View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Trauma-Informed Practices as a Buffer against Secondary Traumatic Stress: Insights from First-Year Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Trauma-Informed Practices as a Buffer against Secondary Traumatic Stress: Insights from First-Year Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Ofelia Castro Schepers (ORCID 0000-0001-5255-4812), Nels Grevstad (ORCID 0000-0002-6084-4956), Kathryn Young (ORCID 0000-0002-3895-6038), Megan Brennan
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(8):2463-2481.
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: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Trauma Informed Approach, Beginning Teachers, Trauma, Anxiety, Retention (Psychology)
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23478
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: This study explores the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on first-year teachers (FYTs) and the potential of trauma-informed practices (TIP) as a mitigating strategy. STS, which results from exposure to students' trauma, is a significant but underexplored issue in education. By examining the first year of teaching, this mixed-methods study investigates whether TIP reduces STS symptoms and improves knowledge retention in FYTs. Quantitative findings suggest that TIP can enhance TIP content knowledge and confidence and reduce STS, offering valuable insights for teacher well-being and retention, particularly in high-needs schools. This study contributes to the emerging literature on STS in education and highlights the importance of targeted support for first-year teachers.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477321
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwETBShM3O9o5SZxXPv6UZlFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGpBEFEmzCj3Fv3nSQIBEICBm-mo1aODTciT5X5Ig7ntvDI5lzawgsOmVgVau_3LBnGRWQITDBAacrB30YDgNLYm5VwX8ho65n9QvKY9Ps3tjRL6xZzEzzTG-2ccqM2a99eN0XDHtOr4DdasnaFxDeZi4JhJd4z_4DuRSW0lOzY8BoC8Ior4zcfu65W2ld0N8tcfPBBRSjbbXjMpc01OIe-IYqh0xsdKPZBMXcv1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186727895;pis01aug.25;2025Jul21.06:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186727895-1">Trauma‐Informed Practices as a Buffer Against Secondary Traumatic Stress: Insights From First‐Year Teachers </title> <p>This study explores the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on first‐year teachers (FYTs) and the potential of trauma‐informed practices (TIP) as a mitigating strategy. STS, which results from exposure to students' trauma, is a significant but underexplored issue in education. By examining the first year of teaching, this mixed‐methods study investigates whether TIP reduces STS symptoms and improves knowledge retention in FYTs. Quantitative findings suggest that TIP can enhance TIP content knowledge and confidence and reduce STS, offering valuable insights for teacher well‐being and retention, particularly in high‐needs schools. This study contributes to the emerging literature on STS in education and highlights the importance of targeted support for first‐year teachers.</p> <p>Summary: First‐year teachers (FYTs) are highly susceptible to Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) due to their inexperience and the emotional demands of working with students who have experienced trauma. This stress can lead to burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and negatively affect their teaching effectiveness.Trauma‐informed practices (TIP) have shown promise in mitigating STS, improving teachers' emotional regulation, and enhancing their knowledge retention. TIP equips teachers with strategies to manage stress, supporting both their well‐being and their students' development, particularly in high‐needs schools.This study highlights the importance of providing first‐year teachers with specific, trauma‐informed support to address the unique challenges they face. The study suggests that TIP can improve retention rates and overall teacher effectiveness by reducing STS and bolstering teachers' confidence and knowledge.</p> <p>Keywords: first‐year teachers; secondary traumatic stress; teacher preparation; trauma‐informed practice</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Teacher stress has long been recognized as a significant factor affecting educator well‐being, job satisfaction, and retention (Tyack, 1974). Common stressors—such as excessive workloads, insufficient support, and limited resources—undermine teachers' emotional well‐being and contribute to their decision to leave the profession (Carver‐Thomas and Darling‐Hammond [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]). Elevated stress levels and the maintenance of stereotypical perceptions regarding racially diverse schools, particularly in challenging school environments like Title I [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>] schools, are consistently linked to burnout, job dissatisfaction, and attrition (Glock et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]; Guarino et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]; Ingersoll [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]) as teachers face additional strain due to the heightened needs of students, inadequate resources, and high turnover rates (Boe et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]; Grissom [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]). Furthermore, teachers of color in Title I schools experience even higher levels of stress and attrition, highlighting significant racial disparities in teacher retention (Carver‐Thomas and Darling‐Hammond [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Ingersoll and May [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>While much attention has been given to these general stressors, a less well‐known but increasingly critical contributor to teacher burnout is secondary traumatic stress (STS), which has been found to be more likely in individuals experiencing job burnout (Shoji et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref10">66</reflink>]). STS occurs when individuals, often in helping professions, are indirectly exposed to the trauma experiences of others, such as teachers working with students who have experienced trauma. This can lead to symptoms similar to posttraumatic stress disorder, including emotional distress, heightened physiological reactivity, and avoidance behaviors (Figley [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]; The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. NCTSN. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref12">73</reflink>]). Although the concept of STS has been well‐documented in fields like healthcare, social work, and psychology (helping professions), research on STS in education remains relatively sparse. Professionals in these fields typically have structured support systems, regular supervision, and clear strategies for managing STS (i.e. adjusting client sessions or transferring cases), which help mitigate its impact. In contrast, teachers often lack these resources, leaving them vulnerable to symptoms of STS, such as emotional burnout, diminished job performance, and difficulty separating work‐related stress from personal life (Beaton and Murphy [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]; Craig and Sprang [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Gaps remain in understanding the prevalence of STS in education, where teachers, like their counterparts in social work or healthcare, are frequently exposed to students' trauma. Before the COVID‐19 pandemic, there was significant concern about adolescents experiencing traumatic events (Krause and Verlenden [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref15">48</reflink>]). Researchers captured an increase within the first year of the pandemic, with 11% of US adolescents reporting physical abuse and 55% reporting emotional abuse. This data represents a two to three times higher increase than the rates observed before the pandemic (Krause and Verlenden [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref16">48</reflink>]), highlighting how the pandemic intensified existing challenges for youth, amplifying both the prevalence and severity of trauma. Unlike their counterparts, however, teachers continue to lack training, tools, or support to cope with the emotional fallout of secondary trauma effectively (Borntrager et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]). Research shows that stressed teachers report feelings of helplessness, emotional exhaustion, and difficulty managing student behavior, which can negatively affect their professional effectiveness and student outcomes (Eddy et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]; Hydon et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]). While general teacher burnout and stress have been extensively studied (e.g., Ingersoll [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref20">46</reflink>]), STS in first‐year teachers (FYTs) remains underexplored. FYTs are especially vulnerable to STS due to their inexperience and the emotional demands of managing a classroom, which can be intensified by the trauma histories of their students. The need to better understand how STS manifests in educators and to identify effective interventions for STS is critical, particularly in Title I schools and among teachers who work with vulnerable populations.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-3">Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Educators</hd> <p>To date, there have been many journal articles that explicitly examine the presence and impact of STS within educational contexts, alongside six studies that explore various interventions aimed at mitigating STS in the teaching population (Ormiston et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref21">61</reflink>]). However, there is a notable absence in the literature of research focused on trauma‐informed interventions designed to mitigate STS among FYTs in these settings. Discussions and research exploring STS in teachers began in earnest in 2012, with researchers trying to understand the scope and prevalence of the phenomena within educational settings focusing on teachers and staff working closely with children (Borntrager et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]) and those exploring effective tools for this population (Motta [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref23">57</reflink>]). Since then, there has been a steady stream of research exploring the phenomena of STS in teachers (Castro Schepers. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]; Christian Brandt et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]) and the schools in which they are employed (i.e., under resourced, grade level, etc.) particularly focusing on the prevalence or increase in STS (Phelps et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref26">63</reflink>]; Schmidt et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref27">64</reflink>]). This section highlights key research on STS in educators and studies on interventions to alleviate STS within P‐12 educators.</p> <p>One of the seminal works in this area was a study conducted by Borntrager et al. surveying 229 school personnel in the northwest United States (Borntrager et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]). Schools consisted of American Indian reservation communities, rural, and urban. Seventy‐four percent of the teachers identified as Caucasian with the next largest represented demographic being Native American teachers (20%). Their findings suggested that while school personnel across these six schools reported high levels of STS, they maintained job satisfaction and had average levels of STS. They concluded that, unlike other helping professions, school personnel lack resources to address STS and must find their own coping mechanics. During this time frame, Motta explored the tools needed to facilitate this type of research within school settings (2012).</p> <p>With a robust response rate of 72.7%, for 163 elementary school teachers working in a Title I school, Christian‐Brandt et al. surveyed teachers to understand the impact of a district‐wide effort to implement trauma‐informed care (TIC) practices (2020). They found that teachers with higher levels of compassion satisfaction and lower levels of burnout found TIC to be an effective approach. Inversely, those with higher burnout levels and lower compassion satisfaction predicted turnover intention. Additionally, they found that teachers who were older and reported lower levels of compassion satisfaction and higher levels of burnout were predictive of teachers reporting an intent to leave the profession. Though limited by a lack of a control group, this study was one of the few that explores TIC implementation in schools concerning STS, burnout, and compassion satisfaction.</p> <p>In a more targeted study, Schmidt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref29">64</reflink>]) centered agricultural educators in a school‐based agricultural setting, using the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) framework to assess compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue, a survey which simultaneously measures burnout and secondary traumatic stress (Stamm [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref30">71</reflink>]). Exploring how their 55 Oregon participants were experiencing STS and how that shifted across various racial, professional, and school demographic variables, they found that as STS increases, teacher levels of burnout also increase. Additionally, if participants were female or if they were early in their career, it was predictive that they were at an increased risk for STS.</p> <p>In a mixed‐methods study which also used the ProQOL to measure STS, compassion satisfaction, and burnout, Fleckman and colleagues sought to understand what levels of these constructs teachers reported experiencing (Fleckman et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]). They gleaned information from 11 schools, surveying 275 teachers, 77% who were new to the teaching profession. They found that between 14.1% and 15.9% of teachers across their two samples reported elevated levels of STS. Qualitative results supported teachers' experience with STS when discussing their relationships with the school community, including families and children.</p> <p>Relying on a different validated measure (Teacher STS scale) than the previous two students, the author surveyed 115 teachers in a predominantly Latinx school district with a survey response rate of 31%, aiming to understand how STS was experienced across demographic variables (2023). The sample population was representative of the district teacher population and they reported a normal occurrence of STS. However, she noted that there was a statistically significant higher level of STS attributed to teachers who identified as white and had grown up in a working class or middle‐class family as compared to nonwhite counterparts and those who had grown‐up in upper class families (Castro Schepers. