.82</td><td align="center">29.17</td><td align="center">7.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">02</td><td align="center">4.70</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">0.71</td><td align="center">−0.44</td><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">10.96</td><td align="center">26.54</td><td align="center">37.06</td><td align="center">19.74</td><td align="center">3.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left">03</td><td align="center">4.76</td><td align="center">1.04</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">−0.25</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">1.54</td><td align="center">9.21</td><td align="center">26.75</td><td align="center">39.47</td><td align="center">19.30</td><td align="center">3.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left">04</td><td align="center">4.69</td><td align="center">1.17</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">−0.37</td><td align="center">0.42</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">2.19</td><td align="center">9.43</td><td align="center">28.95</td><td align="center">34.43</td><td align="center">18.64</td><td align="center">5.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">05</td><td align="center">4.82</td><td align="center">1.11</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center">−0.56</td><td align="center">0.42</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">1.75</td><td align="center">8.55</td><td align="center">24.12</td><td align="center">35.75</td><td align="center">25.66</td><td align="center">3.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">06</td><td align="center">4.71</td><td align="center">1.02</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center">−0.35</td><td align="center">0.59</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">7.68</td><td align="center">30.48</td><td align="center">38.60</td><td align="center">18.64</td><td align="center">2.63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">07</td><td align="center">4.73</td><td align="center">1.24</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">−0.32</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">1.10</td><td align="center">2.85</td><td align="center">10.53</td><td align="center">27.41</td><td align="center">30.04</td><td align="center">21.71</td><td align="center">6.36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">08</td><td align="center">4.65</td><td align="center">1.20</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">−0.28</td><td align="center">0.19</td><td align="center">1.10</td><td align="center">3.29</td><td align="center">9.43</td><td align="center">30.70</td><td align="center">32.02</td><td align="center">17.76</td><td align="center">5.70</td></tr><tr><td align="left">09</td><td align="center">4.79</td><td align="center">1.19</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">−0.29</td><td align="center">0.14</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">2.19</td><td align="center">8.77</td><td align="center">28.07</td><td align="center">32.46</td><td align="center">20.83</td><td align="center">6.80</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10</td><td align="center">4.60</td><td align="center">1.14</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center">−0.69</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">1.54</td><td align="center">3.51</td><td align="center">9.65</td><td align="center">25.66</td><td align="center">39.91</td><td align="center">17.98</td><td align="center">1.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11</td><td align="center">5.11</td><td align="center">1.05</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">−0.41</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">3.73</td><td align="center">21.05</td><td align="center">38.82</td><td align="center">26.75</td><td align="center">8.55</td></tr><tr><td align="left">12</td><td align="center">4.92</td><td align="center">1.08</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">−0.34</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">1.54</td><td align="center">7.24</td><td align="center">23.68</td><td align="center">36.62</td><td align="center">25.44</td><td align="center">5.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">13</td><td align="center">4.36</td><td align="center">1.15</td><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center">0.70</td><td align="center">−0.33</td><td align="center">0.45</td><td align="center">1.97</td><td align="center">3.51</td><td align="center">12.94</td><td align="center">36.84</td><td align="center">29.61</td><td align="center">12.94</td><td align="center">2.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14</td><td align="center">4.41</td><td align="center">1.15</td><td align="center">0.63</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">−0.22</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">1.10</td><td align="center">3.95</td><td align="center">13.82</td><td align="center">34.43</td><td align="center">29.61</td><td align="center">14.69</td><td align="center">2.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">15</td><td align="center">4.81</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">0.78</td><td align="center">−0.26</td><td align="center">0.25</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">1.10</td><td align="center">7.24</td><td align="center">26.97</td><td align="center">41.01</td><td align="center">20.18</td><td align="center">3.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">16</td><td align="center">4.04</td><td align="center">1.27</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center">0.61</td><td align="center">−0.15</td><td align="center">−0.28</td><td align="center">2.63</td><td align="center">8.99</td><td align="center">20.83</td><td align="center">30.26</td><td align="center">25.88</td><td align="center">9.65</td><td align="center">1.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">17</td><td align="center">4.65</td><td align="center">1.30</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center">−0.16</td><td align="center">−0.39</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">3.95</td><td align="center">13.38</td><td align="center">28.29</td><td align="center">25.88</td><td align="center">20.18</td><td align="center">7.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">18</td><td align="center">5.24</td><td align="center">1.22</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center">−0.61</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">1.54</td><td align="center">7.02</td><td align="center">16.45</td><td align="center">26.75</td><td align="center">34.43</td><td align="center">13.38</td></tr><tr><td align="left">19</td><td align="center">5.20</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">−0.55</td><td align="center">0.35</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">1.75</td><td align="center">5.04</td><td align="center">16.23</td><td align="center">35.09</td><td align="center">31.14</td><td align="center">10.53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">20</td><td align="center">5.56</td><td align="center">1.05</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center">0.65</td><td align="center">−0.58</td><td align="center">0.37</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">2.85</td><td align="center">11.18</td><td align="center">30.04</td><td align="center">36.18</td><td align="center">19.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">21</td><td align="center">5.25</td><td align="center">1.05</td><td align="center">0.75</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">−0.44</td><td align="center">0.17</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">4.61</td><td align="center">16.89</td><td align="center">34.43</td><td align="center">33.33</td><td align="center">10.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">22</td><td align="center">5.37</td><td align="center">1.04</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center">−0.49</td><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">2.85</td><td align="center">12.72</td><td align="center">38.60</td><td align="center">30.70</td><td align="center">14.