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Phelps and colleagues wanted to further explore teachers who experience STS and how it impacted them within the professions (2025). Their study focused on understanding how race and years of experience facilitated STS in teachers. Of the 323 teachers that participated, 306 provided complete datasets for analysis. They found that while years did not significantly impact levels of STS, white teachers reported higher levels of STS than their Black counterparts. Yet, they found no statistically significant difference when considering the proportion of teachers and, overall, found that one in four white teachers were considered to be at risk for having high levels of STS, emphasizing the need to support teachers appropriately.</p> <p>Many of the studies reviewed offered recommendations to better support educators working with students who have experienced trauma. These suggestions included further research to identify factors that could mitigate or reduce STS in teachers and implementation of trauma‐informed approaches at both the individual and school levels.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-4">Trauma‐Informed Practices in Schools</hd> <p>Researchers have proposed various approaches to prevent or mitigate STS among educators. Essary et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>]) recommended individualized strategies, such as engaging in activities that calm the nervous system, including exercise, socializing with friends, and pursuing hobbies like reading, cooking, and gardening. Additionally, they advocated for systemic, school‐based interventions inspired by practices in other helping professions. These include implementing leave‐of‐absence policies for staff experiencing STS, providing professional development on trauma's impact, fostering trust through team‐building exercises, and offering workload support. Such policies align with trauma‐informed practices that not only address teacher well‐being but also equip educators to better support their students by incorporating trauma education into their teaching. Essary et al. emphasized the complexity of understanding and defining the role of teachers in classrooms while considering how STS manifests ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]). They also expressed the complexity of identifying mitigation strategies intended to address the symptoms and impacts of STS in teachers (Essary et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sprang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref36">69</reflink>]) reviewed the current science behind STS and interventions for STS to define an agenda that would move the field forward. In doing so, they identified research in associated constructs (i.e. vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, etc.) to identify possible interventions related to those constructs. These interventions included individualized efforts such as dispositional mindfulness, social supports, perceptions around self‐efficacy and competence, and external supports such as trauma‐informed care training (Sprang et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref37">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Extending on possible interventions, such as trauma‐informed pedagogies, Lawson et al. propose the need for trauma literacy (2019). They urge a need for schools that employ trauma‐informed pedagogies to also include identifying, responding, and addressing student and teacher STS (Lawson et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref38">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>One promising approach to mitigating the effects of STS is trauma‐informed practices (TIP). TIP, in this study, is defined as a culturally‐sustaining set of practices, policies, and procedures to recognize, understand and address the learning needs of students impacted by trauma and all students. TIP has demonstrated benefits in reducing stress and promoting emotional regulation among educators (Caringi et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]; Castro Schepers and Young [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]; Sprang and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]). TIP equips teachers with strategies to manage their own emotional responses while simultaneously supporting their students' emotional and academic development.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-5">Situating First‐Year Teacher Needs</hd> <p>New teachers often enter the profession with limited competence, yet may overestimate their abilities and preparedness to manage complex student needs (Kruger and Dunning [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>]). They are transitioning from theories of teaching and learning to the practical realities of the classroom. The Dunning‐Kruger Effect of cognitive bias related to their TIP skill level might lead to stress and burnout as they realize their actual TIP abilities and preparedness in the face of the realities of teaching. A first‐year teacher may assume that following a lesson plan precisely or using classroom management will ensure student success, only to realize that student needs strategies don't always work, and constant adaptation is necessary. This brutal awakening is called the 'valley of despair'—where FYT's confidence drops as the complexity of teaching becomes clear. The valley of despair leads to demotivation, frustration, and a sense of inadequacy (Kruger and Dunning [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref43">49</reflink>]). With ongoing support, reflection, and experience, FYTs gradually move toward more realistic confidence in the classroom, where they recognize their strengths, areas for improvement, and how to get support. Schools and districts can help new teachers through this process through mentorship programs, reflective practice, and TIP professional development—all concepts that are a part of trauma‐informed practices.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-6">Current Study</hd> <p>Despite the expanding body of research on TIP, there remain relatively few studies specifically examining how these practices influence FYTs, who are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of stress and burnout in the teaching profession. This study investigates the quantitative findings from a larger mixed‐methods study. This study explores the role of two TIP interventions in alleviating STS symptoms and enhancing TIP knowledge retention during the critical first year of teaching. A total of 92 participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control groups. The effects of the interventions were measured through various quantitative measures throughout the year. The results of this study seek to offer valuable insights into mitigating STS in FYTs, while also contributing to the growing body of literature on effective STS mitigation strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-7">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p>There is considerable conceptual and theoretical overlap between reflective consultation (RC) and trauma‐informed (TIP) approaches. RC has been used across a number of different professional settings, including early childcare, healthcare, and social work, broadly reflecting a relationship‐focused consultation process that supports providers in ongoing reflection in a supportive, non‐judgmental environment (Marshall et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref44">54</reflink>]). RC helps practitioners cope with intense professional (and personal) feelings and stress generated when working with (young) children and families. (Silverman and Hutchison [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref45">67</reflink>]). Over 30 years of clinical experience and empirical evidence in early childhood research indicate that RC has increased the quality of infant mental health services by reducing secondary trauma, staff turnover, and bias while increasing practitioner knowledge and improving practice, job satisfaction, efficacy, and responsiveness (Amini et al. 2013; Gilkerson and Kopel [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]; Harrison [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>]; Harrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]; Van Berckelaer [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]; Watson et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref50">74</reflink>]), as well as increases in confidence (Daniëls et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]). RC has been applied outside of early childhood to maternal‐child health home‐visiting programs (i.e., Nurse‐Family Partnership) and with social work field interns with similar results (Shea [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref52">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Trauma‐informed practices in this study are guided by the Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS) conceptual framework (Dorado et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref53">22</reflink>]) grounded in six core guiding principles for creating trauma‐informed schools (see Dorado et al. 20216 for more details). HEARTS emphasizes that all students, not just those impacted by trauma, benefit personally and academically from the relational, student‐centered nature of the HEARTS framework. The goals of this framework focus on educator and school staff capacities to support trauma‐impacted students by increasing knowledge and practice of trauma‐informed classrooms and promote staff wellness through addressing burnout, STS, and other aspects of staff well‐being.</p> <p>RC are structured, collaborative discussions where professionals (like therapists, teachers, or healthcare workers) come together with a facilitator to reflect on their practice, challenges, and experiences in a supportive environment. By engaging in reflective practice and increasing reflective capacity to be attuned to the emotional states of others and self, participants can increase self‐awareness, improve decision‐making, and foster professional growth. Reflective consultation is considered a trauma‐informed practice (Arvidson et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; Larrieu [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>]). Similar to TIP, RC is concerned with "how you are" and also with "what you do" (Pawl and St John [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref56">62</reflink>]). The skills and strategies that are used in RC encompass both the actions the facilitators use and the foundational TIP elements needed to cultivate a trustworthy and open reflective alliance. As a result, these skills and strategies are deeply interconnected with a way of being in the RC space and in the classroom. For consultations to be reflective, they must be grounded in three core principles: regularity, collaboration, and reflection (Heffron and Murch [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref57">42</reflink>]) all of which are core tenets of TIP and specifically the HEARTS framework.</p> <p>For this study, RC was centered within the six Core Guiding Principles of the HEARTS framework (TIP‐RC) to ensure a relationally‐driven space where the key principles of collaboration, safety, predictability, empowerment, social‐emotional learning, and cultural humility were used to support the needs of first‐year teachers. Cultural humility is a lifelong process of learning not only about another's culture, but also an examination of one's own cultural identities and how cultural identities shape beliefs (Tervalon and Murray‐Garcia [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref58">72</reflink>]). TIP‐RC participants engaged in practice of cultural humility through self‐reflection about teaching, their students, and themselves with a specific focus of understanding how one's own culture and lived experiences influence interactions and responses in classrooms and schools.</p> <p>Regularity of meetings creates a predictable and consistent space for the FYT participants to engage with each other. Participants take turns sharing their experiences and challenges, and through collaborative, thoughtful dialogue, questioning through curiosity, validation and feedback, they can gain new insights or perspectives. Facilitators join with the participants to level power differences engaging in humility and curiosity rather than being seen as experts that are expected to provide solutions. TIP‐RC sessions are less about giving direct advice or problem‐solving, instead the sessions provide an opportunity to slow down in reflection so that the FYTs explore their thoughts, feelings, and reactions to teaching and learning situations to develop a deeper understanding of themselves, their students, and their classrooms and, if needed, empower FYT participants to cocreate more effective strategies that can be used in their classrooms in the future.</p> <p>In this study, the researchers were comparing two trauma‐informed practices (TIP‐RC and TIP Modules) to understand their impact on teachers STS and TIP Knowledge and Confidence. The embedded conceptual framework drove the development of TIP Online Modules. Additionally, HEARTS was a foundation for how TIP‐RC moderated this mentorship practice with participants. The research was guided by three overarching questions.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-8">Research Questions</hd> <p>The following research questions were examined in this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What are the levels of STS in first‐year teachers?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What is the impact, if any, of TIP‐RC and TIP‐OM on first‐year teachers:</item> <p></p> <item> a. TIP knowledge and confidence?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• b. STS?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 3. Is there an interaction between TIP knowledge and STS, and if so, what is the interaction?</item> </ulist> <p>The researchers hypothesized that both interventions (TIP‐RC and TIP‐OM) would support FYT in TIP knowledge retention and lower levels of STS. Additionally, we hypothesized that there would be an inverse relationship between TIP knowledge and STS.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727895-10">Context</hd> <p>FYTs in P‐12 education were strategically sought out through various networks. The authors reached out to university and professional contacts working within teacher‐preparation to email students who were graduating and had secured a position as teacher of record in a P‐12 classroom. Though this study drew from a broad population of FYTs across the United States, due to the researchers' university and professional contacts, the population was primarily concentrated in the state of Colorado. All teachers were in their first year of teaching in P‐12 schools as teachers of record in a classroom (not as interventionists, coaches, etc.).</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-11">Participants</hd> <p>The (<emph>N</emph> = 92) respondents were distributed from ages 18 to 54, with 46% being in the ages of 25–34% and 39% in the ages of 18–24, with 79% female and 20% male. The majority were white, with Latino/Hispanic representation of 17%. The demographics of the overall study participants can be seen below in Table 1. This sample is representative of the broader teacher population (National Center for Education Statistics NCES. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>1 Table Participant Demographic Information.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Demographic group</th><th><italic>N</italic></th><th>Percentage</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Age</td><td>18–24</td><td>35</td><td>38.5</td></tr><tr><td>25–34</td><td>42</td><td>46.2</td></tr><tr><td>35–44</td><td>7</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>45–54</td><td>7</td><td>7.7</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>73</td><td>80.2</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>17</td><td>18.7</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td>1</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>66</td><td>72.5</td></tr><tr><td>Asian or Pacific Islander</td><td>2</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Bi‐racial</td><td>4</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td>3</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Latino/a or Hispanic</td><td>15</td><td>16.5</td></tr><tr><td>North African/Middle Eastern</td><td>1</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Socioeconomic status</td><td>Working class</td><td>34</td><td>37.4</td></tr><tr><td>Middle class</td><td>43</td><td>43.7</td></tr><tr><td>Upper middle class</td><td>14</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>School level</td><td>Pre‐K</td><td>8</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Elementary</td><td>40</td><td>44.0</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Middle school</td><td>22</td><td>24.2</td></tr><tr><td /><td>High school</td><td>21</td><td>23.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Total <emph>N</emph> for each demographic group adds up to 91 participants. One other participant did not complete the demographic survey.</p> <p>The three groups, TIP‐RC, TIP‐OM, and the control group were almost equally distributed as they were randomly assigned to each group. The control group had 38% of the participants, while TIP‐RC and TIP‐OM represented 30% and 32% of participants. By the end of year one, only seven participants (7.6%) left the study, a relatively low attrition rate. One other participant did not complete the first‐period demographic survey. These participants were the only ones with missing data and they were not included in the data analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-12">Data Collection</hd> <p>This paper highlights findings from the quantitative, experimental design portion of a study (Creswell and Clark [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]). The data for this study was drawn from a larger data set from research that was designed as a sequential explanatory mixed‐methods project (Creswell and Clark [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref61">18</reflink>]). Future work will explore the qualitative data, which will enable a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem by combining the strengths of both numerical analysis and detailed contextual insights.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-13">Procedure</hd> <p>After recruitment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. The TIP intervention consisted of two conditions: asynchronous TIP‐OM or virtual, small group monthly meetings called TIP‐RC. The third condition was a delayed treatment, which acted as a control group and received access to the TIP‐OM intervention after the study concluded.</p> <p>The TIP‐RC participants were divided into three groups that were co‐facilitated by a nonprofit organization (NPO) and an educator. Attendance at the monthly meetings was mandatory and tracked by the facilitators. Those with inconsistent attendance opted to leave the study and their data was not used.</p> <p>The participants assigned to the TIP‐OM received prompts throughout the year at specific intervals to complete the six online modules. Researchers tracked TIP‐OM completion, and upon finishing all required modules, participants automatically received a completion certificate, which was also sent to the research team for verification. Similarly to TIP‐RC, those who did not complete the TIP‐OM opted to leave the study and none of their data was used in the analysis.</p> <p>At three points in time, all participants were emailed a Qualtrics survey to gauge their self‐reported TIP knowledge, STS, and burnout using the Trauma‐Informed Practices Knowledge Assessment, Teacher Secondary Traumatic Stress Survey (Castro Schepers. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref62">12</reflink>]), and Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref63">55</reflink>]). Reminder emails, texts, and calls were made to encourage participants to complete the surveys. TIP knowledge and STS levels of participants in the intervention programs and the control group were then used to answer Research Questions 1–3.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-14">Measures & Interventions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727895-15">TIP Reflective Consultation (TIP‐RC)</hd> <p>The treatment group participated in monthly 2‐h Reflective Consultation (TIP‐RC) sessions with the partner (NPO) during the first year. The TIP‐RC group facilitators were all extensively trained in HEARTS both as participants in their roles in education and as facilitators.</p> <p>TIP‐RC sessions grounded TIP specifically by focusing on the HEARTS Core Guiding Principles in the consultations (See Dorado et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref64">22</reflink>]). Through reflective questions, modeling of each principle, and providing knowledge about the potential impact of trauma on behavior, the core tenets of trauma‐informed practices through the HEARTS framework were integrated into the TIP‐RC groups. The groups used a similar process to support internal consistency of the TIP‐RC experience. For example, each session started with a connection circle to build community and a regulation practice to teach and model social emotional learning. One of the TIP‐RC groups was composed of participants in an affinity group to meet the differing needs of teachers from different racial backgrounds.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-16">Trauma‐Informed Practices Modules (TIP‐OM)</hd> <p>The partner NPO developed six on‐demand, self‐paced online modules based on the foundational HEARTS training. Each of the six modules provided participants with essential TIP knowledge and skills, structured around the HEARTS Core Guiding Principles. The content was delivered through recorded videos, downloadable handouts, open‐ended prompts, and a case study focusing on theory, application and classroom‐based strategies. Each module required approximately one to 2 h to complete and were spaced out over 6‐week periods across the school year.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-17">Instruments</hd> <p>Understanding the impact of the TIP interventions on STS and TIP knowledge required the use of various quantitative sources: Teacher STS Scale, Non‐Profit Organization (NPO) TIP Knowledge Assessment, The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire, and Maschl's Burnout Inventory. These tools were used across the school year, with a baseline at the beginning of the school year, a reading at the interim, and a final administration at the end of the school year. All quantitative tools were disseminated using Qualtrics software.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-18">Teacher STS Scale</hd> <p>The Teacher STS Scale is a validated instrument (Castro Schepers. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]). It was developed by drawing on studies in the field of psychology on Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) and adapting these to the field of education by developing a construct map across symptoms and using wording more appropriate for educational settings and educators in particular. During the development, words often used in psychology tools for STS, such as "client," were avoided in exchange for usage that centered around the Student–teacher dynamic such as "student." Phrasing regarding the therapists' work that is often found in psychology tools was avoided, and instead, language to mirror working in school environments was used. The result was twenty‐eight 4‐point Likert‐style statements designed to measure levels of STS in teachers. The validation of the study included using the Rasch model to calculate the theta of STS for each participant and running regression analysis. The internal validity measure during the validation was a Chronbach's Alpha of 0.81. Participants were asked questions such as "I was preoccupied thinking of more than one student I teach. (Intrusion)" and "I had little interest in being around others for fear that it may bring up students' experiences. (Avoidance)." All questions attend to the four scales of secondary traumatic stress (i.e. avoidance, arousal, intrusion thoughts, and negative changes). Included in the survey were ten demographic questions that gave pertinent information about the respondents to help inform possible STS predictors. When conducting analysis within this study, the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.92, which is high for an attitudinal test and showed internal consistency.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-19">Non‐Profit Organization (NPO) TIP Knowledge Assessment (TKA)</hd> <p>The NPO TKA is a self‐report measure that has been used consistently by the NPO with in‐person training for almost a decade. It was developed by three clinical psychologists, relying on the HEARTS six guiding principles of TIP. It was developed to align specifically to the HEARTS framework and supported the content in the online modules. The TKA is a 24‐item 7‐point Likert‐style assessment used to measure TKA. TKA is divided into two sections within the questionnaire: Subscale 1 (19 items), which centers questions around knowledge of the TIP guiding principles, and Subscale 2 (5 items), which centers questions around the confidence in applying TIP within the classroom. Subscale 1 asks questions such as "on a scale of 1–7 my knowledge of 'complex trauma, building resilience, the biology of trauma is'" and subscale 2 asks questions such as "please rate your confidence level to the following prompts: How confident are you in helping struggling students?"</p> <p>The tool aligned with the goals of the research partnership that drove this study. For this study, we computed the value of Cronbach's Alpha separately for each of the two subscales, obtaining <emph>α</emph> = 0.958 and <emph>α</emph> = 0.841 for Subscales 1 and 2, respectively, indicating adequate internal consistency for both subscales. These methods allow us to account for validity and reliability. A limitation of the scale is that it has not been validated.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-20">The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire</hd> <p>The Traumatic Life Events Questionnaire (TLEQ) is a self‐report measure developed by Weathers et al. in 2013 that is geared towards understanding the environmental and personal characteristics of participants. It is designed to assess exposure to potentially traumatic life events. It is a published measure aimed at understanding personal experiences. It comprises a comprehensive list of events such as natural disasters, accidents, and interpersonal violence. The questionnaire asks participants to identify "For each event check one or more of the boxes to the right to indicate that: (a) it happened to you personally; (b) you witnessed it happen to someone else; (c) you learned about it happening to a close family member or close friend; (d) you were exposed to it as part of your job (e.g., paramedic, police, military, or other first responder); (e) you're not sure if it fits; or (f) it doesn't apply to you" and events such as "Natural disaster (e.g., flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake); Physical assault (e.g., being attacked, hit, slapped, kicked, beaten up); Combat or exposure to a war‐zone (in the military or as a civilian); Sudden violent death (e.g., homicide, suicide)." Respondents indicate whether they have experienced each event, allowing researchers and clinicians to quantify the extent of potentially traumatic experiences in an individual's life. This questionnaire was used as a measure of primary trauma exposure of participants. An important limitation of the TLEC scale is that it does not directly ask about racism and other systemic oppressions as forms of trauma.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-21">Maslach's Burnout Inventory</hd> <p>Maschl's Burnout Inventory is a validated published scale that is geared towards understanding schoolwide and personal characteristics of participants in schools. It is a standardized instrument designed to measure burnout among educators. Burnout results from chronic workplace stress and is assessed by examining dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of reduced personal accomplishment. The inventory provides insights into the well‐being of teachers (Maslach et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>]). Example items from the survey include choosing on a seven‐point Likert scale how often they experience or think certain things choosing between a range of Never to Everyday with items such as "I feel emotionally drained from my work; I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job; I don't really care what happens to some students."</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-22">Methods of Data Analysis</hd> <p>To address the first research question, "What are the levels of secondary traumatic stress (STS) in first‐year teachers?", the researchers computed summary statistics from STS scores and controlled for additional variables including demographic variables (age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status) and school categorical variables (grade level and Title I school status) by including these variables in a linear mixed‐effects regression model (also known as a hierarchical model) fitted to the STS scores. The model also included primary traumatic life experiences and burnout to control for these variables, TIP knowledge and confidence (Subscales 1 and 2) scores, intervention group (Control, Modules, or RC), time (taking values 1, 2, and 3 corresponding to the three survey periods), the time by intervention group interaction, and study participant (teacher) as a random effect to account for the repeated measures made on each teacher.