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">23</td><td align="center">4.75</td><td align="center">1.01</td><td align="center">0.68</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">−0.30</td><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">1.32</td><td align="center">7.89</td><td align="center">28.07</td><td align="center">41.45</td><td align="center">17.54</td><td align="center">3.29</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24</td><td align="center">4.66</td><td align="center">1.11</td><td align="center">0.67</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center">−0.10</td><td align="center">−0.06</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">1.54</td><td align="center">12.06</td><td align="center">29.61</td><td align="center">34.43</td><td align="center">17.32</td><td align="center">4.61</td></tr><tr><td align="left">25</td><td align="center">4.46</td><td align="center">1.15</td><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">−0.18</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">1.10</td><td align="center">2.63</td><td align="center">15.35</td><td align="center">32.89</td><td align="center">29.17</td><td align="center">16.23</td><td align="center">2.63</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note:</emph> 1 = <emph>gar nicht</emph> (<emph>not at all</emph>); 2 = <emph>nicht</emph> (<emph>not</emph>); 3 = <emph>eher nicht</emph> (<emph>rather not</emph>); 4 = <emph>mittelmäßig</emph> (<emph>mediocre</emph>); 5 = <emph>eher gut</emph> (<emph>rather good</emph>); 6 = <emph>gut</emph> (<emph>good</emph>); 7 = <emph>sehr gut</emph> (<emph>very good</emph>).</item> <item>3 Abbreviations: Diff. = item difficulty; Disc. = discrimination; Kurt. = Kurtosis; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Skew. = skewness.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183654370-16">Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>The assumptions necessary for factor analysis were assessed through Bartlett's test and the Kaiser's single‐variable measure of sampling adequacy (MSA). The number of factors was determined by examining the scree plot, eigenvalue, and parallel analyses (Russell [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]). The extraction of factors was executed using the ordinal least square estimator (OLS), which is appropriate for analyzing ordinal data (Lee, Zhang, and Edwards [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>]). Oblimin was chosen as the oblique rotation method since we assumed small to moderate correlations between factors. In accordance with Russell ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref95">48</reflink>]) and Volpe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref96">68</reflink>]), the subsequent criteria were employed for selecting items and factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) items with factor loadings below 0.4 were identified and excluded, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>) items exhibiting cross‐loadings above 0.4 between factors were also excluded. The decision regarding a suitable factor solution was based on (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>) the presence of at least 4 items with loadings exceeding 0.4 for each factor, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref100">4</reflink>) the interpretability of the items compared to the original instrument.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-17">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>The preliminary extracted factor solution was confirmatory tested using the other data subset. In order to fit the model with the ordinal data structure, we used the Weighted Least Square Means and Variances adjusted estimator (WLSMV, Li [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]). To assess the model fit, we estimated absolute (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA & Standardised Root Mean Square Residual, SRMR) and relative fit indices (Comparative Fit Index, CFI & Tucker‐Lewis Index, TLI), and evaluated the results based on the cutoff criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref102">21</reflink>], CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95, SRMR ≤ 0.08, RMSEA ≤ 0.06).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-18">Reliability</hd> <p>To evaluate scale reliabilities, Cronbach's α as a measure focused on response consistency and McDonalds ω as a measure more sensitive for item homogeneity were estimated using the full data set (Schweizer [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref103">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654370-20">Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>Both Barlett's test (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib300" id="ref104">300</reflink>) = 3965.364, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and the MSA of 0.94 (0.91–0.96) confirmed the adequacy of the sample for factor analyses (exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.6 as proposed by Tabachnick and Fidell [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref105">62</reflink>]). Eigenvalues > 1, scree plot and parallel analyses indicated four factors (Russell [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref106">48</reflink>]; see supplementary files S6 and S7).</p> <p>Except for item 18, which could be assigned to the first factor (<emph>Emotional Support</emph>), the item‐factor assignments matched those of the factor structure established by Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref107">74</reflink>]). Overall, the model could explain 60% of the variance in the data with comparable amounts of variance proportions explained by each of the four factors and medium to high factor correlations (Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLE Exploratory factor analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Item</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">21_ES</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">20_ES</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">19_ES</td><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">23_ES</td><td align="center">0.6</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">22_ES</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">18_SE</td><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">25_ES</td><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">24_ES</td><td align="center">0.44</td><td align="center">0.33</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">06_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">04_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.66</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">02_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">03_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.56</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">01_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">05_IS</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">13_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">14_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.78</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">16_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.61</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">12_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">15_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">17_SE</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.3</td><td align="center">0.43</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">08_BM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">07_BM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">09_BM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.74</td></tr><tr><td align="left">10_BM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.61</td></tr><tr><td align="left">11_BM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SS loadings</td><td align="center">4.03</td><td align="center">3.82</td><td align="center">3.81</td><td align="center">3.35</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proportion Var</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center">0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cumulative Var</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">0.31</td><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center">0.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proportion Explained</td><td align="center">0.27</td><td align="center">0.25</td><td align="center">0.25</td><td align="center">0.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cumulative Proportion</td><td align="center">0.27</td><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center">0.78</td><td align="center">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note:</emph> Item suffixes indicate the original item‐scale assignment of the SS‐TSES; oblimin rotation method and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Estimation of Parameters for ordinal data were used; loadings below 0.3 are not displayed.</item> <item>5 Abbreviations: BM = Behavior Management; ES = Emotional Support; IS = Instructional Strategies; SE = Student Engagement.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183654370-21">Confirmatory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>To answer the first research question, the model identified by the EFA was specified and tested confirmatory. Due to the item‐factor assignment of item 18 in this model, which contradicts the results of Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref108">74</reflink>]), two additional models were specified, first an EFA model without item 18 and second a model with the original factor structure according to Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref109">74</reflink>]). Finally, a 4‐factor bifactor model was specified based on the correlations of the individual factors (Tables 4 and 5).</p> <p>4 TABLE Factor correlations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Factor</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">0.63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">0.62</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">0.72</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">1.00</td><td align="center">0.59</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">0.63</td><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center">0.59</td><td align="center">1.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 TABLE Model comparisons.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Model</th><th align="center">χ<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">TLI</th><th align="center">CFI</th><th align="center">RMSEA</th><th align="center">SRMR</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">4‐factor model (original)</td><td align="center">736.64</td><td align="center">269.00</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4‐factor model (EFA)</td><td align="center">712.12</td><td align="center">269.00</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4‐factor model (EFA without Item 18)</td><td align="center">635.03</td><td align="center">246.00</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4‐factor bifactor model (EFA)</td><td align="center">540.88</td><td align="center">250.00</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.99</td><td align="center">0.07</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note:</emph> RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardised root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index. The model with the best overall fit is highlighted in bold.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-22">Reliability</hd> <p>Reliability assessments were conducted based on the EFA bifactor model and demonstrated good to excellent internal consistencies for the 4 factors as well as for the global scale (Table 6).</p> <p>6 TABLE Scale characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Scale</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic><sub>items</sub></th><th align="center">M</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">Homogeneity</th><th align="center">Discrimination</th><th align="center">|Loading|</th><th align="center">α (CI 95%)</th><th align="center">Std. α (CI 95%)</th><th align="center">ω (t)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Instructional strategies</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">4.69–5.11</td><td align="center">1.02–1.17</td><td align="center">0.57</td><td align="center">0.61–0.74</td><td align="center">0.65–0.8</td><td align="center">0.89 (0.87–0.9)</td><td align="center">0.89 (0.87–0.9)</td><td align="center">0.92</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emotional support</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">4.46–5.56</td><td align="center">1.01–1.22</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center">0.61–0.74</td><td align="center">0.64–0.79</td><td align="center">0.9 (0.89–0.92)</td><td align="center">0.9 (0.89–0.92)</td><td align="center">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Behavior management</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">4.6–5.11</td><td align="center">1.05–1.24</td><td align="center">0.64</td><td align="center">0.64–0.82</td><td align="center">0.67–0.88</td><td align="center">0.9 (0.89–0.91)</td><td align="center">0.9 (0.88–0.91)</td><td align="center">0.91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student engagement</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">4.04–4.92</td><td align="center">1–1.3</td><td align="center">0.57</td><td align="center">0.63–0.74</td><td align="center">0.67–0.8</td><td align="center">0.89 (0.87–0.9)</td><td align="center">0.89 (0.87–0.91)</td><td align="center">0.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Global Score</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">4.04–5.56</td><td align="center">1–1.3</td><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center">0.53–0.78</td><td align="center">0.54–0.79</td><td align="center">0.96 (0.95–0.96)</td><td align="center">0.96 (0.95–0.96)</td><td align="center">0.97</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <emph>Note:</emph> Estimates based on the 4‐factor bifactor model (EFA). <emph>N</emph> = 456.</item> <item>8 Abbreviations: α = Cronbachs's alpha; ω(t) = McDonald's omega (total); CI = confidence interval; M = mean; SD = standard deviation0.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183654370-23">Discussion</hd> <p>As part of the affective‐motivational dimension of teachers' professional competencies (Kunter et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref110">27</reflink>]), TSE beliefs are likely to have a relevant influence on the classroom environment, teacher decision‐making and interactions with students (Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref111">24</reflink>]; Love et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref112">34</reflink>]). Moreover, TSE beliefs are related to sub‐dimensions of behavior management, instruction and student engagement (Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref113">65</reflink>]). Based on highly recognized and validated theories on the construct of self‐efficacy (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref114">4</reflink>]; Schwarzer [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref115">54</reflink>]; Schwarzer and Schmitz [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref116">56</reflink>]) and subsequent empirical works of Zee, de Jong, and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref117">73</reflink>]) and Zee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref118">75</reflink>]), it can be assumed that TSE beliefs may vary not only across situations and domains but also according to the individual needs and behaviors of students who present teachers with particularly challenging tasks, for example, in the domain of social and emotional problem behavior (Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref119">73</reflink>]). The construct of student‐specific TSE is therefore considered to be an informative theoretical basis for understanding the interrelationships between affective‐motivational components of teachers' competencies, situational‐ and student‐specific variables such as engagement and well‐being (Fackler, Malmberg, and Sammons [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref120">14</reflink>]). Since there are no validated German‐language instruments for the empirical assessment of student‐specific TSE to date, the study pursued the goal of translating the SS‐TSES by Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref121">74</reflink>]) and assessing the psychometric quality of the German language version (SS‐TSES‐G) for use in German teacher populations.