</p> <p>To answer the second research question, "What is the impact, if any, of Trauma‐Informed Practices‐Reflective Consultations (TIP‐RC) and TIP‐OMon first‐year teachers' STS, TIP knowledge, and TIP confidence?", the researchers ran the mixed effects regression model again, but this time with TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) or confidence (Subscale 2) scores as the response variable (in place of STS scores).</p> <p>To address the third research question, "Is there an interaction between TIP knowledge and STS, and if so, what is the interaction?", the researchers again used the regression model fitted to STS scores, this time focusing on the TIP knowledge and confidence terms, which show their relationships to STS.</p> <p>For all three regression analyses, the researchers assessed statistical significance of model terms using regression coefficient <emph>t</emph> tests and also Wald chi‐squared tests. To gauge the magnitudes of effects of model terms on STS or TIP knowledge, the researchers computed the partial eta‐squared (η<sups>2</sups>) effect size for each term from its <emph>t</emph> test statistic (Friedman [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref67">31</reflink>]). Effect sizes are interpreted as very small (η<sups>2</sups> < 0.01), small (0.01 ≤ η<sups>2</sups> < 0.06), medium (0.06 ≤ η<sups>2</sups> < 0.14), or large (η<sups>2</sups> ≥ 0.14) as in Field ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref68">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The researchers assessed the statistical power of the study design for detecting an effect of the RC or Modules intervention on STS mitigation using the power calculation for mixed effects regression described in Diggle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>All statistical analyses were performed using R software. Mixed effects regression models were fitted using the "lme4" package in R (Bates et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>]), <emph>t</emph> tests for coefficients were carried out using the "lmerTest" package (Kuznetsova et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]), and Wald chi‐squared tests were conducted with the "car" package (Fox and Weisberg [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]). Effect size (partial eta‐squared) calculations were done using the "effect size" package (Ben‐Shachar et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>]) and power calculations using the "longpower" package (Iddy and Donohue [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref74">45</reflink>]). The statistical significance of fixed effects in the regression models was assessed at the 0.05 level. Normality, homogeneity of variance, and absence of outlier assumptions were checked visually using plots of the residuals after fitting the models.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-23">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727895-24">Levels of STS in First‐Year Teachers</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727895-25">Descriptive Analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics identify broad patterns but do not report on their statistical significance. First‐year teachers' levels of STS ranged from a low of 40 to a high of 86, with a mean of 58.0 and a standard deviation of 8.1. The lowest possible score on the Teacher STS Scale instrument is 28, and the highest is 112, with a midpoint of 70 between these two extremes. This means that most first‐year teachers in this study scored below the midpoint, suggesting that their levels of secondary traumatic stress were lower than average, as reported by participants in the STS scale. Ceiling or floor effects are unlikely because no participants reached either of the two STS scale extremes. Figure 1 shows that the scores are approximately normally distributed over the range 40 to 86.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23478-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23478-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Histogram showing the distribution of first‐year teachers' STS levels, which ranged from 40 to 86, with mean 58.0 and standard deviation 8.1. Most STS levels fell below 70, the midpoint between the lowest and highest possible STS levels as measured by the Teacher STS Scale instrument." /> </p> <p></p> <p>When considering mean STS scores, many of the demographic groups were within the range of 54 and 59.5 on the STS scale, which would put them within the middle of the normal curve seen in Fig. 1 (Table 2) and below the midpoint of 70; meaning that even when disaggregated, most of these groups still have a score that indicates lower levels of reported secondary trauma. Notably, those who identified as Asian or Pacific Islander scored the highest on the STS scale, with a mean of 73.8, followed by North African/Middle Eastern teachers, with a mean of 63.0. Additionally, outside of the normal range, study participants who identified as Nonbinary scored 65.3 on the STS scale. Although these three demographic groups scored higher than the others, the number of participants within these groups was minimal, with a combined total of only four teachers. While this means that they score higher than the average, their scores still indicate that they are reporting lower levels or minimal secondary trauma. Importantly, the N of these groups is too low to indicate meaningful findings.</p> <p>2 Table Means of first‐year teachers' STS levels by demographic groups and school characteristics, averaged across the year. Also shown are the sample size (N) and standard error of the mean (Std. Err.) for each group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Demographic group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean STS</th><th>Std. Err.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Age</td><td>18–24</td><td>36</td><td>58.8</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>25–34</td><td>42</td><td>58.1</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>35–44</td><td>7</td><td>55.5</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>45–54</td><td>7</td><td>56.6</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>73</td><td>58.3</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>18</td><td>56.7</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td>1</td><td>65.3</td><td>9.9</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>67</td><td>57.4</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Asian or Pacific Islander</td><td>2</td><td>73.8</td><td>7.9</td></tr><tr><td>Bi‐racial</td><td>1</td><td>54.3</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Black or African American</td><td>3</td><td>58.8</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Latino/a or Hispanic</td><td>15</td><td>58.0</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>North African/Middle Eastern</td><td>1</td><td>63.0</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Socioeconomic Status</td><td>Working class</td><td>35</td><td>58.8</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Middle class</td><td>43</td><td>57.5</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Upper middle class</td><td>14</td><td>58.2</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Title status</td><td>Title I</td><td>38</td><td>58.9</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Not Title I</td><td>43</td><td>57.4</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>Unsure</td><td>11</td><td>57.6</td><td>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>Grade level</td><td>Prekindergarten</td><td>8</td><td>56.5</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Elementary</td><td>40</td><td>57.2</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Middle school</td><td>23</td><td>58.9</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td>21</td><td>59.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>STS levels were generally higher in younger teachers, females, non‐whites, and working‐class teachers (Table 2). STS levels typically increased with grade level, and they were higher in Title I schools than in non‐Title I schools (Table 2).</p> <p>To examine the relationships between the five quantitative variables investigated for the study, namely STS, TIP knowledge and confidence (Subscales 1 and 2), teacher burnout, and primary trauma, a scatterplot and correlation matrix are shown in Figure 2. Of note is the inverse relationship between STS and TIP confidence and, to a lesser extent, between STS and TIP knowledge. It can also be seen that higher levels of STS are associated with higher levels of burnout. Also, TIP knowledge is seen to be higher in teachers who have experienced higher levels of primary trauma.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23478-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23478-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Scatterplots and correlations showing relationships between STS, TIP knowledge (Subscale 1), TIP confidence (Subscale 2), burnout, and primary trauma. For each scatterplot and each correlation, the y variable is indicated in the right margin and the x variable in the top margin. On the diagonal are smoothed histograms of the variable indicated in both margins. Significance codes for correlations: p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727895-28">Inferential Statistics</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics and graphs give general insight, but the regression analysis allows the researchers to fully determine whether the observed patterns were statistically significant. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis with STS score as the response variable and the "typical" teacher demographic as the reference group to which the other groups are compared. The "typical" teacher is defined as 25–34 years of age, female, white, middle class, elementary school level, in a non‐Title I school, and in the Control intervention group. A positive coefficient for a demographic group indicates the group is estimated to have <emph>higher</emph> STS levels than the corresponding "typical" demographic group, and a negative coefficient means it is estimated to have <emph>lower</emph> STS levels than the "typical" demographic.</p> <p>3 Table Results of mixed effects regression analysis (coefficient estimate, its standard error, t test statistic and degrees of freedom, partial eta‐squared effect size, and p‐value) with STS score as the response variable and "typical" teacher demographic and the Control intervention as the reference group. Also, ANOVA table values for the Wald omnibus tests associated with the regression analysis (Wald χ2 test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p‐value).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Regression</th><th>Omnibus tests</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variable group</th><th>Variable</th><th>Coeff. Est. (Std. Error)</th><th><italic>t</italic> Value (df)</th><th>Effect size η<sup>2</sup></th><th><italic>p</italic>‐value</th><th><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> value (df)</th><th><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Constant</td><td>Intercept</td><td>26.9 (7.0)</td><td>3.87 (80)</td><td /><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>18–24</td><td>1.7 (1.6)</td><td>1.08 (55)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2854</td><td>1.3 (3)</td><td>0.7263</td></tr><tr><td>35–44</td><td>1.3 (3.2)</td><td>0.42 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6773</td></tr><tr><td>45–54</td><td>1.3 (2.6)</td><td>0.51 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6132</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>Male</td><td>‐2.5 (2.0)</td><td>‐1.22 (55)</td><td>0.03<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2283</td><td>1.8 (2)</td><td>0.4097</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td>2.1 (7.2)</td><td>0.29 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7703</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>Asian/Pac. Isl.</td><td>7.3 (6.5)</td><td>1.12 (57)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2683</td><td>3.2 (5)</td><td>0.6697</td></tr><tr><td>Bi‐racial</td><td>4.1 (3.5)</td><td>1.16 (56)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2501</td></tr><tr><td>Black/Afr. Am.</td><td>‐1.8 (4.4)</td><td>‐0.41 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6830</td></tr><tr><td>Latino/a/Hisp.</td><td>0.8 (2.2)</td><td>0.36 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7167</td></tr><tr><td>N. Afr./M. East.</td><td>‐2.4 (6.6)</td><td>‐0.36 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7173</td></tr><tr><td>SES</td><td>Upper middle Cl.</td><td>3.2 (1.9)</td><td>1.69 (55)</td><td>0.05<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.0975.</td><td>3.3 (2)</td><td>0.1930</td></tr><tr><td>Working Cl.</td><td>‐0.3 (1.7)</td><td>‐0.19 (56)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.8534</td></tr><tr><td>School Level</td><td>High</td><td>2.7 (2.0)</td><td>1.32 (55)</td><td>0.03<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1931</td><td>5.1 (3)</td><td>0.1646</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>4.2 (1.9)</td><td>2.23 (55)</td><td>0.08<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0297<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Pre‐K</td><td>1.7 (2.7)</td><td>0.64 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5276</td></tr><tr><td>Title I</td><td>Not sure</td><td>1.4 (2.4)</td><td>0.6.0 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5538</td><td>5.3 (2)</td><td>0.0698.</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>3.4 (1.5)</td><td>2.3.0 (56)</td><td>0.09<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0250<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Control variables</td><td>Primary trauma</td><td>0.0 (0.4)</td><td>‐0.05 (56)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.9583</td><td>0.0 (1)</td><td>0.9581</td></tr><tr><td>Burnout</td><td>7.5 (1.2)</td><td>6.02 (56)</td><td>0.39<sup>(L)</sup></td><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>36.3 (1)</td><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>TIP</td><td>Knowl. (Subsc. 1)</td><td>0.0 (0.0)</td><td>1.09 (197)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.2753</td><td>1.2 (1)</td><td>0.2740</td></tr><tr><td>Conf. (Subsc. 