</p> <p>Using the described translation procedure, a German language version of the SS‐TSES was developed. The exploratory assessment of the factor structure (RQ1) revealed a largely comparable item‐to‐scale assignment to that proposed by Zee and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref122">74</reflink>]) which explained 60% of the variance in the data; the only deviation occurred in item 18 where the loadings of the rotated component matrix indicated an assignment to the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> dimension rather than the <emph>Student Engagment</emph> dimension as suggested in the original factor structure.</p> <p>The assignment of item 18 to the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> scale was supported by the results of the CFA model comparisons, which yielded a slightly better incremental and relative fit for the new item‐scale assignment. Considering the moderate to high factor correlations (0.59–0.73), a 4‐factor bifactor model was tested and fitted the data best with excellent relative and good to excellent absolute fit indices (Hu and Bentler [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref123">21</reflink>]). An explanation for why item 18 fits better with the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> scale can be found in its wording. When comparing the original English TSES and the Dutch SS‐TSES, the wording of item 18, which was originally assigned to the <emph>Student Engagement</emph> scale, is slightly different in meaning: Item 18 from the English TSES uses the wording 'How well can you get through to the student?'. However, the Dutch translation ('Hoe goed lukt het u om echt contact met deze leerling te krijgen?') implies a connection with a student. The translation of the item from the Dutch SS‐TSES version may have changed the meaning in the German context ('Wie gut gelingt es Ihnen, eine echte Verbindung zu diesem Schüler/dieser Schülerin herzustellen [How well do you manage to make a real connection with this student]?'), so that German participants might understand the item as reflecting the ability to support the student emotionally, rather than the ability to motivate or activate the student's interest (Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref124">73</reflink>]). In line with the CLASS framework (Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref125">41</reflink>]), item 18 can be understood as "teachers' perception of their ability to establish a warm connection with individual students" (Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref126">75</reflink>], 44). Based on this linguistic explanation and with reference to culture, it can be argued that item 18 is more suitable for measuring emotional support in German contexts. The analyses of internal consistencies yielded high (<emph>Student Engagement</emph>, <emph>Instructional Strategies</emph>) to excellent (<emph>Emotional Support</emph>, <emph>Behavior Management</emph>, <emph>Global Score</emph>) reliability scores (RQ2). On the one hand, these findings suggest that the SS‐TSES‐G enables a reliable assessment of differentiated sub‐dimensions of student‐specific self‐efficacy; on the other hand, both the internal consistencies as well as the scale correlations may support the assumption to understand SS‐TSES at least as far more homogenous construct as suggested by the sub‐dimensions. Based on these considerations we suggest researchers to select SS‐TSE dimensions closely in line with specific research questions at hand.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-24">Limitations</hd> <p>Despite following a systematic protocol, some limitations may be related to the translation procedure. The SS‐TSES‐G was mainly translated from the Dutch version of the SS‐TSES (Zee and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref127">74</reflink>]), which in turn is based on the original English TSES by Tschannen‐Moran and Woolfolk Hoy ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>]). To resolve some misunderstandings during the translation, items from the English Version, which do not contain a specification on student‐specific TSE, were used. Considering the reported allocation irregularities and variation in the meaning of item 18, we suggest an assignment of item 18 to the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> scale for the use of the SS‐TSES‐G in German contexts. To emphasise the meaning of item 18 and its relation to the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> scale, a refinement of wording from 'echte Verbindung [...] herzustellen [connection with the student]' to 'echte Verbindung im Rahmen der emotionalen Unterstützung [...] herzustellen [real connection in the context of emotional support]' should be considered. However, in line with suggestions from other studies (e.g., Koniewski [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref129">26</reflink>]) the effects of the different assignments, rewording or deletion of item 18 on the model fit should be examined in future studies using other samples and has to be considered thoroughly in cross‐cultural comparisons.</p> <p>Another limitation of the study is the ad‐hoc online sample, which was not systematically planned. It can be assumed that teachers who were interested in the study topic or felt competent in relation to the subject were more likely to have participated (self‐selection bias). This might be one reason for relatively high levels of student‐specific self‐efficacy in our sample. Unfortunately, there is no possibility to estimate the self‐selection bias based on the available data.</p> <p>Related to the data at hand participants answered the survey following the global instruction "Denken Sie bitte während der Beantwortung der Aussagen an Ihre:n schwierigste:n bzw. emotional‐sozial herausfordernste:n Schüler:in [While answering the statements, please think of your most difficult or emotionally and socially most challenging student]" and were not asked whether the student in mind showed internalizing or externalizing problem behavior. Earlier research indicates that especially disruptive student behavior undermines teachers' perceived ability in all dimensions measured by the SS‐TSES, while internalizing behavior was only negatively associated with the <emph>Emotional Support</emph> dimension (Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref130">73</reflink>]). Unfortunately, such relationship patterns cannot be addressed with the data of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-25">Implications</hd> <p>As shown by the application of a four‐dimensional model of SS‐TSE, there are different areas in which teachers can perceive themselves as efficacious in relation to individual students in their classroom. The results can inform theory, research and educational practice on TSE. A higher sense of general self‐efficacy is associated with higher teaching effectiveness and quality (Holzberger, Philipp, and Kunter [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref131">20</reflink>]; Park et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref132">40</reflink>]) as well as more successful coping outcomes related to challenges and problem behavior in the classroom (Dicke et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref133">11</reflink>]; Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref134">37</reflink>]). Particularly in inclusive education contexts, these challenges may include issues arising from the educational needs of specific students in heterogeneous learning groups and may confront teachers with different professional backgrounds and experiences. Among other affective‐motivational as well as knowledge‐related variables, student‐specific TSE could be a promising concept to extend existing competency models (Kunter et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref135">27</reflink>]; Shulman [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref136">58</reflink>]) or to further specify the relation to theoretical considerations, such as dimensions of teaching quality (Praetorius et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref137">42</reflink>]). In future studies a combination with other measures, for example, on global TSE, motivational dimensions of competencies (e.g., attitudes), teaching quality and experience in a multi‐level design would potentially contribute to the understanding of relationships between student characteristics, classroom composition and components of teachers' competence.</p> <p>The further investigation of SS‐TSES may also contribute to the field of attitude research in special and inclusive education. In current scientific models to describe and investigate the attitude behaviour relationship (e.g., the theory of planned behavior, Ajzen and Fishbein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref138">1</reflink>]) perceived and actual behavioral control are directly related to behavioral outcomes and, as described in dual‐pathway models, for example, the MODE‐model (Ajzen and Fishbein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>]), may even moderate if deliberative or spontaneous pathways lead to behavior. Several studies indicate that the severity and type of special educational needs explain differences in teachers' attitudes towards students with special needs in inclusive classroom contexts. Teachers consistently report that they do not feel well prepared to deal with complex educational needs (e.g., de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref140">9</reflink>], Przibilla et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref141">43</reflink>]). Focusing on confidence in the area of student‐specific TSE may enable us to understand, in how far global attitudinal evaluations are associated with perceived behavioral control in relation to particular individuals in class (Ajzen and Fishbein [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref142">1</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref143">75</reflink>]). Based on evidence that teachers' attitudes and self‐efficacy are interrelated and develop in dependency on contact experiences and professional knowledge (e.g., Greiner, Taskinen, and Kracke [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref144">18</reflink>]), the SS‐TSES could be a useful and economic tool to survey professional development over time (e.g., with teacher students or to evaluate professional development programs). In addition to the cognitive interview procedures used for the development of the SS‐STES‐G here, it would be promising to use the developed items in qualitative studies aiming to improve the understanding of the construct of SS‐TSE itself: For example, think‐aloud approaches (Ryan, Gannon‐Slater, and Culbertson [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref145">49</reflink>]) whereby teachers are asked to verbalise their thoughts when filling out the SS‐TSES(‐G) for specific students, would gain insights in individual reasoning processes and teachers' explanations on why and whereby they experience high or low self‐efficacy towards specific students with different learning paths. Future studies using the SS‐TSES‐G should control for characteristics on student level, for example, through the assessment of information on the specific nature of educational needs, particularly distinguishing between internalizing, externalizing and comorbid problem behavior (Spilt and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref146">59</reflink>]; Zee, de Jong, and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref147">73</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref148">75</reflink>]). The findings from Zee, de Jong, and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref149">73</reflink>]) suggest significant differences on the sub‐scale level using the SS‐TSES for students with externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. A comparison of more differentiated SS‐TSE‐G data including information on student characteristics with the results of Zee, de Jong, and Koomen ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref150">73</reflink>]) would provide further evidence for the validity and intercultural comparability of the SS‐TSES‐G and contribute to understanding the composition of the construct. Overall, broader and potentially longitudinal designs could be promising to address the questions of whether SS‐TSE is a homogeneous or heterogeneous construct, how it develops over time, whether it can be distinguished from other motivational competence facets (e.g., coactive attitudinal evaluations) and how the aforementioned constructs are interrelated.</p> <p>In educational practice, the SS‐TSES‐G can be used to assess the alignment between teachers' perceived pedagogical expertise and the individual needs of their students. Differences in this alignment may significantly impact the quality of instruction, especially in dyadic one‐on‐one situations where there is a direct pairing between student and teacher (Koenen et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref151">25</reflink>]; McGrath and Van Bergen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref152">38</reflink>]). A practical application of the instrument might be to support training in understanding the value of behaviour management, instruction, engagement and emotional support for individual students in teacher education or supervision programs. The awareness of strengths or needs of (prospective) teachers in these areas can help to develop a more positive sense of TSE towards different students (Fackler, Malmberg, and Sammons [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref153">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, the evaluation of SS‐TSE could help school administrators and policymakers to improve the deployment of teachers in (inclusive) support settings to reduce the risk of burnout and stress in the teaching profession (Carson, Chang, and Carson [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref154">8</reflink>]; Dicke et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref155">11</reflink>]; Schwarzer and Hallum [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref156">55</reflink>]; Zee et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref157">75</reflink>]). The investigation of student‐specific TSE related to students with (different types) of special educational needs may inform researchers and practitioners in the development and evaluation of training programs designed to increase teachers' professional competence and build teachers' capacity to support individual students as well as to change attitudes and teaching practices (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref158">4</reflink>]; Lu and Mustafa [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref159">35</reflink>]; Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref160">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-26">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Bodo Przibilla: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, investigation, project administration. Chiara Enderle: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, project administration, resources. Gino Casale: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, methodology, funding acquisition, investigation, supervision. David Scheer: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, methodology, funding acquisition, supervision. Anett Platte: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, project administration, supervision, resources. Conny Melzer: conceptualization, supervision, resources. Tatjana Leidig: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, project administration, supervision, resources. All authors have agreed to the final submitted version.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-27">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Charlotte Hanisch and Thomas Hennemann for their valuable insights, constructive feedback throughout the development of this research, and for their contribution to the item translation process.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-28">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The research was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Wuppertal (approval number: MS/AE 220513).</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-29">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183654370-30">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request. Researchers interested in accessing the data set for further analysis or validation may contact the Corresponding Author at przibilla@uni‐wuppertal.de. Requests will be considered in accordance with the ethical and legal obligations related to participant confidentiality and data protection.</p> <p>GRAPH: S1.</p> <p>GRAPH: S2.</p> <p>GRAPH: S3.</p> <p>GRAPH: S4.</p> <p>GRAPH: S5.</p> <p>GRAPH: S6.</p> <p>GRAPH: S7.