2)</td><td>‐0.4 (0.1)</td><td>‐3.66 (200)</td><td>0.06<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0003<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>13.4 (1)</td><td>0.0003<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Modules</td><td>2.7 (2.4)</td><td>1.15 (167)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.2505</td><td>4.4 (2)</td><td>0.1096</td></tr><tr><td>RC</td><td>0.9 (2.5)</td><td>0.35 (164)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7252</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>Time</td><td>‐0.2 (0.6)</td><td>‐0.38 (150)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7068</td><td>0.1 (1)</td><td>0.7372</td></tr><tr><td>Time: modules</td><td>0.3 (0.9)</td><td>0.36 (150)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7214</td><td>1.1 (2)</td><td>0.5797</td></tr><tr><td>Time:RC</td><td>0.9 (0.9)</td><td>1.03 (150)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.3062</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note:</emph> Significance codes, <emph>p</emph> < 0.1.</item> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</item> <item>5 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>For the quantitative variables (primary trauma, burnout, TIP knowledge and confidence, i.e., Subscales 1 and 2), a positive coefficient indicates STS is <emph>positively</emph> correlated with the variable, and a negative coefficient means STS is <emph>negatively</emph> correlated with it. The time coefficient indicates the per‐survey period change in STS for the Control group, and the time by intervention interaction coefficients (Time:Modules or Time:RC in Table 3) indicate how much <emph>more</emph> or <emph>less</emph> STS was changing for the intervention group (Modules or RC) relative to the Control group. The intervention group (Modules or RC) coefficients correspond to intercepts for these groups, and are of little interest.</p> <p>Effect size interpretations (Field [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]): VS = very small, S = small, M = medium, L = large.</p> <p>STS scores were statistically significantly higher, by 4.2 points, for middle school teachers than for elementary school teachers, and they were statistically significantly higher, by 3.4 points, for teachers in Title I schools than for teachers in non‐Title I schools (Table 3). However, there were no statistically significant differences in STS across the demographic groups. Of the two variables being controlled for, only burnout was significantly related to STS. Teachers experiencing greater levels of burnout tended to have higher STS levels. The regression assumptions (see Methods) were met, as confirmed using plots of residuals. The R‐squared value was 0.748.</p> <p>Table 3 also shows the results of the Wald chi‐squared ANOVA‐like omnibus tests for the variables in the regression model. For the Wald tests, unlike the <emph>t</emph> tests in Table 3, there is no reference group. They merely test for differences across groups. The results are consistent with the <emph>t</emph> test results, although here the difference between Title I and non‐Title I schools is only nearly significant.</p> <p>A moderator analysis (not shown in Table 3) found that none of the demographic (age, sex, race, SES), school (level, Title I status), or control (primary trauma, burnout) variables showed strong signs of moderating the effects of the interventions on STS.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-29">Impact of TIP‐RC and TIP Modules on First‐Year Teachers' Tip Knowledge and STS</hd> <p>STS levels remained fairly constant across the three survey periods for the RC and Control intervention groups, but for the Modules group, they rose in the second period before returning back down to their first‐period levels in period three. There was not a statistically significant change in STS over the three survey periods for the Control group, and the amount of change for the Modules and RC groups did not differ statistically significantly from that of the Control group (Table 3). There are two possibilities for a nonsignificant result. One is that the null hypothesis is true – that there was no real change in the Modules and RC groups' STS levels. Alternatively, there could have been a change, but there is not enough evidence in this study to detect it.</p> <p>To gauge whether there might have been a change, but not enough evidence to detect it, the power of the study design was computed. For an effect of size 1.0 (i.e., the STS scores for the RC or Modules group decrease by 1.0 point more per survey period than those for the Control group), the power to detect the effect would only be 24%. Therefore, the chance of <emph>not</emph> detecting it would be 76%. For an effect of 2.0 per survey period, the power increases to 71%, and for an effect of 3.0, it reaches 96%. A commonly used target for a study's power is 80%. The current study would attain 80% power if the effect of RC or Modules on STS was of size 2.3 per survey period.</p> <p>Figure 3 (top) shows how TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) changed over the year for the three intervention groups. As seen in the figure, TIP knowledge scores were highest in the Modules group, followed by the RC group. The Control group had the lowest scores. TIP knowledge scores increased for all three intervention groups, but they increased more for the Modules and RC groups than they did for the Control group (Fig. 3, top).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23478-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23478-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Mean TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) scores (top graph) and mean TIP confidence (Subscale 2) scores (bottom graph) versus survey period by intervention group (Control, Modules, or RC). Both TIP knowledge and TIP confidence increased more for the Modules and RC groups than they did for the Control group." /> </p> <p></p> <p>To understand whether the increases in TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) seen in Fig. 3 (top) were statistically significant and whether the increases differed significantly across intervention groups, Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis with TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) score as the response variable, as described above. Interpretation of model coefficients is as described for Table 3, except that now the response is TIP knowledge.</p> <p>4 Table Results of mixed effects regression analysis (coefficient estimate, its standard error, t test statistic and degrees of freedom, partial eta‐squared effect size, and p‐value) with TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) score as the response variable and "typical" teacher demographic and the Control intervention as the reference group. Also, ANOVA table values for the Wald omnibus tests associated with the regression analysis (Wald χ2 test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p‐value).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Regression</th><th>Omnibus tests</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variable group</th><th>Variable</th><th>Coeff. Est. (Std. error)</th><th><italic>t</italic> Value (df)</th><th>Effect size η<sup>2</sup></th><th><italic>p</italic> value</th><th><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> Value (df)</th><th><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Constant</td><td>Intercept</td><td>79.0 (16.0)</td><td>4.95 (61)</td><td /><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>18‐24</td><td>−2.6 (4.1)</td><td>−0.62 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5356</td><td>1.3 (3)</td><td>0.7324</td></tr><tr><td>35‐44</td><td>−7.9 (8.0)</td><td>−0.98 (55)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.3332</td></tr><tr><td>45‐54</td><td>−2.8 (6.5)</td><td>−0.43 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6700</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>Male</td><td>−0.7 (5.2)</td><td>−0.13 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.8987</td><td>0.1 (2)</td><td>0.9495</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td>4.9 (18.5)</td><td>0.26 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7929</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>Asian/Pac. Isl.</td><td>−35.5 (16.5)</td><td>−2.15 (55)</td><td>0.08<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0361<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>14.1 (5)</td><td>0.0152<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Bi‐racial</td><td>19.6 (8.9)</td><td>2.21 (55)</td><td>0.08<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0313<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Black/Afr. Am.</td><td>14.0 (11.1)</td><td>1.26 (55)</td><td>0.03<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2121</td></tr><tr><td>Latino/a/Hisp.</td><td>5.8 (5.6)</td><td>1.04 (55)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.3028</td></tr><tr><td>N. Afr./M. East.</td><td>−8.6 (16.8)</td><td>−0.51 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6120</td></tr><tr><td>SES</td><td>Upper Middle Cl.</td><td>1.3 (4.8)</td><td>0.26 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7943</td><td>3.4 (2)</td><td>0.1855</td></tr><tr><td>Working Cl.</td><td>7.8 (4.3)</td><td>1.82 (55)</td><td>0.06<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.0742.</td></tr><tr><td>School Level</td><td>High</td><td>−5.7 (5.2)</td><td>−1.10 (55)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2772</td><td>1.5 (3)</td><td>0.6917</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>−3.3 (4.8)</td><td>−0.69 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.4938</td></tr><tr><td>Pre‐K</td><td>0.4 (6.8)</td><td>0.06 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.9502</td></tr><tr><td>Title I</td><td>Not Sure</td><td>−2.2 (6.1)</td><td>−0.36 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.7191</td><td>3.4 (2)</td><td>0.1859</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>−6.9 (3.8)</td><td>−1.83 (55)</td><td>0.06<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.0720.</td></tr><tr><td>Control Variables</td><td>Primary Trauma</td><td>1.8 (0.9)</td><td>1.98 (55)</td><td>0.07<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0526.</td><td>3.9 (1)</td><td>0.0476<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Burnout</td><td>−2.1 (3.1)</td><td>−0.66 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5107</td><td>0.4 (1)</td><td>0.5079</td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Modules</td><td>7.5 (6.4)</td><td>1.18 (182)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.2402</td><td>13.3 (2)</td><td>0.0013<ext-link href="**" /></td></tr><tr><td>RC</td><td>−3.0 (6.8)</td><td>−0.45 (177)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6560</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>Time</td><td>4.9 (1.7)</td><td>2.80 (150)</td><td>0.05<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.0058<ext-link href="***" /></td><td>55.0 (1)</td><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>Time:Modules</td><td>3.7 (2.4)</td><td>1.52 (150)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1313</td><td>3.1 (2)</td><td>0.2115</td></tr><tr><td>Time:RC</td><td>3.9 (2.5)</td><td>1.54 (151)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1255</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note:</emph> Significance codes:. <emph>p</emph> < 0.1.</item> <item>7 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</item> <item>8 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</item> <item>9 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Effect size interpretations (Field [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>]): VS = very small, S = small, M = medium, L = large.</p> <p>TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) did indeed increase statistically significantly over the year, by 4.9 points per survey period for the Control group, and the increase was even greater, by 3.7 and 3.9 points per survey period, respectively, for the Modules and RC groups (Fig. 3, top, and Table 4).</p> <p>Compared to teachers in the white group, TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) was statistically significantly lower by 35.5 points for the Asian or Pacific Islander group and significantly higher by 19.6 points for the Bi‐racial group (Table 4). However, those two groups combined contained only three teachers. There were no other significant differences in TIP knowledge across demographic groups.</p> <p>TIP knowledge was positively correlated with primary trauma, but the relationship was only nearly significant (Fig. 2 and Table 4). The regression assumptions were met, as confirmed using plots of residuals. The R‐squared value was 0.664.</p> <p>Table 4 also shows the results of the Wald chi‐squared ANOVA‐like omnibus tests with TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) as the response. Results of these tests are consistent with those of the <emph>t</emph> tests in Table 4, although here the relationship between primary trauma and TIP knowledge is statistically significant, and the Wald Chi‐squared test for the intervention main effect shows that TIP knowledge, when averaged over the three survey periods, differs significantly across the Control, Modules, and RC groups. The Wald test for an intervention main effect (Table 4) is more meaningful than the corresponding <emph>t</emph> tests because the Wald test is a so‐called Type II test, meaning it is not influenced by the presence of the interaction terms in the model (Time:RC and Time:Modules), whereas the <emph>t</emph> tests are Type III tests that are influenced by the interaction terms.</p> <p>Figure 3 (bottom) shows how TIP confidence (Subscale 2) changed over the year for the three intervention groups. As can be seen, TIP confidence was highest for the Modules group, similar to what was found for TIP knowledge (Subscale 1). TIP confidence increased for all three groups, and it increased even more for the Modules and RC groups than it did for the Control group (Fig. 3, bottom).</p> <p>To decide whether the increases in TIP confidence (Subscale 2) seen in Fig. 3 (bottom) were statistically significant and whether the increases differed significantly across intervention groups, Table 5 shows the results of the regression analysis with TIP confidence score as the response.</p> <p>5 Table Results of mixed effects regression analysis (coefficient estimate, its standard error, t test statistic and degrees of freedom, partial eta‐squared effect size, and p‐value) with TIP confidence (Subscale 2) score as the response variable and "typical" teacher demographic and the Control intervention as the comparison group. Also, ANOVA table values for the Wald omnibus tests associated with the regression analysis (Wald χ2 test statistic, degrees of freedom, and p‐value).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Regression</th><th>Omnibus tests</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variable group</th><th>Variable</th><th>Coeff. Est. (Std. error)</th><th><italic>t</italic> value (df)</th><th>Effect size η<sup>2</sup></th><th><italic>p</italic>‐value</th><th><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup> value (df)</th><th><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Constant</td><td>Intercept</td><td>32.1 (4.6)</td><td>6.96 (55)</td><td /><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>18–24</td><td>0.9 (1.2)</td><td>0.77 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.4428</td><td>1.3 (3)</td><td>0.7207</td></tr><tr><td>35–44</td><td>−1.7 (2.3)</td><td>−0.71 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.4779</td></tr><tr><td>45–54</td><td>−0.3 (1.9)</td><td>−0.14 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.8858</td></tr><tr><td>Sex</td><td>Male</td><td>−0.1 (1.5)</td><td>−0.07 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.9456</td><td>1.2 (2)</td><td>0.5587</td></tr><tr><td>Nonbinary</td><td>5.6 (5.4)</td><td>1.04 (55)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.3023</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>Asian/Pac. Isl.</td><td>−9.6 (4.8)</td><td>−2.00 (55)</td><td>0.07<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0505.</td><td>7.9 (5)</td><td>0.1591</td></tr><tr><td>Bi‐racial</td><td>3.5 (2.6)</td><td>1.35 (55)</td><td>0.03<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1822</td></tr><tr><td>Black/Afr. Am.</td><td>2.7 (3.2)</td><td>0.84 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.4054</td></tr><tr><td>Latino/a/Hisp.</td><td>0.7 (1.6)</td><td>0.45 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6516</td></tr><tr><td>N. Afr./M. East.</td><td>−2.7 (4.9)</td><td>−0.55 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5865</td></tr><tr><td>SES</td><td>Upper middle Cl.</td><td>−0.6 (1.4)</td><td>−0.42 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.6745</td><td>0.3 (2)</td><td>0.8807</td></tr><tr><td>Working Cl.</td><td>0.2 (1.2)</td><td>0.15 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.8803</td></tr><tr><td>School level</td><td>High</td><td>−1.3 (1.5)</td><td>−0.85 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.3989</td><td>0.9 (3)</td><td>0.8266</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>−1.0 (1.4)</td><td>−0.68 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.4970</td></tr><tr><td>Pre‐K</td><td>−0.2 (2.0)</td><td>−0.08 (55)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.9354</td></tr><tr><td>Title I</td><td>Not sure</td><td>1.1 (1.8)</td><td>0.60 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.5522</td><td>1.4 (2)</td><td>0.4889</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>−1.0 (1.1)</td><td>−0.89 (55)</td><td>0.01<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.3752</td></tr><tr><td>Control variables</td><td>Primary trauma</td><td>0.3 (0.3)</td><td>1.29 (55)</td><td>0.03<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.2013</td><td>1.7 (1)</td><td>0.1959</td></tr><tr><td>Burnout</td><td>−1.8 (0.9)</td><td>−2.00 (55)</td><td>0.07<sup>(M)</sup></td><td>0.0508.</td><td>4.0 (1)</td><td>0.0458<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>Modules</td><td>0.1 (1.8)</td><td>0.03 (172)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.9741</td><td>3.6 (2)</td><td>0.1614</td></tr><tr><td>RC</td><td>−3.0 (1.9)</td><td>−1.62 (165)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1062</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>Time</td><td>0.4 (0.5)</td><td>0.85 (151)</td><td>0.00<sup>(VS)</sup></td><td>0.3947</td><td>16.7 (1)</td><td>0.0000<ext-link href="***" /></td></tr><tr><td>Time:modules</td><td>0.8 (0.6)</td><td>1.29 (151)</td><td>0.01<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.1988</td><td>3.6 (2)</td><td>0.1636</td></tr><tr><td>Time:RC</td><td>1.2 (0.7)</td><td>1.86 (151)</td><td>0.02<sup>(S)</sup></td><td>0.0648.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>Note:</emph> Significance codes:. <emph>p</emph> < 0.1.</item> <item>11 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</item> <item>12 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01</item> <item>13 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Effect size interpretations (Field [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>]): VS = very small, S = small, M = medium, L = large.</p> <p>TIP confidence (Subscale 2) increased statistically significantly, by 0.4 points per survey period for the Control group, and the increase was even greater, by 0.8 and 1.2 points per survey period, respectively, for the Modules and RC groups (Fig. 3, bottom, and Table 5). The RC group's increase compared to that of the Control group was nearly significant.</p> <p>TIP confidence (Subscale 2) was negatively correlated with burnout, indicating teachers with higher levels of burnout reported lower levels of confidence in applying TIP, and the relationship was nearly significant (Fig. 2 and Table 5). The regression assumptions were met, as confirmed using plots of residuals. The R‐squared value was 0.633.</p> <p>Table 5 also shows the results of the Wald chi‐squared ANOVA‐like omnibus tests with TIP confidence (Subscale 2) as the response. The results of these tests are consistent with those of the <emph>t</emph> tests in Table 5, with two exceptions. Now the relationship between burnout and TIP confidence is significant. Second, Table 5 (together with Fig. 3, bottom) shows that when averaged over the Control, Modules, and RC groups, TIP confidence increased statistically significantly over the year.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-31">Interaction Between TIP Knowledge and STS</hd> <p>Figure 4 shows relationships between STS and TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) and confidence (Subscale 2). Importantly, STS was found to be lower in teachers with higher levels of TIP knowledge and confidence. The inverse relationship between STS and TIP confidence was statistically significant, where a one‐point increase in TIP confidence led to a 0.4‐point decrease in STS (Table 3). STS was also inversely related to TIP knowledge, but the relationship was not significant.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01aug25/pits23478-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23478-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 STS scores versus TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) scores (top graph) and versus TIP confidence (Subscale 2) scores (bottom graph) by intervention group. STS has an inverse relationship to both TIP knowledge and TIP confidence." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The relationship of STS to TIP knowledge (Subscale 1) is not statistically significant, whereas the relationship to TIP confidence (Subscale 2) is. More analyses will be conducted on incoming data in a 3‐year project to assess associations between TIP knowledge and STS across time.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-33">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study examines the levels of secondary traumatic stress (STS) in first‐year teachers (FYTs) and the potential impact of trauma‐informed practice (TIP) interventions on their TIP knowledge, confidence, and STS scores. The researchers hypothesized that teachers in the intervention groups (TIP‐Modules and TIP‐RC) would experience lower levels of STS and higher levels of TIP knowledge and confidence. Additionally, the study expected an inverse relationship between TIP knowledge and STS level; the more TIP knowledge gained, the lower levels of STS. In other words, TIP knowledge would be seen as a mediating factor that could help reduce STS.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-34">Levels of STS in First‐Year Teachers</hd> <p>The STS scores among first‐year teachers ranged from 40 to 86, with a mean of 58.0 and a standard deviation of 8.1. These scores align with previous research showing that most teachers experience STS levels within a normal range (Castro Schepers. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>]); Castro Schepers and Young ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref79">13</reflink>]); Sprang and Garcia ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref80">70</reflink>])). However, our results differed from Borntrager et al.'s (2015), who found higher levels of STS among teachers. The difference between the findings can be attributed to the variation in study populations, the context, and possible differences in research design and instruments.</p> <p>Regression analysis revealed a significant link between STS and both burnout and TIP confidence (Subscale 2). Each point increase in burnout was associated with a 7.5‐point rise in STS. Each point increase in burnout was associated with a 7.5‐point increase in STS. These findings are consistent with research indicating a strong connection between STS and burnout (e.g. Cieslak et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]; Schmidt et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref82">64</reflink>]). While burnout and STS are distinct, burnout appears to contribute to higher STS in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-35">Impact of TIP‐RC and TIP Modules on TIP Knowledge, Confidence and STS</hd> <p>The TIP Modules and TIP‐RC groups showed greater increases in TIP knowledge and confidence (Subscale 1 and 2) compared to the Control group. While TIP confidence (Subscale 2) had significantly linked to lower STS, the interventions did not directly reduce STS. Instead, an interaction analysis revealed that as participants' TIP knowledge and confidence grew, their STS levels decreased. These results suggest that both the TIP Modules and TIP‐RC interventions effectively enhance TIP knowledge, which in turn, indirectly reduces STS first‐year teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-36">Impact of TIP‐RC and TIP Modules on STS</hd> <p>STS scores remained relatively stable for both the Control and TIP RC groups, but the TIP modules group in a rise in the second period was observed rise in the descriptive statistics of STS during the second survey period before returning to baseline levels. Though the increase in STS for the Modules group was not statistically significant, this trend aligns with theoretical knowledge of first‐year teachers (FYT) and learning. FYTs differ from expert teachers in some meaningful ways. Experts "have acquired extensive knowledge that affects what they notice and how they organize, represent, and interpret information in their environment. This, in turn, affects their abilities to remember, reason, and solve problems" (Bransford et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>], p.31). The FYTs in this study might notice trauma differently than expert teachers and respond to traumatic experiences differently as they have different ways to "organize, represent, and interpret" than expert teachers. First‐year teachers gain theoretical knowledge about trauma‐informed practices through the modules but struggle with implementation in the classroom. The Dunning‐Kruger Effect (Kruger and Dunning [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref84">49</reflink>]) may explain how the TIP Modules group, initially confident, faces increased STS midway through the year as their confidence outpaces their practical experience, eventually stabilizing as they adjust by year‐end.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-37">Impact of TIP‐RC and TIP Modules on TIP Knowledge</hd> <p>The TIP Modules group scored highest in TIP Knowledge followed by the TIP‐RC and Control groups, with statistically significant differences. This aligns with expectations, as the TIP Modules provided explicit training based on the NPO TKA scale, which measures TIP knowledge and confidence. Direct, explicit instruction is particularly effective for first‐year teachers (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref85">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers with a working‐class background or a history of primary trauma, as measured by the Life Events Questionnaire, reported higher TIP knowledge. This may reflect personal familiarity with trauma, fostering empathy and deeper understanding of students' experiences (Greenberg et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>]). However, these findings are tentative and will be further explored in future analyses.</p> <p>Due to the small sample of teachers from racially diverse backgrounds, findings related to racial demographics are not generalizable. However, the observation that white teachers did not experience higher STS levels contradicts findings by the Castro Schepers. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref87">12</reflink>]) and Phelps et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers in Title I schools reported lower TIP knowledge, likely due to. Institutional barriers, school priorities, turnover, and teacher overwhelm. Limited TIP resources, higher classroom disruptions, and competing school priorities may hinder TIP implementation. Additionally, high turnover and new teacher onboarding can disrupt the development of a strong school‐wide TIP culture (Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref89">20</reflink>]; National Staff Development Council. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref90">60</reflink>]; Hanushek et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref91">39</reflink>]; Ingersoll [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>]). New teachers may also struggle to find the bandwidth to learn TIP content (Means et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref93">56</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-38">Understanding TIP Confidence by Intervention Group</hd> <p>TIP confidence increased across all groups, with the TIP‐RC and TIP Modules groups showing the most growth. While not statistically significant across intervention groups, confidence levels were statistically significant when averaged across the three groups. This finding might highlight the increase in confidence that comes with growing experience across the first year. Future studies should explore the link between TIP knowledge and confidence further.