</p> <ref id="AN0183654370-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref77" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> All electronic Supporting Information can be accessed via the following repository: https://osf.io/cxs49/?view_only=a24e193e5ad34040b5dd2cc9a3906150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref21" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by the ZEFFT research funding line of the University of Wuppertal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref83" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bodo Przibilla and Chiara Enderle were the joint first authorship of this work.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183654370-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 2005. " The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior." In The Handbook of Attitudes, edited by D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna, 173 – 221. New Yersey, Mawah : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Almog, O., and Z. Shechtman. 2007. " Teachers' Democratic and Efficacy Beliefs and Styles of Coping With Behavioural Problems of Pupils With Special Needs." European Journal of Special Needs Education 22 : 115 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250701267774.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aust, F., and M. Barth. 2022. "papaja: Prepare reproducible APA journal articles with R Markdown."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1997. Self‐Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 604. Manhattan, New York City : W H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barni, D., F. Danioni, and P. Benevene. 2019. " Teachers' Self‐Efficacy: The Role of Personal Values and Motivations for Teaching." Frontiers in Psychology 10 : 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barth, M.. 2022. "Tinylabels: Lightweight Variable Labels."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brouwers, A., and W. Tomic. 2000. "Disruptive Student Behavior, Perceived Self‐Efficacy, and Teacher Burnout." https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED450120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref154" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carson, T., M.‐L. Chang, and R. L. Carson. 2014. Curbing Teacher Burnout: The Transactional Factors of Teacher Efficacy and Emotion Management. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref140" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> de Boer, A., S. J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. " Regular Primary schoolteachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature." International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 : 331 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dellinger, A. B., J. J. Bobbett, D. F. Olivier, and C. D. Ellett. 2008. " Measuring Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: Development and Use of the TEBS‐Self." Teaching and Teacher Education 24, no. 3 : 751 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicke, T., P. D. Parker, D. Holzberger, O. Kunina‐Habenicht, M. Kunter, and D. Leutner. 2015. " Beginning Teachers' Efficacy and Emotional Exhaustion: Latent Changes, Reciprocity, and the Influence of Professional Knowledge." Contemporary Educational Psychology 41 : 62 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enochs, L. G., P. L. Smith, and D. Huinker. 2000. " Establishing Factorial Validity of the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument." School Science and Mathematics 100, no. 4 : 194 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949‐8594.2000.tb17256.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, J. D. 1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. (S. xxii, 600). Belmont : Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fackler, S., L.‐E. Malmberg, and P. Sammons. 2021. " An International Perspective on Teacher Self‐Efficacy: Personal, Structural and Environmental Factors." Teaching and Teacher Education 99 : 103255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, I. A. 2003. " Self‐Efficacy and Burnout in Teaching: The Importance of Interpersonal‐Relations Efficacy." Social Psychology of Education 6, no. 3 : 191 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024723124467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gómez‐Marí, I., G. Pastor‐Cerezuela, I. Lacruz‐Pérez, and R. Tárraga‐Mínguez. 2023. " Do Labels Matter? Analysis of teachers' Self‐Efficacy Towards the Autism Spectrum Disorder Depending on the Diagnostic Label Used (ASD or Asperger's)." Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 23, no. 2 : 126 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐3802.12585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, J. W., A. E. Olchowski, and T. D. Gilreath. 2007. " How Many Imputations Are Really Needed? Some Practical Clarifications of Multiple Imputation Theory." Prevention Science 8, no. 3 : 206 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121‐007‐0070‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greiner, F., P. Taskinen, and B. Kracke. 2020. " Einstellungen und Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen von Lehramtsstudierenden bezüglich inklusiven Unterrichts: Zusammenhänge mit Kontakterfahrungen und Grundlagenkenntnissen über schulische Inklusion." Unterrichtswissenschaft 48, no. 2 : 273 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010‐020‐00069‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heneman, H., S. M. Kimball, and A. T. Milanowski. 2006. "The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale: Validation Evidence and Behavioral Prediction." WCER Working Paper No. 2006‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzberger, D., A. Philipp, and M. Kunter. 2013. " How Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Is Related to Instructional Quality: A Longitudinal Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 105, no. 3 : 774 – 786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. " Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 : 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, G., and J. König. 2019. " Competence Measurement in (Mathematics) Teacher Education and Beyond: Implications for Policy." Higher Education Policy 32, no. 4 : 597 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307‐019‐00139‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., T. L. Durksen, and V. M. C. Tze. 2014. " Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs." In Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: Ready to Move From Theory to Practice? London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., V. M. C. Tze, S. M. Betts, and K. A. Gordon. 2011. " Teacher Efficacy Research 1998: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise? " Educational Psychology Review 23, no. 1 : 21 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐010‐9141‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenen, A.‐K., L. F. N. Borremans, A. De Vroey, G. Kelchtermans, and J. L. Spilt. 2021. " Strengthening Individual Teacher‐Child Relationships: An Intervention Study Among Student Teachers in Special Education." Frontiers in Education 6 : 769573. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.769573.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koniewski, M. 2019. " The Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale (TSES). Factorial Structure Evidence Review and New Evidence From Polish‐Speaking Samples." European Journal of Psychological Assessment 35, no. 6 : 900 – 912. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015‐5759/a000475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kunter, M., U. Klusmann, J. Baumert, D. Richter, T. Voss, and A. Hachfeld. 2013. " Professional Competence of Teachers: Effects on Instructional Quality and Student Development." Journal of Educational Psychology 105, no. 3 : 805 – 820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupers, E., J. Loopers, C. Albers, A. Bakker, and A. Minnaert. 2023. " An Experience Sampling Study on the Links Between Daily Teacher Self‐Efficacy, Need‐Supportive Teaching and Student Intrinsic Motivation." Frontiers in Psychology 14 : 1159108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1159108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landermann, L. R., K. Land, and C. F. Pieper. 