</p> <p>The TIP‐RC group showed a promising boost in TIP Confidence, likely due to the mentoring it provided. This targeted support for teachers, including teachers of color, aligns with research showing that mentorship fosters professional growth and retention (Fantilli and McDougall [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref94">25</reflink>]; Hobson et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref95">43</reflink>]; Smith and Ingersoll [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref96">68</reflink>]). TIP‐RC's trauma‐informed approach also helps teachers build coping skills addressing the emotional toll of teaching in high‐needs schools (Le Maistre and Paré [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref97">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>By offering structured guidance, the TIP‐RC program builds teacher confidence and resilience, encouraging risk‐taking and continuous learning. Research shows that mentoring increases teacher retention (Hobson et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref98">43</reflink>]). Additionally, trauma‐informed training helps prevent burnout and supports teacher well‐being, contributing to a more sustainable workforce (Le Maistre and Paré [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-39">Interaction Between TIP Knowledge and STS</hd> <p>Exploring the interaction between TIP knowledge, TIP confidence, and STS revealed intriguing findings. While TIP confidence demonstrated a significant negative relationship with STS scores, indicating that higher confidence levels were associated with lower STS scores, the relationship between TIP knowledge and STS was not statistically significant. This highlights the nuanced interplay between teacher confidence in implementing Trauma‐Informed Practices and their experiences of secondary traumatic stress. Teachers who believe in their ability to effectively apply trauma‐informed practices in their classroom feel more competent as teachers and in handling trauma‐related situations.</p> <p>Trauma‐informed practice (TIP) knowledge might impact secondary traumatic stress (STS) by providing educators with the tools, understanding, and coping mechanisms to effectively manage the emotional and psychological toll that working with traumatized students can have. Trauma‐informed knowledge equips teachers with a deeper understanding of trauma, its impact on behavior, and how trauma manifests in students. When teachers understand why students might act out, withdraw, or display certain behaviors due to past trauma, they are less likely to take these behaviors personally or internalize the behaviors as their fault. This understanding can reduce feelings of frustration, helplessness, and emotional burnout, which are contributors to STS. By promoting awareness, emotional regulation, supportive environments, and self‐care, TIP can protect teachers from the negative effects of secondary trauma, fostering both teacher well‐being and improved student outcomes. This theoretical understanding supports a need for RC or TIP‐OM to be integral to mentorship and induction programs.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-40">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations of the current study warrant acknowledgment. The study's reliance on self‐reported measures may introduce response bias related to social desirability, survey question wording, or survey format (Fisher [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref100">28</reflink>]; Furnham [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref101">32</reflink>]). We used validated and published measures to reduce some of this bias and used other measures that check for validity and reliability in the one unpublished measure. This can reduce wording and format response bias, however biases from social desirability are likely not addressed. Additionally, even though the survey sample mirrors that of the national teacher demographic in percentages, small sample sizes for specific demographic groups (i.e. Asian Americans) limit the generalizability of findings. Future studies could address these limitations by considering observational measures (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref102">16</reflink>]) or third‐party evaluations (Guskey [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref103">38</reflink>]) and by increasing the sample size so that smaller demographic groups would be large enough to be generalizable (Baker and Leary [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref104">2</reflink>]). Furthermore, the study's three‐period design may not capture the long‐term effects of Trauma‐Informed Practice interventions on STS levels among first‐year teachers.</p> <p>Future research should address these limitations by employing more extensive and diverse samples, utilizing mixed‐methods approaches (e.g., interviews or open‐ended survey questions) to triangulate findings, and exploring the longitudinal effects of trauma‐informed practice interventions on STS and teacher well‐being. Since this study is a part of a mixed‐methods study, supporting qualitative research will eventually be analyzed to gain a better understanding of the results. Additionally, the longitudinal design of the larger study will capture enduring effects of TIP on teacher well‐being and potentially better connect the research to teacher retention.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-41">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study provides valuable insights into the levels of Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) among first‐year teachers (FYTs) and the effectiveness of Trauma‐Informed Practice interventions in improving TIP knowledge and confidence while addressing STS. This study contributes to the literature by expanding the understanding of STS in education, particularly among FYTs, a group that has been underexplored in this context. By understanding the demographic factors influencing STS levels and the nuanced relationship between TIP knowledge, confidence, and STS, educators and policymakers can develop targeted interventions to support FYTs' well‐being and effectiveness in the classroom by considering how districts can onboard FYTs with attention to TIP and STS.</p> <p>With the knowledge that Title I school teachers had lower levels of TIP knowledge and high STS, this is an opportunity for Title I schools (and all schools) to identify preventive aspects of school culture and behavior management in relation to TIP practices. TIP act as universal precautions in schools whereby staff learn about trauma and stress and learn strategies to proactively create a classroom culture and community and react in ways that better support students in need. TIP can also help teachers learn about their own stress responses. If the teacher can self‐regulate, they have more opportunities to help students regulate and be ready to learn.</p> <p>Despite early promising findings related to RC, tensions exist in regard to scaling RC to a district or state level. Solutions to scalability include creating a train‐the trainer model where the NPO trains existing school induction and mentor personnel to be the facilitators, reducing reliance on external experts and allowing for scaling within local contexts with existing personnel resources. RC facilitators can also come from prior RC participants to help with the scalability and sustainability of the intervention over time. The costs associated with RC could be outweighed by the program's benefits. If RC helps reduce turnover and boosts teacher well‐being, districts may ultimately save money by implementing it. Additionally, for schools that cannot incorporate RC, TIP‐OM still shows promising results for increasing TIP knowledge and decreasing STS.</p> <p>This study is significant as it will contribute to the research gap indicated by Christian‐Brandt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>]) by having researched the implementation of interventions aimed at ameliorating STS within FYTs while using a control group. Additionally, the findings from this study provide an understanding how TIP Modules and RC can mitigate STS and support the retention of TIP knowledge. While considering cost and scalability, this study highlights a unique community partnership approach to better support FYTs in their understanding, coping, and resilience of their own and their students' traumas while concurrently feeding the learning back to how to best support FYTs. Further, it highlights two unique models that support first‐year teachers in their learning about trauma‐informed practices and the value they might bring to early career teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-42">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to acknowledge the Spencer Foundation for its financial support in the form of a Research Practice Partnership grant for this study. The Spencer Foundation was not involved in any process of the study or publication.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-43">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186727895-44">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <ref id="AN0186727895-45"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Schools qualify for Title 1 funds based on the percentage of low‐income students, with at least 40% required to be from low‐income households. The funds are distributed by state educational agencies to local educational agencies and public schools (IES, n.d.).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186727895-46"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Arvidson, J., K. Kinniburgh, K. Howard, et al. 2011. " Treatment of Complex Trauma in Young Children: Developmental and Cultural Considerations in Application of the ARC Intervention Model." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 4 : 34 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361521.2011.545046.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref104" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, S. B., and M. R. Leary. 2003. " Increasing the Sample Size to Improve Generalizability: A Review of Statistical Methods and Practical Considerations." Educational Research Review 12, no. 4 : 251 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref70" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. " Fitting Linear Mixed‐Effects Models Using lme4." Journal of Statistical Software 67, no. 1 : 1 – 48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Beaton, R. D., and S. A. Murphy. 1993. " Sources of Occupational Stress Among Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics and Correlations With Job‐Related Outcomes." Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 8, no. 2 : 140 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x00040218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref73" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ben‐Shachar, M., D. Lüdecke, and D. Makowski. 2020. " Effect Size: Estimation of Effect Size Indices and Standardized Parameters." Journal of Open Source Software 5, no. 56 : 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref49" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Van Berckelaer, A. (n.d.). Using reflective supervision to support trauma informed systems for children. Multiplying Connections. <ulink href="http://www.multiplyingconnections.org/sites/default/files/RS%20White%20Paper%20(Rev%206-11)%5f0.pdf">www.multiplyingconnections.org/sites/default/files/RS%20White%20Paper%20(Rev%206-11)%5f0.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Boe, E. E., L. H. Cook, and R. J. Sunderland. 2008. " Teacher Turnover: Examining Exit Attrition, Teaching Area Transfer, and School Migration." Exceptional Children 75, no. 1 : 7 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Borntrager, C., J. C. Caringi, R. van den Pol, et al. 2012. " Secondary Traumatic Stress in School Personnel." Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 5, no. 1 : 38 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2012.664862.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref83" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caringi, J. C., C. Stanick, A. Trautman, L. Crosby, M. Devlin, and S. Adams. 2015. " Secondary Traumatic Stress in Public School Teachers: Contributing and Mitigating Factors." Advances in School Mental Health Promotion 8, no. 4 : 244 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2015.1080123.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver‐Thomas, D., and L. Darling‐Hammond. 2017. Teacher Turnover: Why it Matters and What We Can Do About It. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-turnover-report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro Schepers, O. 2023. " Exploring the Demographics of Teachers Who Experience Secondary Traumatic Stress." BMC Psychology 11, no. 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01217-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro Schepers, O., and K. S. Young. 2022. " Mitigating Secondary Traumatic Stress in Pre‐Service Educators: A Pilot Study on The Role of Trauma‐Informed Practice Seminars." Psychology in the Schools 59, no. 2 : 316 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22610.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christian‐Brandt, A. S., D. E. Santacrose, and M. L. Barnett. 2020. " In the Trauma‐Informed Care Trenches: Teacher Compassion Satisfaction, Secondary Traumatic Stress, Burnout, and Intent to Leave Education Within Underserved Elementary Schools." Child Abuse & Neglect 110 : 104437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104437.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cieslak, R., K. Shoji, A. Douglas, E. Melville, A. Luszczynska, and C. C. Benight. 2014. " A Meta‐Analysis of the Relationship Between Job Burnout and Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Workers With Indirect Exposure to Trauma." Psychological Services 11, no. 1 : 75 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2017. Research methods in education (8th ed. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Craig, C. D., and G. Sprang. 2010. " Compassion Satisfaction, Compassion Fatigue, and Burnout in a National Sample of Trauma Treatment Therapists." Anxiety, Stress, and Coping 23, no. 3 : 319 – 339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and V. L. P. Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800903085818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniëls, E., A. Hondeghem, and J. Heystek. 2020. " Exploring the Outcomes of Group Reflective Learning for School Leaders." Reflective Practice 21, no. 5 : 604 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1784865.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L., M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner. 2017. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diggle, P., P. Heagerty, K. Liang, and S. Zeger. 2002. Analysis of Longitudinal Data, Second Edition. Oxford University Press Statistical Science Series.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorado, J. S., M. Martinez, L. E. McArthur, and T. Leibovitz. 2016. " Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A Whole‐School, Multi‐Level, Prevention and Intervention Program for Creating Trauma‐Informed, Safe and Supportive Schools." School Mental Health 8 : 163 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9177-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eddy, C. L., F. L. Huang, D. R. Cohen, et al. 2020. " Does Teacher Emotional Exhaustion and Efficacy Predict Student Discipline Sanctions? " School Psychology Review 49, no. 3 : 239 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1733340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Essary, J. N., L. Barza, and R. J. Thurston. 2020. " Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Educators." Kappa Delta Pi Record 56, no. 3 : 116 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fantilli, R. D., and D. E. McDougall. 2009. " A Study of Novice Teachers: Challenges and Supports in the First Years." Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no. 6 : 814 – 825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. 2018. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (Fifth Edition). London : Sage Publishing, Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figley, C. R. 1995. " Compassion fatigue: Toward a New Understanding of the Costs of Caring." In Secondary Traumatic Stress: Self‐care Issues for Clinicians, Researchers, and Educators, edited by B. H. Stamm, 3 – 28. The Sidran Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, R. J. 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning." Journal of Consumer Research 20, no. 2 : 303 – 315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleckman, J. M., L. Petrovic, K. Simon, H. Peele, C. N. Baker, and S. Overstreet. 2022. " Compassion Satisfaction, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Burnout: A Mixed Methods Analysis in a Sample of Public‐School Educators Working in Marginalized Communities." School Mental Health 14 : 933 – 950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09515-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fox, J., and S. Weisberg. 2019. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks CA : Sage. URL: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, H. 1982. " Simplified Determinations of Statistical Power, Magnitude of Effect, and Research Sample Sizes." Educational and Psychological Measurement 42, no. 2 : 521 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448204200214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furnham, A. 1986. " Response Bias, Social Desirability and Dissimulation." Personality and Individual Differences 7, no. 3 : 385 – 400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilkerson, L., and C. C. Kopel. 2005. " Relationship‐Based Systems Change: Illinois' Model for Promoting Social‐Emotional Development in Part C Early Intervention." Infants & Young Children 18, no. 4 : 349 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200510000-00010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glock, S., H. Kleen, and S. Morgenroth. 2019. " Stress Among Teachers: Exploring the Role of Cultural Diversity in Schools." Journal of Experimental Education 87, no. 4 : 696 – 713. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1574700.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenberg, D. M., S. Baron‐Cohen, N. Rosenberg, P. Fonagy, and P. J. Rentfrow. 2018. " Elevated Empathy in Adults Following Childhood Trauma." PLoS One 13, no. 10 : e0203886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203886.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grissom, J. A. 2011. " Can Good Principals Keep Teachers in Disadvantaged Schools? Linking Principal Effectiveness to Teacher Satisfaction and Turnover in Hard‐to‐Staff Environments." Teachers College Record 113, no. 11 : 2552 – 2585.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guarino, C. M., L. Santibañez, and G. A. Daley. 2006. " Teacher Recruitment and Retention: A Review of the Recent Empirical Literature." Review of Educational Research 76, no. 2 : 173 – 208. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guskey, T. R. 2002. " Professional Development and Teacher Change." Teachers and Teaching 8, no. 3 : 381 – 391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanushek, E. A., J. F. Kain, and S. G. Rivkin. 2004. " Why Public Schools Lose Teachers." Journal of Labor Economics 22, no. 3 : 701 – 754.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, M. 2016. " Release, Reframe, Refocus, and Respond: A Practitioner Transformation Process in a Reflective Consultation Program." Infant Mental Health Journal 37, no. 6 : 670 – 683. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, N., J. Burke, and I. Clarke. 2020. " Risky Teaching: Developing a Trauma‐Informed Pedagogy for Higher Education." Teaching in Higher Education 28 : 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1786046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heffron, M. C., and T. Murch. 2010. " The Reflective Supervisor's as Team Leader and Group Supervisor." Zero to Three (J) 31, no. 2 : 51 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobson, A. J., P. Ashby, A. Malderez, and P. D. Tomlinson. 2009. " Mentoring Beginning Teachers: What We Know and What We Don't." Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no. 1 : 207 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hydon, S., M. Wong, A. K. Langley, B. D. Stein, and S. H. Kataoka. 2015. " Preventing Secondary Traumatic Stress in Educators." Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 24, no. 2 : 319 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2014.11.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iddy, S., and M. Donohue. 2022. " Power and Sample Size for Longitudinal Models in R—the Longpower Package and Shiny app." R Journal 14, no. 1 : 264 – 281. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2022-022.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R. M. 2001. Teacher tTurnover, Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll, R. M., and H. May. 2011. " The Minority Teacher Shortage: Fact or Fable? " Phi Delta Kappan 93, no. 3 : 62 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krause, K. H., J. V. Verlenden, L. E. Szucs, et al. 2022. " Disruptions to School and Home Life Among High School Students During the COVID‐19 Pandemic—United States, January–June 2021." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 71, no. Su3 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7103a5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruger, J., and D. Dunning. 1999. " Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self‐Assessments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 6 : 1121 – 1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuznetsova, A., P. B. Brockhoff, and R. H. B. Christensen. 2017. " lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models." Journal of Statistical Software 82, no. 13 : 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larrieu, J. A. 2018. " Introducing Evidence‐Based Trauma Treatment in Preventive Services: Child‐Parent Psychotherapy." Trauma Responsive Child Welfare Systems 1 : 147 – 164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, H. A., J. C. Caringi, R. Gottfried, B. E. Bride, and S. P. Hydon. 2019. " Educators' Secondary Traumatic Stress, Children's Trauma, and the Need for Trauma Literacy." Harvard Educational Review 89, no. 3 : 421 – 447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Le Maistre, C., and A. Paré. 2010. " Whatever It Takes: How Beginning Teachers Learn to Survive." Teaching and Teacher Education 26, no. 3 : 559 – 564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, T., S. Keville, A. Cain, and J. R. Adler. 2022. " Facilitating Reflection: A Review and Synthesis of the Factors Enabling Effective Facilitation of Reflective Practice." Reflective Practice 23, no. 4 : 483 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., S. E. Jackson, and M. P. Leiter. 1997. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Scarecrow Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., E. Chen, A. H. DeBarger, and C. Padilla. 2011. Teachers' Ability to use Data to Inform Instruction: Challenges and Supports. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Motta, R. W. 2012. " Secondary Trauma in Children and School Personnel." Journal of Applied School Psychology 28, no. 3 : 256 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.695767.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2023. " Characteristics of Public School Teachers." In Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded Edition. Washington, DC : The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for Staff Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ormiston, H. E., M. A. Nygaard, and S. Apgar. 2022. " A Systematic Review of Secondary Traumatic Stress and Compassion Fatigue in Teachers." School Mental Health 14 : 802 – 817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09525-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pawl, J. H., and M. St John (1998). How You Are Is as Important as What You Do... in Making a Positive Difference for Infants, Toddlers and Their Families. Zero to Three, 734 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005‐1013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phelps, C., S. Francois, K. G. Rice, C. N. Baker, and S. Overstreet. 2025. " Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Teachers: The Impact of Race and Years of Teaching Experiences." School Mental Health 1 : 1 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, K. J., D. B. Milliken, A. M. G. Morales, H. Q. Traini, and J. J. Velez. 2022. " When Teaching Hurts: Exploring the Secondary Traumatic Stress Experiences of Early‐Career SBAE Teachers." Journal of Agricultural Education 63, no. 3 : 216 – 232. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2022.03216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shea, S. E. 2019. " Reflective Supervision for Social Work Field Instructors: Lessons Learned From Infant Mental Health." Clinical Social Work Journal 47 : 61 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-018-0677-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shoji, K., M. Lesnierowska, E. Smoktunowicz, et al. 2015. " What Comes First, Job Burnout or Secondary Traumatic Stress? Findings From Two Longitudinal Studies From the US and Poland." PLoS One 10, no. 8 : e0136730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, M. E., and M. S. Hutchison. 2019. " Reflective Capacity: An Antidote to Structural Racism Cultivated Through Mental Health Consultation." Infant Mental Health Journal 40, no. 5 : 742 – 756. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, T. M., and R. M. Ingersoll. 2004. " What are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover? " American Educational Research Journal 41, no. 3 : 681 – 714. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprang, G., J. Ford, P. Kerig, and B. Bride. 2019. " Defining Secondary Traumatic Stress and Developing Targeted Assessments and Interventions: Lessons Learned From Research and Leading Experts." Traumatology 25, no. 2 : 72 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprang, G., and A. Garcia. 2022. " An Investigation of Secondary Traumatic Stress and Trauma‐Informed Care Utilization in School Personnel." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 15, no. 4 : 1095 – 1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-022-00465-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stamm, B. 2010. The Concise Manual for the Professional Quality of Life Scale.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tervalon, M., and J. Murray‐Garcia. 1998. " Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education." Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 9, no. 2 : 117 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (NCTSN). (2012). Secondary Traumatic Stress. https://<ulink href="http://www.nctsn.org/resources/secondary-traumatic-stress">www.nctsn.org/resources/secondary-traumatic-stress</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, C., S. N. Gatti, M. Cox, M. Harrison, and J. Hennes. 2014. " Reflective Supervision and Its Impact on Early Childhood Intervention." In In Early childhood and special education (18, 1 – 26. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ofelia Castro Schepers; Nels Grevstad; Kathryn Young and Megan Brennan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477321
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Trauma-Informed Practices as a Buffer against Secondary Traumatic Stress: Insights from First-Year Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ofelia+Castro+Schepers%22">Ofelia Castro Schepers</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5255-4812">0000-0001-5255-4812</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nels+Grevstad%22">Nels Grevstad</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6084-4956">0000-0002-6084-4956</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathryn+Young%22">Kathryn Young</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3895-6038">0000-0002-3895-6038</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Megan+Brennan%22">Megan Brennan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(8):2463-2481.
– 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: 19
– 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="%22Trauma+Informed+Approach%22">Trauma Informed Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Teachers%22">Beginning Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trauma%22">Trauma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Retention+%28Psychology%29%22">Retention (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23478
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study explores the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on first-year teachers (FYTs) and the potential of trauma-informed practices (TIP) as a mitigating strategy. STS, which results from exposure to students' trauma, is a significant but underexplored issue in education. By examining the first year of teaching, this mixed-methods study investigates whether TIP reduces STS symptoms and improves knowledge retention in FYTs. Quantitative findings suggest that TIP can enhance TIP content knowledge and confidence and reduce STS, offering valuable insights for teacher well-being and retention, particularly in high-needs schools. This study contributes to the emerging literature on STS in education and highlights the importance of targeted support for first-year teachers.
– 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: EJ1477321
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477321
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23478
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 2463
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Trauma Informed Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trauma
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Retention (Psychology)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Trauma-Informed Practices as a Buffer against Secondary Traumatic Stress: Insights from First-Year Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ofelia Castro Schepers
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nels Grevstad
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathryn Young
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Megan Brennan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1