1997. " An Empirical Evaluation of the Predictive Mean Matching Method for Imputing Missing Values." Sociological Methods & Research 26, no. 1 : 3 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124197026001001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauermann, F., and J. König. 2016. " Teachers' Professional Competence and Wellbeing: Understanding the Links Between General Pedagogical Knowledge, Self‐Efficacy and Burnout." Learning and Instruction 45 : 9 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C.‐T., G. Zhang, and M. C. Edwards. 2012. " Ordinary Least Squares Estimation of Parameters in Exploratory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data." Multivariate Behavioral Research 47, no. 2 : 314 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.658340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leidig, T., C. S. Melzer, A. Platte, C. Hanisch, and T. Hennemann. n.d. German Translation of the Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy Scale by Zee, M. & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2015) With Kind Permission of the Original Authors. Leipzig University : University of Cologne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, C.‐H. 2016. " Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data: Comparing Robust Maximum Likelihood and Diagonally Weighted Least Squares." Behavior Research Methods 48, no. 3 : 936 – 949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐015‐0619‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Love, A. M. A., J. A. Findley, L. A. Ruble, and J. H. McGrew. 2020. " Teacher Self‐Efficacy for Teaching Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Associations With Stress, Teacher Engagement, and Student IEP Outcomes Following COMPASS Consultation." Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 35, no. 1 : 47 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619836767.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, Q., and Z. Mustafa. 2021. " Toward the Impact of EFL Teachers' Self‐Efficacy and Collective Efficacy on Students' Engagement." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 1 – 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C. 2003. " Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and Intervention." Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 : 189 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8721.01258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. " Job Burnout." Annual Review of Psychology 52, no. 1 : 397 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGrath, K. F., and P. Van Bergen. 2015. " Who, When, Why and to What End? Students at Risk of Negative Student‐Teacher Relationships and Their Outcomes." Educational Research Review 14 : 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Gorman, E., and P. S. Drudy. 2011. Professional Development for Teachers Working in Special Education/Inclusion in Mainstream Schools: The Views of Teachers and Other Stakeholders. School of Education : University College Dublin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, M.‐H., H.‐W. Yim, S. Park, et al. 2015. " School Refusal Behavior in South Korean First Graders: A Prospective Observational Community‐Based Study." Psychiatry Research 227, no. 2–3 : 160 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.04.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., K. M. La Paro, and B. K. Hamre. 2008. Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K‐3. (pp. xi, 112). Baltimore : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Praetorius, A.‐K., E. Klieme, B. Herbert, and P. Pinger. 2018. " Generic Dimensions of Teaching Quality: The German Framework of Three Basic Dimensions." ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education 50, no. 3 : 407 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858‐018‐0918‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Przibilla, B., P. Krämer, A. Haep, H. E. Ugurlu, and F. Linderkamp. 2018. The Relationship Between Educational Level, Students' Special Needs and Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion in Germany. Pabst Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:16004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna : R Foundation for Statistical Computing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Revelle, W. 2022. Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Evanston, Illinois : Northwestern University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodríguez‐Fernández, A., E. Ramos‐Díaz, J. M. Madariaga, A. Arrivillaga, and N. Galende. 2016. " Steps in the Construction and Verification of an Explanatory Model of Psychosocial Adjustment." European Journal of Education and Psychology 9, no. 1 : 20 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejeps.2015.11.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. 2012. " Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling." Journal of Statistical Software 48, no. 2 : 1 – 36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, D. W. 2002. " In Search of Underlying Dimensions: The Use (And Abuse) of Factor Analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 12 : 1629 – 1646. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237645.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, K., N. Gannon‐Slater, and M. J. Culbertson. 2012. " Improving Survey Methods With Cognitive Interviews in Small‐ and Medium‐Scale Evaluations." American Journal of Evaluation 33, no. 3 : 414 – 430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012441499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarfo, F. K., F. Amankwah, F. K. Sam, and D. Konin. 2015. " Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: The Relationship Between Gender and Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management and Student Engagement." Ghana Journal of Development Studies 12, no. 1–2 : 19 – 32. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjds.v12i1‐2.2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, S. 2019. " Teachers' Student‐Specific Self‐Efficacy in Relation to Teacher and Student Variables." Educational Psychology 39, no. 1 : 4 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1516861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, S., A. Kulmhofer‐Bommer, L. Hoffmann, and J. Goldan. 2021. " Maths, German, and English Teachers' Student Specific Self‐Efficacy Is It a Matter of Students' Characteristics? " Educational Psychology 41, no. 10 : 1224 – 1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2021.1934405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwab, S., K.‐T. Lindner, and H. Savolainen. 2022. " Investigating Teachers' Dyadic Self‐Efficacy and Its Correlations to Students' Perceptions of Teacher Efficacy and Student Well‐Being." Educational Psychology 42, no. 7 : 820 – 837. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2094342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzer, R. 1992. Self‐Efficacy in the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors: Theoretical Approaches and a New Model, 217 – 243. London : Hemisphere Publishing Corp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzer, R., and S. Hallum. 2008. " Perceived Teacher Self‐Efficacy as a Predictor of Job Stress and Burnout: Mediation Analyses." Applied Psychology 57, no. s1 : 152 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464‐0597.2008.00359.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzer, R., and G. S. Schmitz. 1999. " Kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern: Eine Längsschnittstudie in zehn Bundesländern." Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 30, no. 4 : 262 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1024//0044‐3514.30.4.262.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweizer, K. 2011. " On the Changing Role of cronbach's Alpha in the Evaluation of the Quality of a Measure." European Journal of Psychological Assessment 27, no. 3 : 143 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015‐5759/a000069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. S. 1986. " Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching." Educational Researcher 15, no. 2 : 4 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spilt, J. L., and H. M. Y. Koomen. 2009. " Widening the View on Teacher‐Child Relationships: Teachers' Narratives Concerning Disruptive Versus Nondisruptive Children." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 38 : 86 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087851.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spilt, J. L., H. M. Y. Koomen, and J. T. Thijs. 2011. " Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher‐Student Relationships." Educational Psychology Review 23, no. 4 : 457 – 477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐011‐9170‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spilt, J. L., H. M. Y. Koomen, J. T. Thijs, and A. van der Leij. 2012. " Supporting Teachers' Relationships with Disruptive Children: The Potential of Relationship‐Focused Reflection." Attachment & Human Development 14, no. 3 : 305 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672286.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston : Pearson Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney, N., D. Cook, M. McBain, and C. Fay. 2021. "naniar: Data Structures, Summaries, and Visualisations for Missing Data."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran, M., and D. Johnson. 2011. " Exploring Literacy Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs: Potential Sources at Play." Teaching and Teacher Education 27 : 751 – 761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2001. " Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct." Teaching and Teacher Education 17, no. 7 : 783 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742‐051X(01)00036‐1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsouloupas, C. N., R. L. Carson, R. Matthews, M. J. Grawitch, and L. K. Barber. 2010. " Exploring the Association Between Teachers' Perceived Student Misbehaviour and Emotional Exhaustion: The Importance of Teacher Efficacy Beliefs and Emotion Regulation." Educational Psychology 30, no. 2 : 173 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903494460.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Buuren, S., and K. Groothuis‐Oudshoorn. 2011. " Mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R." Journal of Statistical Software 45, no. 3 : 1 – 67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volpe, R. J., T. S. Yeung, G. Casale, J. Krull, A. M. Briesch, and T. Hennemann. 2021. " Evaluation of a German Language School‐Based Universal Screening for Student Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Risk." International Journal of School & Educational Psychology 9 : S10 – S20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2020.1717699.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, L. 2022. " Exploring the Relationship Among Teacher Emotional Intelligence, Work Engagement, Teacher Self‐Efficacy, and Student Academic Achievement: A Moderated Mediation Model." Frontiers in Psychology 12 : 810559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.810559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickham, H., and J. Bryan. 2022. "readxl: Read Excel Files."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilbert, J. 2021. "scaledic ‐ A Dictionary for Scales." Github.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolfolk Hoy, A. 2021. " Teacher Motivation, Quality Instruction, and Student Outcomes: Not a Simple Path." Learning and Instruction 76 : 101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., P. F. de Jong, and H. M. Y. Koomen. 2016. " Teachers' Self‐Efficacy in Relation to Individual Students With a Variety of Social‐Emotional Behaviors: A Multilevel Investigation." Journal of Educational Psychology 108, no. 7 : 1013 – 1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000106.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., and H. M. Y. Koomen. 2015. Student‐Specific Teacher Self‐Efficacy: Investigating the Factorial, Convergent, and Concurrent Validity of a New Instrument. Philadelphia, PA : Poster presented at the biennial meeting of SCRD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee, M., H. M. Y. Koomen, F. C. Jellesma, J. Geerlings, and P. F. de Jong. 2016. " Inter‐ and Intra‐Individual Differences in Teachers' Self‐Efficacy: A Multilevel Factor Exploration." Journal of School Psychology 55 : 39 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.12.003.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bodo Przibilla; Chiara Enderle; Gino Casale; David Scheer; Anett Platte; Conny Melzer and Tatjana Leidig</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib300" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref159"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461174
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Psychometric Properties of the German Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES-G)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bodo+Przibilla%22">Bodo Przibilla</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9948-5372">0000-0002-9948-5372</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chiara+Enderle%22">Chiara Enderle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0427-997X">0000-0003-0427-997X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gino+Casale%22">Gino Casale</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2780-241X">0000-0003-2780-241X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Scheer%22">David Scheer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0534-7869">0000-0002-0534-7869</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anett+Platte%22">Anett Platte</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7958-1618">0000-0001-7958-1618</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Conny+Melzer%22">Conny Melzer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3768-0356">0000-0003-3768-0356</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tatjana+Leidig%22">Tatjana Leidig</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4598-917X">0000-0002-4598-917X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– 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: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22German%22">German</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept+Measures%22">Self Concept Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Structure%22">Factor Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12879
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Based on previous research, it can be assumed that teachers' self-efficacy (TSE) varies across situations, domains and individual students' behaviors confronting teachers with particularly challenging tasks. The construct of student-specific TSE is considered informative theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between affective-motivational components of teachers' competencies and individual student behaviour. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate the Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES; Zee and Koomen, 2015) for use in German teacher samples. The items of the original SS-TSES were translated from Dutch to German using a forward-backward translation procedure. A total of 477 teachers completed the SS-TSES-G. After a randomly drawn sample-split an EFA was conducted on half of the sample, while a CFA was performed on the other half. The results of EFA and CFA revealed that a 4-factor bifactor model fitted the data best. Except for item 18, which was assigned to the first factor ("emotional support"), the item-factor assignments were consistent with the original structure. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicated a good model fit. The SS-TSES-G demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties, allowing for reliable measurements of teachers' self-efficacy in relation to individual students in a German teacher population.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461174
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461174
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12879
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: German
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Psychometric Properties of the German Student-Specific Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (SS-TSES-G)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bodo Przibilla
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chiara Enderle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gino Casale
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Scheer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anett Platte
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Conny Melzer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tatjana Leidig
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1